309 réponses à ce sujet

[nicethugbert]

DA2 is as good if not better than anything out there, roughly speaking, in some better, in some worse. How you rate it overall is a matter of what you prefer, what you prioritize.

Many of the top complaints against DA2 are too general to be taken seriously, especially when DAO is held up as the better game. For instance, the argument that DA2 has no choice when it has the same structure and major choices as DAO. Another example is dialog, comparing DA2's fully voiced, naturally emoted, facially expressed dialog to DAO's muted expressionless one liners is a laugh, especially if you try to play your Dwarf Warden with an "evil" or "renegade" attitude.

Much of the evidence people use to to claim that DA2 is better than DAO in some specific way doesn't actually support their claim. The claim it does support is that DAO had more content.

The two games are largely the same. One of the twp major differences is that DAO was a longer game. Even the reused map argument is essentially an issue of content quantity.

The graphics are the same because it uses the same game engine. The difference is that DAO had light coming out of every crack. Every rock, no matter how big or small, was a glow stone. It was truly enchanting. Strip away the hyper lighting and it's a lot like DA2.

The other major difference is the speed. Actions are faster in DA2. Characters move in combat like it matters. They don't shimmy and lug around like in DAO. They don't oogl like a bunch of amateurs. They get things done like pros trying to stay alive, typically, against overwhelming numbers.

If you like a slower game, choose DAO over DA2. If you like a faster game, take DA2 over DAO.

[Travie]

The worst part of DA2's graphics had to be the character design.

I know, I know, the environments were pretty bad... but those faces... omg.

comparing DA2's fully voiced, naturally emoted, facially expressed dialog to DAO's muted expressionless one liners is a laugh, especially if you try to play your Dwarf Warden with an "evil" or "renegade" attitude.

It has been a long tradition when you don't have a voiced protagonist to leave most expressions even, to let the player fill in their own attitude.

You'll notice that the NPCs in DA:O did not lack for expression at all. It was intentional.

If you like a voice protagonist better, fine... but criticising the facial expressions of a nonvoiced NPC in an RPG like DA:0 makes it seem like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Modifié par Travie, 25 juillet 2011 - 06:26 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Gee, thanks for the advice. An RPG is not only about gameplay. Here I suggest the helpful tag "IMO."

I also stated that, but do please go on how you don't give a **** about gameplay ( which you've stated many times in your posts ). Fact is a game is judged ( and should be judged ) by BOTH story and gameplay. DA2 laughs at the the gameplay of Origins and also laughs at the whole cliche plot of DA:O.

[Drasanil]

Aislynne485 wrote...

As with anything, the likeability of something is totally in the eyes of the beholder. If people would let DA2 stand alone instead of constantly comparing it to DA:O, it is actually a good game. There will always be good and bad with any game. Let it be what it is. I'm on play through #9 on PC and completed #13 on Xbox before I deployed. I personally love Fenris more than Alistair, but again, to each their own.

What else are we supposed to compare it with? It's DAO's sequel and was marketed as such, Bioware spent months making a huge case on how it would  be sooooo much better than DAO. Should we not then hold them to account if we believe it is in fact a great step backwards from DAO?

As for actually judging it as a 'stand alone'. It still doesn't rise above the level of mediocre given all it's faults:

-The cinematic dialogue felt stilted and awkward, given the dichotomy between emotive regular responses and inquiry options which are totally devoid of emotion or character. I cringed when I had to ask NPCs questions with my snarky Hawke.

-Combat was on it's own was an improvement but the lack of a proper top down view or even detachable cam on the PC severely hampered the experience, as did the pants-on-head-silly waves mechanic. The boss battles devolved into tedium due to the absurd amount of health and breaks/minion summonings.

-The massive scale of enviroment recycling.

-Limited companion interactions. I think the dog gets more than Hawke.

-The loot mechanics were clunky and a pain to manage. While the star rating system was misleading and frankly useless.

RageGT wrote...
But I blame the "publisher" for rushing the game out before it could be polished as it deserved to be, given the DA name on it.

Why blame the publisher? This is one thing we can't lay at EA's feet. The frankly daft desicion to reinvent the wheel on such a short deadline was all Bioware's. Had they focussed on tweaking the issues with DAO instead of trying to create an entirely new game we would have likely had a far superior sequel.

Costin_Razvan wrote...
DA2 laughs at the the gameplay of Origins

DA2's game play is horribly clunky on PC, and the wave mechanics were poorly implemented. DAO's major gameplay issue was easily resolved with the Haste spell.

and also laughs at the whole cliche plot of DA:O.

Oh, you mean with it's bold and innovative lack of actual plot or coherent story arc? Truely DA2 is a master piece

Modifié par Drasanil, 25 juillet 2011 - 06:54 .

[aftohsix]

Phaelducan wrote...

Don't mind Gleym, he thinks it's still 2000 and wants every game to be a Torment remake.

Anybody tell him that game sucks?  

Or in his terms.  

"It was the most abhorrent piece of digital filth which my mouse button ever interacted with on any level.  Anyone who likes it should get cancer in the butt and then lose their job / home / family so that they die broke and alone.  From cancer.  Of the butt.  John Epler came to my house and insulted my wife's cooking."

Is that an accurate impression?  I mean it's one thing to dislike a game for it's flaws and find a way to present that critique rationally but where's the fun in that.  Can't I just lump everyone who disagrees into a group and tell them they're stupid?

Modifié par aftohsix, 25 juillet 2011 - 06:46 .

[aftohsix]

alex90c wrote...

I post a comparison picture showing how DA2's graphics suck and that means I "lack the ability" to argue my point? I'm not saying Origins' graphics were amazing, just that DA2's were even worse than Origins (which is pretty outdated, as much as I love the game).

No.  You posted a picture from the GI article on DA2 which was from initial early development graphics.  Take a DX11 screenshot and compare them.  

Modifié par aftohsix, 25 juillet 2011 - 06:48 .

[Anathemic]

Filament wrote...

The graphics are an improvement if you compare screenshots of the two finished games rather than that terrible first batch of screenshots they released. Maybe the style isn't to a person's liking (opinion territory) and maybe it can be said that the area design was less inspired in general (hence re-used areas, n64 NPCs), but in terms of graphic fidelity... DA2 is concretely superior.

And TW2 is superior to both, so is Skyrim.

[Costin_Razvan]

Oh, you mean with it's bold and innovative lack of actual plot or coherent story arc? Truely DA2 is a master piece

The story arc of Act I and Act II is coherent and has an actual solid plot in both of them. The plot in Act III is just a piece of ****.

I prefer that to Origins pathetic BS though, any time any day.

DA2's game play is horribly clunky on PC, and the wave mechanics were poorly implemented. DAO's major gameplay issue was easily resolved with the Haste spell.

DA2 offered fast pace, intense, difficult ( for anyone playing above normal ) combat. DA:O offered ****.

[Cutlass Jack]

Filament wrote...

The graphics are an improvement if you compare screenshots of the two finished games rather than that terrible first batch of screenshots they released. Maybe the style isn't to a person's liking (opinion territory) and maybe it can be said that the area design was less inspired in general (hence re-used areas, n64 NPCs), but in terms of graphic fidelity... DA2 is concretely superior.

Oh come now, everyone knows that when comparing two games you should pick the worst possible example of the game you don't like and the reverse of the one you do. If comparing art one must always compare the finished game of one to the alpha art of the other. If comparing dialogue, one must compare lines said to a random npc vendor to soul defining philosophy in Planescape Torment.

Its simply how its done.

[AtreiyaN7]

It had its problems, but it was a pretty solid, fun game overall. Act 1 is definitely slow, and the recycling of maps was overdone - to name just two of the things I agree with as far as criticism of the game goes (actually, let's throw in overuse of spiders as well ). If you're one of those people who consider protagonists that actually have spoken dialogue to be a sign of the coming apocalypse, well, you might have issues with it I suppose.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 26 juillet 2011 - 02:05 .

[nijnij]

It's definitely not as bad as fans say it is. Since you have the game, don't try the demo, it will likely leave you with a bad impression since (IMHO), the one part of the game that's really bad is the prologue (year 1), which happens to be the demo's main segment. Past that part, the game gets very addictive actually, in a good way.

[alex90c]

nijnij wrote...

It's definitely not as bad as fans say it is. Since you have the game, don't try the demo, it will likely leave you with a bad impression since (IMHO), the one part of the game that's really bad is the prologue (year 1), which happens to be the demo's main segment. Past that part, the game gets very addictive actually, in a good way.

such as spiders jumping down from the sky

[Realmzmaster]

OP it simply depends on who you ask. Some gamers love/like DA2. Some gamers hate/dislike DA2. Some gamers think it is average.I would suggest reading some of the constructive criticism and the reviews on the forum, but even then it can be very polar.

[Sidney]

It isn't nearly as bad. A lot of people get their panties in a wad over it not being exactly the game they want it to be. Safely ignoring them the game is fun. You'll enjoy the story and the characters. The changes in the skills trees really work. Combat is more fluid and assuming you aren't inept it doesn't move too fast. Again, unless you are religious about the silent protagonist the VO is well done and the addition of the tones to the wheel helps.

There are flaws. he recycled environments slap you in the face with shortcutting. Act III on the 360 was a bugged unplayable mess until patched - although FNV was even worse on launch. The constant use of waves in combat will annoy you. These things all speak to a short, very short, development cycle. It reminds me of KoTOR II where it was a good game but you felt like under the bugs and missing bits there was a great game lingering about.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Gee, thanks for the advice. An RPG is not only about gameplay. Here I suggest the helpful tag "IMO."

I also stated that, but do please go on how you don't give a **** about gameplay ( which you've stated many times in your posts ). Fact is a game is judged ( and should be judged ) by BOTH story and gameplay. DA2 laughs at the the gameplay of Origins and also laughs at the whole cliche plot of DA:O.

"Going on about it" apparently consists of one phrase as an aside that was not even the point of my post.  People play games for different reasons, so not everyone is going to be impressed by combat changes even if they are considered improvements.  I went on to say that mage gameplay on the PC actually got worse in DA2, due to AoE casting derpiness and lack of iso camera.  Then there is the lack of auto-attack on console, and lack of even a detached camera on PC.

But I know you're still stunned that someone could dislike TW2.  Get over it.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 juillet 2011 - 07:23 .

[Drasanil]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The story arc of Act I and Act II is coherent and has an actual solid plot in both of them.

Act I was built on random fetch quests and farming, the actual plot is ignored for 90% of it until you finally hit the deep roads. Act II was good on it's own but didn't really tie into either of the other two acts all that well. 

I prefer that to Origins pathetic BS though, any time any day.

Origins might have aired on the cliche side, but it was at least coherent and managed some form of narrative structure and with every major quest line actually tying into the overarching story. I'll take well implemented cliches over poorly thought out and executed innovations any day. 

DA2 offered fast pace, intense, difficult ( for anyone playing above normal ) combat. DA:O offered ****.

'****'? You know if you listed actual reasons why DAO's gameplay was bad one might be inclined to take you seriously, the only real complaint I've heard against it was that the combat was slow, which is easily fixed with the Haste spell. 

DA2's animations and attacks are faster paced but the battles themselves quickly devolved into tedium, the only thing that actually made them 'harder' was high NPC health. Boss battles were the worse offenders, even turning it down to easy the Arishok battle dragged on far too long. The Giant Rock Wraith fight was a joke once you picked up on hiding behind the pillar becoming little more than a drawn out game of hide and seek. The High Dragon at the mines was also quite bad given it's annoying habbit to jump on the cliff and summon hordes of minions.

[csfteeeer]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Oh, you mean with it's bold and innovative lack of actual plot or coherent story arc? Truely DA2 is a master piece

The story arc of Act I and Act II is coherent and has an actual solid plot in both of them. The plot in Act III is just a piece of ****.

I prefer that to Origins pathetic BS though, any time any day.

DA2's game play is horribly clunky on PC, and the wave mechanics were poorly implemented. DAO's major gameplay issue was easily resolved with the Haste spell.

DA2 offered fast pace, intense, difficult ( for anyone playing above normal ) combat. DA:O offered ****.

Wrong.

Act 1 was vague and unnecessarily slow moving, with no clear over all objective.
Yes we gotta go to the F***ing Deep Roads.... For what?
uh oh....for the family?
....yeah let's go with that.

Act 2 was Good.

Act 3 was S**t, like you said.

and the gameplay of DA2 is horribly over the top, cheap, and repetitive to death.
for retards.
and the only way the game could be hard was on nightmare, but because the game is a D**k, not because it's dfficult.
DAO was slow and didn't involved a lot of thought, but could entertain if someone has the patience.

[Keladis]

IMO it was only okay at best. It had some good things but far more bad. Starters interaction was bad (really bad) the only interaction you had during the game was with quest givers (even party members).

The game felt like most mmo's quest, no solid storyline just a lot small story quest. Your choices didnt matter and in fact you really didnt get any choices at all as they all lead to the same action. You was just either nice, smart A**, or harsh on your approach.

The looting was just plan horrible, as you had to run to a vendor every five minutes to sell everything cause your bags was full of junk because you got all kinds of items you couldnt use because it was for other classes and you couldn't equip it on your companions.

Combat had flaws, It was a button masher because there was no real need to use any special abilities (even on nightmare) and when you did the cool downs on them was just plain insanely long, so I just ended up saying to heck with them. Enemies just appeared out of thin air over and over to attack you then exploded when killed.

Finally Reused maps. The might of had 6 maps and reused them about 100 times.

Those are my main problems. It had some minor ones like the game progresses over 7 years but you don't age a day and your companions dont change at all. (Same clothing, same age, same hair style.) Some of the changes to creatures and species are worse (dark spawn, elves two examples)

Anyway this is just my opinion. I am glad that everyone that enjoyed or loved the game did and I respect your opinion and hope you all can respect mine.

Modifié par Keladis, 25 juillet 2011 - 07:56 .

[erynnar]

clennon8 wrote...

DA2 has better graphics than DAO. There's really no way an objective person can say otherwise.

I can be objective and debate that, as to the grey, low res, furniture people with fuzzy faces. The horrible Merrill body in the love scene, the old woman/zombie banana fingers of the NPCs (Isabela, or Hawke in the love scene).  So no, not better. 

If I were to say I prefer DAO's art style over DA2's, that wouldn't be objective, it would be subjective.

Modifié par erynnar, 25 juillet 2011 - 07:29 .

[hoorayforicecream]

erynnar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

DA2 has better graphics than DAO. There's really no way an objective person can say otherwise.

I can be objective and debate that, as to the grey, low res, furniture people with fuzzy faces. The horrible Merrill body in the love scene, the old woman/zombie banana fingers of the NPCs (Isabela, or Hawke in the love scene).  So no, not better. 

If I were to say I prefer DAO's art style over DA2's, that wouldn't be objective, it would be subjective.

Isn't this primarily platform-based? I didn't see any grey, low res, furniture people on my playthrough because I was on the PC with the high res texture pack. If I was playing on the 360 or PS3, it probably would have been worse. On the other hand, if you're comparing the PC version of Origins to the PS3 version of DA2, you're probably going to see same discrepancies you'd see between Origins PC and Origins PS3.

[erynnar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

erynnar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

DA2 has better graphics than DAO. There's really no way an objective person can say otherwise.

I can be objective and debate that, as to the grey, low res, furniture people with fuzzy faces. The horrible Merrill body in the love scene, the old woman/zombie banana fingers of the NPCs (Isabela, or Hawke in the love scene).  So no, not better. 

If I were to say I prefer DAO's art style over DA2's, that wouldn't be objective, it would be subjective.

Isn't this primarily platform-based? I didn't see any grey, low res, furniture people on my playthrough because I was on the PC with the high res texture pack. If I was playing on the 360 or PS3, it probably would have been worse. On the other hand, if you're comparing the PC version of Origins to the PS3 version of DA2, you're probably going to see same discrepancies you'd see between Origins PC and Origins PS3.

Nope, I am one of those horrible PC elitists, ROFL! Srly, nope, PC with high res texture pack. Still got those really freaky fingers, and the grey people in the back ground who all looked the same and never moved. they wore the same grey clothes. Or in the Elves cases white with red sashes. they all looked horrible.

[Realmzmaster]

@OP, DA2 was not what many gamers who played DAO were expecting. Also given the short development time it made for a rushed unpolished product. Which is one of the reasons for the disappointment (along with others like the art style, re-used environments, voiced protagonist, plot incoherency for some and other points . I will not list them all. Please read the reviews and constructive criticism ).
Many gamers were looking at an improvement of the DAO style. DA2 was more change (for good or bad) than they thought would happen and not implemented as well as it could or should have been.

[devSin]

The hands in Origins were often just as bad.

I'm not saying that should excuse Dragon Age II, but those mitts have always been terrifying.