232 réponses à ce sujet

[FaeQueenCory]

Aaleel wrote...

Well that depends, I thought some of the side quests were better written than the main one so far.  The Dark Brotherhood string for example.

But that wasn't really my point, I don't want DA to be Skyrim or The Witcher, I like some diversity in my games.  My point was that what we saw in DA2 cannot be the best they could do, I just can't be, they only had one city to worry about, one, it should have been outstanding. To me the best designed area in either game, sadly was the first common area you got to and that was Ostagar.  A lot of ambient sounds, a lot of things going on, mages practicing, chantry sisters, archers practicing, the captain talking to his men about darkspawn, the kennel, etc.  Also it was one large continuos area on both sides of the bridge.

As far as the story in DA2, if the surroundings are going to be stagnant and never changing, and then there's no exploration on top of that.  The story has to be outstanding to make up for the other shortcomings, and it wasn't.  Then add the fact that I really didn't care for the encounter mechanics (waves) or the combat the replay value was very low.


Everytime I play Origins I just stand here for a moment taking in the atmosphere while the flags blow in the wind.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that does that too......
And I TOTALLY agree with you! There was so much more feeling to Ostagar than to the entirety of DA2.... Which was disappointing for all the reasons you said.

[princess of darkness213]

I agree.
Although I have played DA2 more than once, it's more for romances really. I would like to experience all of them separately and see what all of Dragon Age 2 has to offer.

Though, Dragon Age Origins was the better of the two I will admit. But what I like better about the second game was that my character spoke and had emotion rather than a blank look all the time. It's a personal preference really as I think it makes the romances better. In my opinion anyway. And, I did like the combat experience better in the second game .Except I think the mage's had better spells and the rouges better moves in the first game.

Hopefully the third installment will have everything that made origins amazing, but also with the advanced dialogue and fighting styles like the second one had.

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree with the above posters that just because DA:O didn't have a truly interactive and vibrant city does not excuse it form not happening in DA2.

And I agree that in TES games, the side quests can be more epic than the main plot, and can indeed stand alone from the main story in a lot of ways. In DA2, however, the vast majority of ALL quests/missions are hard to trace back to the main plot... mostly because the main plot is hard to even pinpoint! Its only after you look back that you can say "Oh, THAT'S why I couldn't move from Act 2 to Act 3 without completing that one quest. Its because they are bringing back... oh, what's their-face"

In contrast, I can recall with great detail the names of characters in both DA:O's side quests as well as Skyrim's, without having to rack my brain to recall their relevance.

I by no means want the DA franchise to become open world like TES. Nor do I want it to be a clone of DA:O. But BW needs to look at what makes other games truly engrossing. I find I am unable to put down the controller of Skyrim, doing a side questline, completely unrelated to the main plot. The Mages College quest line is one of the best I've played in any game, ever (including the Dark Brotherhood quests in Oblivion and anything in Morrowind). So even though completing it does not bring me any closer to the goal of Skyrim, I enjoyed it immensely.

And isn't that why we game in the first place? I don't game to kill the Archdemon, eradicate the Reapers, become the Dragonborn or rescue the Princess from Bowser. I play to have fun, anything I do in the meantime before I complete the final goal is only measured in its entertainment value, not in its relevance to the end.

[Carmen_Willow]

Teddie Sage wrote...

vania z wrote...

LadyVaJedi wrote...

I hate to say it Furryrages but I agree with you here. Skyrim rocks.. I told my husband that This is what DA2 should have been. I mean like Skyrim has DRAGONS!! I mean dragons.

Why should story-based rpg have weak story and huge exploration value? There is nothing in skyrim except mountains, fields and waterfalls. Combat is pretty lame, there is no decent story. AI is, well... artificial idiot:)

Skyrim is better when you have no companion around. Some quests were interesting, but after 75 hours of playing, I found the world to be shallow and less fun than Oblivion. I'm also quite annoyed by the fact I the dragons circle around in the sky and I can't reach them because I'm a melee-type character. Skyrim has a lot of flaws, it's still fun, but it's not revolutionary.

SPOILER FOR SKYRIM!!!!

REPEAT - SPOILER FOR SKYRIM!!!








You need to take the main quest far enough to get "Dragon Rend"  or "Dragonrend" shout to knock 'em out of the sky.

[Carmen_Willow]

FaeQueenCory wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Well that depends, I thought some of the side quests were better written than the main one so far.  The Dark Brotherhood string for example.

But that wasn't really my point, I don't want DA to be Skyrim or The Witcher, I like some diversity in my games.  My point was that what we saw in DA2 cannot be the best they could do, I just can't be, they only had one city to worry about, one, it should have been outstanding. To me the best designed area in either game, sadly was the first common area you got to and that was Ostagar.  A lot of ambient sounds, a lot of things going on, mages practicing, chantry sisters, archers practicing, the captain talking to his men about darkspawn, the kennel, etc.  Also it was one large continuos area on both sides of the bridge.

As far as the story in DA2, if the surroundings are going to be stagnant and never changing, and then there's no exploration on top of that.  The story has to be outstanding to make up for the other shortcomings, and it wasn't.  Then add the fact that I really didn't care for the encounter mechanics (waves) or the combat the replay value was very low.


Everytime I play Origins I just stand here for a moment taking in the atmosphere while the flags blow in the wind.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that does that too......
And I TOTALLY agree with you! There was so much more feeling to Ostagar than to the entirety of DA2.... Which was disappointing for all the reasons you said.

If they'd let me name my boon at the end of DA:O, I'd want Ostagar so that I could reclaim it.  I loved the view from the bridge!  It literally took my breath away the first time.

[FaeQueenCory]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

If they'd let me name my boon at the end of DA:O, I'd want Ostagar so that I could reclaim it.  I loved the view from the bridge!  It literally took my breath away the first time.

Tcha!! You and me are from the same cloth!!
I love the ancient architecture and all the pretty ruins.... And that view IS spectacular.

[Romantiq]

Played it twice and enjoyed 2nd playthrough a lot more but the game is still very mediocre so it's not saying much. Also, a lot of my initial impressions were based on illusions, which faded away shortly as soon as I was done playing it.

The lack of replayability for me is mainly due to bland characters,  only human as a playable race, dead city (ONLY city) ,nearly absent cause and effect factor and "little things" like environment and music, which didn't stand up at all in Dragon Age 2. (it felt as if Inon Zur simply  remixed some of New Vegas' music or other way around.)

Hopefully next installment will be a lot better, but , for now, I have Skyrim to enjoy and it'll last me months. (/quits WoW)

Modifié par Romantiq, 28 novembre 2011 - 04:26 .

[KennethAFTopp]

Jessica Merizan wrote...

I think this is interesting because I'm hearing a lot of different reasons why people did or did not replay the game from achievement hunting to changing combat styles to story. 

We all know the overall "story" of the game is largely unchanging. However, I think it's not changes in story that affect replay value, but rather the level of immersion that goes into the plot. Hawke to me has kind of Harry Potter syndrome, a central character for whom a lot happens and is important to the overall story and theme, but generally is a reactive character. Things happen to Harry/Hawke and the character reacts to this. Whereas the Warden was very proactive and essential to grand changes in Ferelden. Personally I can see the value of both as different types of protagonists and still interesting to experience in their own way.

So I guess for me it becomes a question of story vs plot and how much I want to put into changing the minor plot details that lead to the same eventual ending. Definitely worth at least one play in my opinion as it was still one of the best games that came out in the first half of this year. Replay value however, as we've seen, definitely depends on how you game.

Having an inactive protagnist usually does not work, the whole idea of a story is seeing the main characters react to the events that occur around them and working to preventing them. Even more so in a video game RPG, a player wants to have a say in the events, at an illusion.

It was a major flaw in DA2's story along with a lot of other things.

I would like to note for instance in Star Wars I'd dare say Luke is not a proactive protagnist, but he develops into one which is an interesting and fun journey.

Modifié par KennethAFTopp, 28 novembre 2011 - 09:12 .