232 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

Fearsome1 wrote...
If you're not having fun with it , by all means, go away. But. Why also vent about it? Just go away.

Yes, you know what ? Your advice work both ways. If you don't like threads like this dont read it, don't post here.
Cya

Modifié par xkg, 14 novembre 2011 - 01:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Replayability value only meaningful if:

1. I can shape different stories through unlimited choices and consequences. DA 2 offer very little of it.
2. Versatile character system that allow me create limitless characters. DA 2 offer limited 3 preset character which I don't like.
3. Options, options and options. I could care less of strong narration. For me it's about my character's journey and I am the one who narrate it. I narrate my own story in all open ending games like Paradox strategy game, Microsof Age of Empire series, Sid Meir's Civilization, TES, Fallout, etc... Heck I can make multiple different stories in a game like Championship Manager series. I don't like to be railroaded coz if I do that then I may as well watch movie, read novel or play interactive adventure/story game. BioWare had been known to offer lots of options in the past. And I expected them to make more complex, choice driven story that actually centre on ROLE-PLAYING instead of being role-played and told about a story. I don't want to be told a story. I can get that from movie or novels. I want to journey the story as the character. I want to look the world, to think and to feel AS the character. Not to look, to think and feel as a reviewer who know nothing about journeying the world.
4. My character my story and my role. That's all I needed to play again and again.

But I guess it's not going to happen. It's bad for business that only interested selling new product while neglecting the effect of brand loyalty.

[WhiteKnyght]

I disagree. I've replayed it several times.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Replayability value only meaningful if:

1. I can shape different stories through unlimited choices and consequences. DA 2 offer very little of it.

The devs have said that you'll see the consequences in Dragon Age III.

It was the same thing they did with Mass Effect 2. There was little actual choice and no show of consequences in that. But when it's added it to the first game it will dramatically impact the final installment.

Also if you think Origins' choices and consequences were "unlimited"--you're kidding yourself. The game has a handful at best because it's driven by the story, not the player.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 14 novembre 2011 - 02:56 .

[Realmzmaster]

If you are going to have a story driven game at some point railroading will occur. It is inevitable. The storyteller is trying to get to a certain point at a certain time. Dragon Age is not Elder Scrolls. Elder Scroll games are open world sand box games with a story (usually not a good one except Morrowind which was decent) draped over it. Bioware games are driven by the story. The choices you make are presented within that context.

Whether it is DAO or DA2 the story was railroading at different points of the game.

[FivePerfectExertions]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I would say that if you played it twice, the replay value was there. Maybe not enough to replay it more than once, but enough that you did replay it.

I disagree, i attempted a 2nd playthrough soley on the basis that i thought things could be different so i stuck it out. If i had known nothing would change then i wouldn't have attempted a 2nd run through.

[OSUfan12121]

I tried a 2nd playthrough hoping that if i did things a little differently things would change in the later acts, I was wrong. By Act 3 I realized nothing changed thru te game even with my decisions so i only did one full playthrough. I havent gotten MotA yet because I've been busy with other games but if theres more choices and such I may get it.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

I disagree. I've replayed it several times.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Replayability value only meaningful if:

1. I can shape different stories through unlimited choices and consequences. DA 2 offer very little of it.

The devs have said that you'll see the consequences in Dragon Age III.

Why do I need a sequel to tell me the consequences? How certain is that sequel going to make me interested? What if I'm not interested in DA III?  

The Grey Nayr wrote.

It was the same thing they did with Mass Effect 2. There was little actual choice and no show of consequences in that. But when it's added it to the first game it will dramatically impact the final installment.

Mass Effect is a trilogy. It made sense that you are expected to see the consequence in the next sequel. But DA is not about a character. It's about a world called Thedas where it's goint to feature new protagonist in every sequal. Thus, new story for every thing. Therefore, The story has to be closed. DA 2 already proved how completely meaningless it is to carry forth such consequences. 

The Grey Nayr wrote.



Also if you think Origins' choices and consequences were "unlimited"--you're kidding yourself. The game has a handful at best because it's driven by the story, not the player.

Never mentioned anything about Origins. Why do u guys keep bringing Origins here? If you want to know my opinion about Origins then let me tell you this, my warden story is my own creation through  the use of toolset. The Vanilla Campaign only serve as background and introduction. It means little to me. My warden real story is not like any other warden story because I mod my own custom single player campagin myself. You can point all the flaw in Vanilla Campaign but it doesn't concern me. Because like I said, My character, my story and my role-play. I've been doing that since I learn about Neverwinter Nights' create-your-own-adventure decades ago. So please do not compare DA 2 with DAO. That's not what this is about. This is about creating your own story and character in general. This is about your character journeying his own world. And it's not about fan-fiction either. It's about applying your narration to the game.   

[Realmzmaster]

OSUfan12121 wrote...

I tried a 2nd playthrough hoping that if i did things a little differently things would change in the later acts, I was wrong. By Act 3 I realized nothing changed thru te game even with my decisions so i only did one full playthrough. I havent gotten MotA yet because I've been busy with other games but if theres more choices and such I may get it.

The same can be said for both games in the Dragon Age series. The choices you made in DAO were for the large part cosmetic. Does it really matter if you get the mages or templars, elves or werewolves, dwarves or golems. Not really. In fact you can finish off the ArchDemon with just your party without calling any of the armies.

What you had was a nice illusion of choice. Many of the decisions you made only show up as epilogue slides. You could agrue that you get to decide the fate of the mages, but in the end you still get an army. You can decide to slaughter the werewolves or elves, you will still get an army. You are not allowed to slaughter both which would be another choice. You can leave Redcliffe to its fate you still get an army. You are confined by the story.

Some gamers use mods to remove the consequences of their decisions. Example you slaughter the elves. Your access to unlimited elfroot should be cut off, but a lot of gamers simply use a mod to add a werewolf merchant, add elfroot to Bodahn's inventory or keep the elf merchant alive. No problem with that if you wish to game that way, but it does defeat part of the story.

Replayability is in the eyes of the player. Some have played and enjoyed DA2 many times others have not. No games is going to be everything to everybbody. The best that can be hope for is that you please enough people to make the game profitable and get people to buy the next one. Whether Bioware did that with DA2 time will tell.

According to Bioware the first part (profitability) has been achieved. The second part (repeat business) is up in the air for quite a few players.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 novembre 2011 - 05:31 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

If you are going to have a story driven game at some point railroading will occur. It is inevitable. The storyteller is trying to get to a certain point at a certain time.

This is why I'm not a big fan of story driven RPG. But I can understand that. What I can't understand was, BioWare was so supportive with user created contents and encouraged people to make their own adventure in the past. Why suddenly change to strictly railroaded plot with no branching? Neverwinter Nights was not perfect but it has thousands of stories told by others. Don't believe me, check BioWare old site that features user made stories. The primary idea was that you create your own story. This is what I would like to see. But I don't think it's going to happen and I don't understand why they don't allow the user to create their own story. Is the concept of story and character creation bores majority of people? I am curious because I always believe in RPG you need to be creative and imaginative. 

Realmzmaster wrote..

Dragon Age is not Elder Scrolls. Elder Scroll games are open world sand box games with a story (usually not a good one except Morrowind which was decent) draped over it.

Like I said, I couldn't care less of the Vanilla story. I make my own story and character. It's me that going to narrate my own journey. Not Bethesda.

Realmzmaster wrote..


Bioware games are driven by the story. The choices you make are presented within that context.

Whether it is DAO or DA2 the story was railroading at different points of the game.

And they are not doing it very well. The choices within the context are becoming more and more restrictive. I don't understand why. They have said multiple times that DA franchise is about Thedas and will feature multiple protagonists. Each has their own story. So what's the point of linear story? If it's solely about DLC expansion, then they should have plan ahead what's they want to tell and how to reflect all those consequences. Instead of waiting for feedback wheter it sell or not.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 14 novembre 2011 - 05:37 .

[Realmzmaster]

All of Bioware games are story driven from the BG series to Mas Effect to Dragon Age. A great many gamers play the series because of that. Bioware has never done a open world sandbox game. That is the forte of Bethesda. In the Elder Scrolls you can ignore the main story for as long as you want and explore to your heart's content.

When I buy a Bioware game I know it will be story driven because that is what they do. It is like the Arishok said The Qun dictates that he is a soldier but within that role he is free to choose.

Bioware sets the story within that story the player is free to act, but it does depend on how free or restrictive the story the writer wishes to tell.

Some may see the story as restrictive. I on the other hand do not.

[Pedrak]

As for me, I always thought Bio found the perfect balance between A) story-driven RPGs and sandbox RPGs - in games like BG or even DAO we got both A) memorable characters and a gripping story and a reasonable amount of freedom, exploration and customization.

DA2 was a too light on though, with A) not being strong enough (as in Torment, for example) to compensate it.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

All of Bioware games are story driven from the BG series to Mas Effect to Dragon Age. A great many gamers play the series because of that. Bioware has never done a open world sandbox game. 

That is the forte of Bethesda. In the Elder Scrolls you can ignore the main story for as long as you want and explore to your heart's content.

When I buy a Bioware game I know it will be story driven because that is what they do. It is like the Arishok said The Qun dictates that he is a soldier but within that role he is free to choose.

Bioware sets the story within that story the player is free to act, but it does depend on how free or restrictive the story the writer wishes to tell.

Some may see the story as restrictive. I on the other hand do not.

 
I am not asking BioWare to make a sandbox RPG. I am asking BioWare to return to the concept of Neverwinter Night create-your-own campaign. I am asking for choices to shape my own story. A freedom to choose among the list of what race, origins, traits, etc for my character. I am asking for multiple end games consequences. A story that branch out into different endings If it can be done in adventure books then why can't it be done to a video game? Especially one that labelled as an RPG? Isn't our purpose to play an RPG is to crave our own legend?

In the past BioWare have fulfill what I need with their toolset. But since they are no longer providing toolset, I expect the story and character system to be flexible enough for me to create my own unique story. The Sims can do that without mod. Paradox Heart of Iron can do that. wihout mod. Sid Meir's Civilization can do that without Mod. The game just need to have lot of customization, details and variables. It can be done. It just the matter of whether BioWare want to do it or not.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 14 novembre 2011 - 06:47 .

[Realmzmaster]

Pedrak wrote...

As for me, I always thought Bio found the perfect balance between A) story-driven RPGs and sandbox RPGs - in games like BG or even DAO we got both A) memorable characters and a gripping story and a reasonable amount of freedom, exploration and customization.

DA2 was a too light on though, with A) not being strong enough (as in Torment, for example) to compensate it.

I agree. PST had a gripping story. DA2 had a good story, but let it fall apart by Act 3. The same could be said for DAO story wise. Act 3 (Final Battle) was weaker than any of the other Acts (Orgin & Ostagar and  Gather the Army & Landsmeet if you want to consider them Acts) . After the Landsmeet DAO (IMHO) was anticlimatic . 

The BG series (which has been voted one of the best of all time) had a main story that was on rails. The story and gameplay were excellent so we did not mind the ride as much.

[Realmzmaster]

First of all you are comparing strategy games and simulations to a role playing game. Strategy games allow you to play what if. But even then Heart of Iron only allows you to play either the Axis or the Allies. You are constrained by the scenarios you play. The game is still about World War II. You do not get to play it outside of that context. The game still follows the basic story played out by that War. You get to improve upon the mistakes made by those generals and leaders so you can change the course of the war. I sure you would find it constraining if you could only play a side as history dictated

Civilization is an empire builder and the Sims a life simulator. I understand you want your toolset like in NWN, but the BG series never had a toolset. The toolset was never promised. The fanbase assumed there would be one.

A toolset is a freebie that the developer may or may not put out depending on where they put their resources and if they wish to polish what they are using to create the game to be used by the gaming public.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Realmzmaster wrote...


First of all you are comparing strategy games and simulations to a role playing game. Strategy games allow you to play what if. But even then Heart of Iron only allows you to play either the Axis or the Allies.

wrong. I started as one of the neutral countries which later joined the axis and later completely wipe out the alilies,  axis and comintern for total world domination. 

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are constrained by the scenarios you play. The game is still about World War II. You do not get to play it outside of that context. The game still follows the basic story played out by that War. You get to improve upon the mistakes made by those generals and leaders so you can change the course of the war. I sure you would find it constraining if you could only play a side as history dictated

Ever heard of a scenario called the Grand Campaign? It's allow for total world domination. Don't believe me, right clcik on one of the major selectable countries and you will find out that you can play any countries. Then declare war to any countries. So no. it's not just about axis, allies and comintern. It's not just about world war II. It can be played as any countries and for world conquest. Or it can be played peacefully without even involve yourself with the war. You don't need to have a mod for it. It's already there in the base game. You just need to play your strategy well.

Realmzmaster wrote...


Civilization is an empire builder and the Sims a life simulator. I understand you want your toolset like in NWN, but the BG series never had a toolset. The toolset was never promised. The fanbase assumed there would be one.

 A toolset is a freebie that the developer may or may not put out depending on where they put their resources and if they wish to polish what they are using to create the game to be used by the gaming public.

I don't play BG. I bought it years later but my system can't handle it. I started with NW. I don't played KoTOr, Jade Empire, MDK, Shattered Steel, Sonic Chronicles and Mass Effect 1. I bought Mass Effect 2 and I don't like the binary character system. But I honestly believe ME 2 deserve all the awards it receive due to it's story. The choice of end game's mission does determine who will survive in the end. The choice of upgrading your ship does have an impact on Sheppard's fate in the end. That's to me is more satisfying than DAO and DA 2. ME 2 convey choices and consequences quite well. It's only problem is the character system which is the main reason why I am not going to follow up with the third installment.
 
For me, if toolset isn't that important then it's up to BioWare to structure their story and character that is flexible enough to compensate such loses by implementing many choices, different consequences. variables etc.. so that a player can shape their own story. As I said if a strategy, an empire building and a sim can allow such flexibility then why can't the same principe applied to an RPG? Isn't an RPG was reknown for it's complexity in the past?

Many people only see killing the giant terminator as the end game consequences. However I see all the choices, companions loyalty and upgrading the ships component affect greatly on how to shape an entirely different stories. And it's entirely up to me to decide. It's not much but it's a good start and better than both DAO and DA2. It just a matter of, can Bioware build upon  ME 2's choices and consequece into completely different endings and not just killing the giant terminator, thus enhancing it's replayability value? I would like to see that. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 14 novembre 2011 - 08:09 .

[Realmzmaster]

Now we come to the crux of the matter, Many gamers like killing the big terminator. They want epic stories like DAO. They want to kill the ancient evil. It is one of the knocks against DA2. And it seems to be a majority. So where does Bioware put its money. The other point is that gamers believe that Bioware borrowed to much from ME2 to make DA2 which caused the backlash against DA2. Many gamers want a return to DAO or at least a compromise between DAO and DA2.

Those gamers are not looking for what others may want.

[AlexXIV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Now we come to the crux of the matter, Many gamers like killing the big terminator. They want epic stories like DAO. They want to kill the ancient evil. It is one of the knocks against DA2. And it seems to be a majority. So where does Bioware put its money. The other point is that gamers believe that Bioware borrowed to much from ME2 to make DA2 which caused the backlash against DA2. Many gamers want a return to DAO or at least a compromise between DAO and DA2.

Those gamers are not looking for what others may want.

I don't even, why keep saying they borrowed from ME2?

ME2 was/is awesome.

DA2 has nothing to do with ME2.

ME2 is up here -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DA2 is down here -

See?

It's not about taste. I liked ME2 and I liked DA:O. I liked some about DA2 but I was so disappointed at the lack of content or rather of it being cut to a rather straight and narrow plot. Not to mention other stuff that just makes you feel they wanted to get done with it rather quickly. They maybe borrowed the dialogue wheel from ME2, but that's not a bad thing. I would be the happiest fan out there if DA2 was ANYTHING like ME2.

[Realmzmaster]

AlexXIV wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Now we come to the crux of the matter, Many gamers like killing the big terminator. They want epic stories like DAO. They want to kill the ancient evil. It is one of the knocks against DA2. And it seems to be a majority. So where does Bioware put its money. The other point is that gamers believe that Bioware borrowed to much from ME2 to make DA2 which caused the backlash against DA2. Many gamers want a return to DAO or at least a compromise between DAO and DA2.

Those gamers are not looking for what others may want.

I don't even, why keep saying they borrowed from ME2?

ME2 was/is awesome.

DA2 has nothing to do with ME2.

ME2 is up here -

.
DA2 is down here -

See?

It's not about taste. I liked ME2 and I liked DA:O. I liked some about DA2 but I was so disappointed at the lack of content or rather of it being cut to a rather straight and narrow plot. Not to mention other stuff that just makes you feel they wanted to get done with it rather quickly. They maybe borrowed the dialogue wheel from ME2, but that's not a bad thing. I would be the happiest fan out there if DA2 was ANYTHING like ME2.

A matter of opinion and yes it is always a matter of taste that some agree with and other do not. As i have said before it all in the eyes of those playing the game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But opinion and fact are two different animals.  You still can only state your opinion and that is not fact.

[AlexXIV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Now we come to the crux of the matter, Many gamers like killing the big terminator. They want epic stories like DAO. They want to kill the ancient evil. It is one of the knocks against DA2. And it seems to be a majority. So where does Bioware put its money. The other point is that gamers believe that Bioware borrowed to much from ME2 to make DA2 which caused the backlash against DA2. Many gamers want a return to DAO or at least a compromise between DAO and DA2.

Those gamers are not looking for what others may want.

I don't even, why keep saying they borrowed from ME2?

ME2 was/is awesome.

DA2 has nothing to do with ME2.

ME2 is up here -

.
DA2 is down here -

See?

It's not about taste. I liked ME2 and I liked DA:O. I liked some about DA2 but I was so disappointed at the lack of content or rather of it being cut to a rather straight and narrow plot. Not to mention other stuff that just makes you feel they wanted to get done with it rather quickly. They maybe borrowed the dialogue wheel from ME2, but that's not a bad thing. I would be the happiest fan out there if DA2 was ANYTHING like ME2.

A matter of opinion and yes it is always a matter of taste that some agree with and other do not. As i have said before it all in the eyes of those playing the game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But opinion and fact are two different animals.  You still can only state your opinion and that is not fact.

Liking something or not is always about opinion, but that's not my point. I wouldn't know why people wouldn't like ME2. Then they wouldn't like any Bioware game. KotOR, JE, etc. they are all basically like ME2. Maybe people don't like sci-fi but that wouldn't matter for DA2 then. So I wonder what is so bad about DA2 that they took from ME2 and wasn't present in all other Bioware games as well.

[WhiteKnyght]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

I disagree. I've replayed it several times.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Replayability value only meaningful if:

1. I can shape different stories through unlimited choices and consequences. DA 2 offer very little of it.

The devs have said that you'll see the consequences in Dragon Age III.

Why do I need a sequel to tell me the consequences? How certain is that sequel going to make me interested? What if I'm not interested in DA III?  

The Grey Nayr wrote.

It was the same thing they did with Mass Effect 2. There was little actual choice and no show of consequences in that. But when it's added it to the first game it will dramatically impact the final installment.

Mass Effect is a trilogy. It made sense that you are expected to see the consequence in the next sequel. But DA is not about a character. It's about a world called Thedas where it's goint to feature new protagonist in every sequal. Thus, new story for every thing. Therefore, The story has to be closed. DA 2 already proved how completely meaningless it is to carry forth such consequences. 

The Grey Nayr wrote.



Also if you think Origins' choices and consequences were "unlimited"--you're kidding yourself. The game has a handful at best because it's driven by the story, not the player.

Never mentioned anything about Origins. Why do u guys keep bringing Origins here? If you want to know my opinion about Origins then let me tell you this, my warden story is my own creation through  the use of toolset. The Vanilla Campaign only serve as background and introduction. It means little to me. My warden real story is not like any other warden story because I mod my own custom single player campagin myself. You can point all the flaw in Vanilla Campaign but it doesn't concern me. Because like I said, My character, my story and my role-play. I've been doing that since I learn about Neverwinter Nights' create-your-own-adventure decades ago. So please do not compare DA 2 with DAO. That's not what this is about. This is about creating your own story and character in general. This is about your character journeying his own world. And it's not about fan-fiction either. It's about applying your narration to the game.   

1. Why not play it and see? Plus for all you critics' complaints, you sure don't stop playing DAII or leave the boards about it.

2. Dragon Age's games are just as tied together as Mass Effect's. Every choice you make in Origins, DAII, DAIII, and so forth will affect the future of Thedas the same way Commander Shepard's choices will affect the future of the Galaxy.

3. That's because every danged DAII critic bashes the game by putting Origins on a pedestal so high that it doesn't even live up to how good it's supposed to be.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 14 novembre 2011 - 10:33 .

[Akka le Vil]

Jessica Merizan wrote...

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.

Very true. Immersion is my number one factor regardless of the game, and is most often a deal-maker or -breaker.
And it's precisely one of the biggest problem with DA2. Immersion is just maimed so badly it's a wonder it's not killed outright. It's very hard to immerse yourself in the story and imagine you ARE Hawke when there is ridiculous battle moves and extremely exagerated speed, when enemies pop out of nowhere by the dozens and when so much of the whole game feel so, well, A GAME, and break the illusion so often and so hard.

And being so unable to actually affect events, which are so much the same whatever you do, is also one of the thing that seriously hamper immersion too.

[Teddie Sage]

*sneaks in*

I want MOARRRRR Story DLCs!

*dies*

<--- In other words: Zombified Teddie Sage needs more DA2. It's like his drug. Do ho ho~

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 14 novembre 2011 - 10:44 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
1. Why not play it and see? Plus for all you critics' complaints, you sure don't stop playing DAII or leave the boards about it.

1. And repeat the same mistake as I did with DA 2 by encouraging BioWare with my purchase? 
I have already uninstalled DA 2. I am here for DA 3 news and to evaluate whether BioWare really listen to feedback for their next sequel. This board is full of DAO haters in the past and BioWare have been listening to the wrong crowds by making DA 2.. If people like me leaves the board, BioWare will forever be blinded into thinking that DA 2 is the right direction. 

The Grey Nayr wrote...

2. Dragon Age's games are just as tied together as Mass Effect's. Every choice you make in Origins, DAII, DAIII, and so forth will affect the future of Thedas the same way Commander Shepard's choices will affect the future of the Galaxy.

2.  I don't see how ending a blight can be tied to setting the mage-templar conflict. I don't see how different protagonist story can be linked together. The blight ends. The Archdemon died. It's the end for DAO. Whereas, DA 2 is a set up for mage-templar conflict. Hawke is "gone". It's the end for DA 2. There is no connection whatsoever between the two sequels. Mass Effect on the other is different. It's about Sheppard. We follow up Sheppard's story. It's all center on Shepard. DA center on the world. Not the character. A world has so many different stories to tell especially if it's feature multiple protagonist who has their own legend. So how do you tie all this protagonist story into one grand epic tale? DA 2 already fail to link with DAO main plot. This is not the Song of Ice and Fire anymore. 

The Grey Nayr wrote...


3. That's because every danged DAII critic bashes the game by putting Origins on a pedestal so high that it doesn't even live up to how good it's supposed to be.

3. Then you are making generalization. I am not here to talk about DAO. I am here for DA 2 and most important off all I am here for DA 3. I'd like DA to return to it's root as "spiritual successor to Baldur Gate"  and not "spiritual succesor to DAO". 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 15 novembre 2011 - 01:49 .

[Firky]

Replay value is a funny one, I reckon. Like, it can be either based on enjoying and mastering the game or, alternatively, things like alternate paths/endings, different classes to play etc.

I'd argue that DAO and DAII perhaps "should" have similar replay value if you look at the technical things. Like, 3 classes, a similar amount of romances, a couple of ways to end/siding with factions etc. DAO had six origin stories, but they weren't enough to make me play a complete game more than 2.5 times. But I'm busy. (I'd also argue that a "replayable" game should probably entice fans more than twice.)

I've played lots of games this year, but DAII is the only one I've gone back for a second run (2.5 so far) and that includes Witcher 2 which should probably be more replayable, due to more divergent paths. But I like party combat, so DAII got a bit more of my time.

I've played Baldur's Gate 2 about 7 times, but there isn't that much you can do differently if you're a completionist. Good, or evil, or neutral. Variations on class/party. But the story is essentially the same. I just really like it, so it keeps coming back onto my playlist.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Chun Hei wrote...

If you have to use a mod to remove huge sections of DA:O in order to replay it you are admitting that you cannot replay it either.

Dear god, stop comparing to ****ing DAO. I was making a passing comment to connect more with your comment, not comdemning nor praising DAO's replayability.

I should be able to criticize DA2's replayability without one of their followers yelling "DAO DIDNT DO IT SO NYAAAHHH". The series will never improve with this retarded outlook.