232 réponses à ce sujet

[seraphymon]

Miashi wrote...

I didn't like the Deep Roads portrayed in either DA:O and DA2, but for 2 different reasons.

DA:O I felt like they had the atmosphere just right, but it lacked a sense of constant threat and danger looming. I was hoping for random encounters as you progressed through the Deep Roads to the Anvil of the void, but there wasn't any. Also I was hoping for tons and tons of traps (like HoTU's undermountain).

DA:2, well everything about them was wrong. It was far too bright, felt completely off DA:O original's incarnation, and it felt tiny.

The only place that I actually remember enjoying the thrills and dangers of the Deep Roads was in the original Dragon Ages Journey, back before DA:O was about to be released. Mind you, there wasn't any traps, but the place was dark and creepy just enough.

At least there is an explanation for the lack of traps. After all Branka made broodmothers to churn out drakspawn to throw at the traps.

[Miashi]

True. After going through HoTU's Underdark and Undermountain, as well as BG2's Underdark, I guess I got spoiled a bit, they made Deep Roads feel rather underwhelming.

[william.munden]

Think yourself lucky two play through 's i was unable to even get beyond 2 hours of the game before i uninstalled it from my computer i absolutely despise the game .i loved dragon age origins bought every single DLC for it as well so if the next game is anything like the second game i wont even touch it and i defiantly wont pre order it.

[Phaedros]

william.munden wrote...

Think yourself lucky two play through 's i was unable to even get beyond 2 hours of the game before i uninstalled it from my computer i absolutely despise the game .i loved dragon age origins bought every single DLC for it as well so if the next game is anything like the second game i wont even touch it and i defiantly wont pre order it.

just, about, managed one play through & uninstalled

still playing DA:O

QFT

go figure ...

[Obsidian Gryphon]

It was the same for me too initially. I was bored after playing it through once. I sided with the mages, romanced the 2 guys who turned out horribly in the end. But now I'm replaying it again with a new custom female Hawke because I want to make it different. I played twice over; side with Templars / Mages respectively but I did a 180 degree turn and romanced Isabela instead since those 2 guys were disappointing. I went on to the DLCs and ... frankly, I want more. I doubt I'll replay it a 4th time since I have gone through all the options available.

Nevertheless I want more. Actually, to know what happened to Hawke thereafter.  Even though Hawke is not the protaganist in DA III, I hope there will be inofrmation on her and I certainly don't want to learn something bad happened to her.  I guess I've grown attached to this char.

Modifié par Obsidian Gryphon, 19 novembre 2011 - 05:45 .

[GavrielKay]

I just finished my 12th playthrough of Origins and remembered again why I was so captivated by it when it came out. So much depth and atmosphere: more conversation with your companions, a noble goal, incredibly varied landscapes and maps. DA:O felt like an interactive novel to me.

DA2 on the other hand feels like a barely interactive movie. The story is smaller, the goals are smaller, the choices more limited and sometimes non-existent.

I completely enjoyed my 12th run through Origins and I'm trying hard to find a reason to complete my 5th run on DA2. Given Origins takes me at least 80 hours per play and DA2 only 40 - the time invested is hugely different.

I'd never say DA2 was a *bad* game, but it is a disappointment on the heels of DA:O. I much preferred the epic feel of the "novel" to the limited feel of a "movie."

[Realmzmaster]

I am still playing both games. I enjoy both of them. I like both stories. I tend to like Hawke's story a little more. I grew tired of the epic feel of DAO and felt DA2 was a nice change of pace. I applaud Bioware for trying something different. DA2's story is meant to be smaller in scope because the main story revolves around the city. Goals are suppose to be bigger in a game with an epic scope. The point behind DAO was to kill the Arch Demon a larger than life villain. DA2 story was good but the use of the idol was a mistake. It would have been better if Bertrand betrayed Varric without any undue influence.

The idol also plays a part in the ending with Meredith. It would have been better if Meredith slowly descended into madness over the span of years and in the end Hawke had to duel Meredith one on one to escape or become Viscount. Cullen could call for the duel if Hawke was Pro templar. Also Orisno would only go Harvester if Hawke sides with the Templars.  If Hawke was pro mage then Orisno would appear and call for a one on one duel between Meredith and Hawke. But YMMV.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 19 novembre 2011 - 10:49 .

[GavrielKay]

Realmzmaster wrote...

DA2's story is meant to be smaller in scope because the main story revolves around the city. Goals are suppose to be bigger in a game with an epic scope.

Even keeping the basic premise of following an average person through a decade of their life and rise to prominence could have been done with much less reptition of maps and limited decisions.  I don't like the premise as much, but even so, it could have been a better game while telling the same story.  I hope for DA3 they find some kind of happy medium between too epic for most people to play (120 hours on my first DA:O run is more than some would want to devote) and too short and limited for those who really want a fun story.

[Realmzmaster]

GavrielKay wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

DA2's story is meant to be smaller in scope because the main story revolves around the city. Goals are suppose to be bigger in a game with an epic scope.

Even keeping the basic premise of following an average person through a decade of their life and rise to prominence could have been done with much less reptition of maps and limited decisions.  I don't like the premise as much, but even so, it could have been a better game while telling the same story.  I hope for DA3 they find some kind of happy medium between too epic for most people to play (120 hours on my first DA:O run is more than some would want to devote) and too short and limited for those who really want a fun story.

If you are going to tell a story of someone's life with in the same geopgrahical area you will have the person visiting the same places. DA2 was a little extreme, but rather than cut quests Bioware reused area. That is aresource consideration. Most people's lives are not made up of epic decisions. Most of the decisions made are limited and not earth shaking. Most high fantasy is epic. It is the different between a novel and biography.

The novel can be epic and have grand goals. The biography deals with the person's life which may contain the mundane and limited decisions.  The limitation is the story that is being told.

[GavrielKay]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The novel can be epic and have grand goals. The biography deals with the person's life which may contain the mundane and limited decisions.  The limitation is the story that is being told.

There comes a point where the "realism" of the biography begins to degrade the gaming experience though.  When I'm returning missing wine bottles and lost scarves more than I'm actually acomplishing anything interesting - that's not a good thing in a game.  It does have to be more thrilling than my day to day existence, or what am I doing playing?

As far as reuse vs. cutting content...  well, perhaps the actual answer was to invest more time and resources into the game.  I thought I heard they cut back on content for DA:O because DA2 was releasing earlier than originally planned?  In any case, most folks would prefer to wait a little while to get an exceptional game rather than have an OK game come out a bit earlier.

They've accepted the criticism on many of these points already, and I do hope for better in DA3.  But, the story itself didn't require the game to have most of the limitations that it did.

[Flashing Steel]

Realmzmaster wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

DA2's story is meant to be smaller in scope because the main story revolves around the city. Goals are suppose to be bigger in a game with an epic scope.

Even keeping the basic premise of following an average person through a decade of their life and rise to prominence could have been done with much less reptition of maps and limited decisions.  I don't like the premise as much, but even so, it could have been a better game while telling the same story.  I hope for DA3 they find some kind of happy medium between too epic for most people to play (120 hours on my first DA:O run is more than some would want to devote) and too short and limited for those who really want a fun story.

If you are going to tell a story of someone's life with in the same geopgrahical area you will have the person visiting the same places. DA2 was a little extreme, but rather than cut quests Bioware reused area. That is aresource consideration. Most people's lives are not made up of epic decisions. Most of the decisions made are limited and not earth shaking. Most high fantasy is epic. It is the different between a novel and biography.

The novel can be epic and have grand goals. The biography deals with the person's life which may contain the mundane and limited decisions.  The limitation is the story that is being told.

Indeed, most peoples lives are not made up of epic decisions. However, lets examine the fact that Hawke is someone who rises to prominence in Kirkwall. Such is his/her position that on several occasions he/she holds council with the viscount, the most powerful man in Kirkwall. Such status within society is not obtained by just 'most people'. Alas, it becomes discernable as the game progresses that Hawke is not 'most people', becoming the champion of Kirkwall is a monumental feat which the average person could not accomplish. Therefore, i find myself bewildered when Hawke, someone who holds such a position is unable to make decisions consistant with his/her status in society.

[Realmzmaster]

GavrielKay wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
The novel can be epic and have grand goals. The biography deals with the person's life which may contain the mundane and limited decisions.  The limitation is the story that is being told.

There comes a point where the "realism" of the biography begins to degrade the gaming experience though.  When I'm returning missing wine bottles and lost scarves more than I'm actually acomplishing anything interesting - that's not a good thing in a game.  It does have to be more thrilling than my day to day existence, or what am I doing playing?

As far as reuse vs. cutting content...  well, perhaps the actual answer was to invest more time and resources into the game.  I thought I heard they cut back on content for DA:O because DA2 was releasing earlier than originally planned?  In any case, most folks would prefer to wait a little while to get an exceptional game rather than have an OK game come out a bit earlier.

They've accepted the criticism on many of these points already, and I do hope for better in DA3.  But, the story itself didn't require the game to have most of the limitations that it did.

Returning wine bottles and lost scarves are just examples of what are called FedEx quests. They have occurred in every cRPG since the beginning. DAO had quite a few of them: tracking down the missing tome from the shaperate is an example. Creating poisons and traps for others is another type. Finding missing sextants. FedEx quests are a staple in cRPGs.

Bioware did not cut back on content for DAO. DAO had been in off and on development for five years and even had an expansion plus dlc.
What I gathered on the forum is that the dlc and expansion (Awakenings)  for DAO did not sell as well as hoped. Which meant no new content for DAO. Bioware simply went ahead with DA2.

[deatharmonic]

Flashing Steel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

DA2's story is meant to be smaller in scope because the main story revolves around the city. Goals are suppose to be bigger in a game with an epic scope.

Even keeping the basic premise of following an average person through a decade of their life and rise to prominence could have been done with much less reptition of maps and limited decisions.  I don't like the premise as much, but even so, it could have been a better game while telling the same story.  I hope for DA3 they find some kind of happy medium between too epic for most people to play (120 hours on my first DA:O run is more than some would want to devote) and too short and limited for those who really want a fun story.

If you are going to tell a story of someone's life with in the same geopgrahical area you will have the person visiting the same places. DA2 was a little extreme, but rather than cut quests Bioware reused area. That is aresource consideration. Most people's lives are not made up of epic decisions. Most of the decisions made are limited and not earth shaking. Most high fantasy is epic. It is the different between a novel and biography.

The novel can be epic and have grand goals. The biography deals with the person's life which may contain the mundane and limited decisions.  The limitation is the story that is being told.

Indeed, most peoples lives are not made up of epic decisions. However, lets examine the fact that Hawke is someone who rises to prominence in Kirkwall. Such is his/her position that on several occasions he/she holds council with the viscount, the most powerful man in Kirkwall. Such status within society is not obtained by just 'most people'. Alas, it becomes discernable as the game progresses that Hawke is not 'most people', becoming the champion of Kirkwall is a monumental feat which the average person could not accomplish. Therefore, i find myself bewildered when Hawke, someone who holds such a position is unable to make decisions consistant with his/her status in society.

+1!

[Realmzmaster]

Flashing Steel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

DA2's story is meant to be smaller in scope because the main story revolves around the city. Goals are suppose to be bigger in a game with an epic scope.

Even keeping the basic premise of following an average person through a decade of their life and rise to prominence could have been done with much less reptition of maps and limited decisions.  I don't like the premise as much, but even so, it could have been a better game while telling the same story.  I hope for DA3 they find some kind of happy medium between too epic for most people to play (120 hours on my first DA:O run is more than some would want to devote) and too short and limited for those who really want a fun story.

If you are going to tell a story of someone's life with in the same geopgrahical area you will have the person visiting the same places. DA2 was a little extreme, but rather than cut quests Bioware reused area. That is aresource consideration. Most people's lives are not made up of epic decisions. Most of the decisions made are limited and not earth shaking. Most high fantasy is epic. It is the different between a novel and biography.

The novel can be epic and have grand goals. The biography deals with the person's life which may contain the mundane and limited decisions.  The limitation is the story that is being told.

Indeed, most peoples lives are not made up of epic decisions. However, lets examine the fact that Hawke is someone who rises to prominence in Kirkwall. Such is his/her position that on several occasions he/she holds council with the viscount, the most powerful man in Kirkwall. Such status within society is not obtained by just 'most people'. Alas, it becomes discernable as the game progresses that Hawke is not 'most people', becoming the champion of Kirkwall is a monumental feat which the average person could not accomplish. Therefore, i find myself bewildered when Hawke, someone who holds such a position is unable to make decisions consistant with his/her status in society.

Just because you rise to a position of power doe not mean the person is ready to assume that power or know how to handle it. Example from DAO if you do not harden Alistair or marry him to Anora he makes for an average to terrible king.  Even if hardened, but single he is more than happy to let the Warden rule if your warden becomes chancellor. So I do not find it bewildering.

Some are born great. Others have greatness thrust upon them. 
Hawke has greatness thrust upon Hawke. Hawke was not actively seeking power. Hawke was looking to survive and prosper. Make enough money to make his family comfortable and hopefully regain what was lost by his uncle. Circumstances thusted Hawke into the events happening in Kirkwall.

[Flashing Steel]

Realmzmaster wrote...



Just because you rise to a position of power doe not mean the person is ready to assume that power or know how to handle it. Example from DAO if you do not harden Alistair or marry him to Anora he makes for an average to terrible king.  Even if hardened, but single he is more than happy to let the Warden rule if your warden becomes chancellor. So I do not find it bewildering. 

Some are born great. Others have greatness thrust upon them. 
Hawke has greatness thrust upon Hawke. Hawke was not actively seeking power. Hawke was looking to survive and prosper. Make enough money to make his family comfortable and hopefully regain what was lost by his uncle. Circumstances thusted Hawke into the events happening in Kirkwall.

Hawke being ready or not is inconsequential. With such an influential position i find it implausible that someone of Hawkes stature is unable handle decision making. i would go as far as to suggest that Hawke not only survives but thrives in Kirkwall, defeating a varterral, high dragon, the Arishok in one on one combat amongst a plethora of other enemies indicates Hawke does not just survive, but actually establishes him/herself as a dominant force in Kirkwall. I digress, Alistair states from the moment such notions arise that he does not want to be king, he acknowledges he would not be adequate. However, to my knowledge we at no point find Hawke doubting his/her ability to be champion. credit where credit is due if you are able to find an impartial quote from Hawke.

side note: yes, i acknowledge Hawke unexpectedly becomes enthrawled in the Kirkwall events but we never see any form of emotional instability or a sign that these events are too much for Hawke to handle. (other than the loss of certain people to which you would expect such a reaction).

Modifié par Flashing Steel, 20 novembre 2011 - 04:47 .

[GavrielKay]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Some are born great. Others have greatness thrust upon them. 
Hawke has greatness thrust upon Hawke. Hawke was not actively seeking power. Hawke was looking to survive and prosper. Make enough money to make his family comfortable and hopefully regain what was lost by his uncle. Circumstances thusted Hawke into the events happening in Kirkwall.

During the Rescue Anora quest, the Warden can make many decisions that all end up the same way, but let you play your character to suit your style...

1)  You can go in with or without a disguise
2)  You can surrender to Cauthrien
3)  You can lose the fight and then have to break out of prison
4)  You can win the fight

In all cases, you return to Arl Eamon's estate to find Anora waiting.

**spoilers removed**

I want choices like that in DA2. 

So, in short, it isn't about the story that they wanted to tell, it's about the fact that it's a *game* not a movie.  I didn't want to watch it happen, I wanted to play it.

Between that and the insane re-use of maps, it really needed more time in development.

There are a number of things I liked better about the controls, graphics and ability trees that I would like to see carry forward.  I guess we'll see.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 20 novembre 2011 - 04:50 .

[deatharmonic]

GavrielKay wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Some are born great. Others have greatness thrust upon them. 
Hawke has greatness thrust upon Hawke. Hawke was not actively seeking power. Hawke was looking to survive and prosper. Make enough money to make his family comfortable and hopefully regain what was lost by his uncle. Circumstances thusted Hawke into the events happening in Kirkwall.

During the Rescue Anora quest, the Warden can make many decisions that all end up the same way, but let you play your character to suit your style...

1)  You can go in with or without a disguise
2)  You can surrender to Cauthrien
3)  You can lose the fight and then have to break out of prison
4)  You can win the fight

In all cases, you return to Arl Eamon's estate to find Anora waiting.

**spoilers removed**

I want choices like that in DA2. 

So, in short, it isn't about the story that they wanted to tell, it's about the fact that it's a *game* not a movie.  I didn't want to watch it happen, I wanted to play it.

Between that and the insane re-use of maps, it really needed more time in development.

There are a number of things I liked better about the controls, graphics and ability trees that I would like to see carry forward.  I guess we'll see.

I agree, just because hawke is "thrusted" into situations it doesn't mean he isn't able to do something about them. Just like in the example you have highlighted GavrielKay. trying to survive and earning money has nothing to do with the fact you can't at least TRY stopping bethany from being taken. That applies to a lot of  other decisive moments in the game too.

[Quole]

This game has very little play value.

[addiction21]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Returning wine bottles and lost scarves are just examples of what are called FedEx quests. They have occurred in every cRPG since the beginning. DAO had quite a few of them: tracking down the missing tome from the shaperate is an example. Creating poisons and traps for others is another type. Finding missing sextants. FedEx quests are a staple in cRPGs.

And lets not leave out the "Every NPC is incompetent and makes Hawke do all the work"

I cant remember a cRPG (or any game for that matter) that did not send the PC off to do their dirty work for them.  I know there are some instances that if you prgress the game so far the NPC will have done it but I just cant think of any offhand.

[GavrielKay]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Returning wine bottles and lost scarves are just examples of what are called FedEx quests. They have occurred in every cRPG since the beginning. DAO had quite a few of them: tracking down the missing tome from the shaperate is an example.

I'd have to say percentage wise, DA2 has more "FedEx" quests than DA:O did.  It's one thing to throw a few of those in for a bit of extra coin and for completionists to go crazy, it's another thing for that to feel like a major portion of the game.

[Realmzmaster]

GavrielKay wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Some are born great. Others have greatness thrust upon them. 
Hawke has greatness thrust upon Hawke. Hawke was not actively seeking power. Hawke was looking to survive and prosper. Make enough money to make his family comfortable and hopefully regain what was lost by his uncle. Circumstances thusted Hawke into the events happening in Kirkwall.

During the Rescue Anora quest, the Warden can make many decisions that all end up the same way, but let you play your character to suit your style...

1)  You can go in with or without a disguise
2)  You can surrender to Cauthrien
3)  You can lose the fight and then have to break out of prison
4)  You can win the fight

In all cases, you return to Arl Eamon's estate to find Anora waiting.

**spoilers removed**

I want choices like that in DA2. 

So, in short, it isn't about the story that they wanted to tell, it's about the fact that it's a *game* not a movie.  I didn't want to watch it happen, I wanted to play it.

Between that and the insane re-use of maps, it really needed more time in development.

There are a number of things I liked better about the controls, graphics and ability trees that I would like to see carry forward.  I guess we'll see.

What you are talking about is the illusion of choice. Choices that bring you to the same point  or conclusion is not really a choice. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Choices are suppose to make a difference. You could make a better case with the choice for the King of the Dwarven people, but even then the Warden does not care either side will suit the purpose. The Warden simply needs an army. It does not matter who gives it . The choice only matters in the epilogue and is there for the gamer's benefit. In game the Warden does not care. The Warden simply needs to defeat the ArchDemon.

The same with the mage/templars or the elves/werewolves. The primary task of the Warden is to defeat the Blight whether his/her decisions have a positive or negative effect mean nothing if the Blight is not defeated.

It is nice at the end Bioware shows through epilogue screens what happens from the gamer's choices, but they could have easily ended the game after the Coronation and let the credits role.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 novembre 2011 - 07:02 .

[errant_knight]

I played it again to make a warrior to take into the DLC, which I wouldn't have done had my save files from my first playthough all disappeared. The DLC were quite enjoyable and I'll probably play any that are large quests like Legacy and MotA, but I have no real interest in playing the main game again. It's quite different in that respect than DA:O which I continue to play regularly. And if I'm not playing it, I'm making things with the toolset. So...yeah, there ya go.

[TEWR]

Realmzmaster wrote...


What you are talking about is the illusion of choice. Choices that bring you to the same point  or conclusion is not really a choice. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Either way, DAII should've had at least an illusion of choice. But there are ways the game could've allowed for actual choices within the scope of the narrative.

The idea of Varric narrating deadlocked the player into very few things being the same, if any. Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall and is gone from the scene of things. DAII however gave the player the choice of how he is named Champion -- though the rise to that station was sub-par imo -- and in my mind I have different ideas for how he disappeared.

Point is though, aside from those two things the idea of Varric narrating deadlocked the player into nothing else. There was a huge amount of potential for choices -- actual choices that mattered in terms of Hawke's story -- to be made.

Choices are suppose to make a difference. You could make a better case with the choice for the King of the Dwarven people, but even then the Warden does not care either side will suit the purpose. The Warden simply needs an army. It does not matter who gives it . The choice only matters in the epilogue and is there for the gamer's benefit. In game the Warden does not care. The Warden simply needs to defeat the ArchDemon.

Orzammar.... hatred.... kicking in....

I hate how Xanthos Aeducan can't restore his place in the Memories and take the throne. The only way he even has a shot is if he puts a weak king on the throne and destroys one of the very things Orzammar needs, and even then that's only an epilogue slide which might be considered unimportant and not something that should matter.

I'd rather have Xanthos take the throne when he returns. That was the way I roleplayed him and there were many dialogue choices when he returned that made me think he might've been able to, though I later found out most were also available to other Wardens.

The same with the mage/templars or the elves/werewolves. The primary task of the Warden is to defeat the Blight whether his/her decisions have a positive or negative effect mean nothing if the Blight is not defeated.

It is nice at the end Bioware shows through epilogue screens what happens from the gamer's choices, but they could have easily ended the game after the Coronation and let the credits role.

An epilogue slide is better than having something that makes no sense shoved down your throat every single time.

Best Served Cold, I'm looking at you.

[GavrielKay]

Realmzmaster wrote...
What you are talking about is the illusion of choice. Choices that bring you to the same point  or conclusion is not really a choice. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

What I was talking about was how they could have thrown in more role-playing even within the limitations that for some reason they made for themselves.  Posters sometimes point out how it was a set up for another game, or a narrative etc.  That's all well and good, but even within those parameters, it would have been possible to add choice for role playing satisfaction.

Personally, I didn't care for the framed narrative idea, and didn't care for the notion of being some schmoe who made a bunch of money and bought a nice house and ran around Kirkwall for no better reason than she couldn't be bothered to leave.  But...  even within that setting, they could have made a better game.

Everything in a video game is an illusion of choice.  None of them are entirely open ended - the game doesn't magically write new content as the player moves through the scenes.  But, you can guilde the player to one - or one of several - endings without removing all choice. 

The example I gave from DA:O demonstrates that.  There was only one outcome really, but you could play a bold character or a cautious one.  You could play a tactical savant or just try to plow your way through the battle and get beaten.  You could role play.

It's very hard for me to role play Hawke. 

There were too many scenes where the action/dialogue that I needed for my particular Hawke wasn't available.  I'm sure there were cases in DA:O too, but they were smaller and had better explanations.  By which I mean, sure, you could play a Cousland who really didn't want to join the Wardens, but then Duncan has no reason to save your butt.  So, play along and get saved or turn off the game and assume your character died.  At least there was a reason.

In the end, DA2 had the same replayability for me as watching a decent movie.  If you're in the mood for that movie, then boot it up and spend some time.  It's entertaining.  On normal difficulty it isn't hugely challenging, so it's just like rewatching a popcorn movie except occasionally you stumble across a new line of dialogue.  It's not bad, and I don't hate it by any means.

It could have been great though.  DA:O showed that the team knows how to make a great game.

[puppy maclove]

I played through once and even that was pushing it!!! There is no way I would even consider a second play though. I just found the game so static and tedious. IMO DA2 had no soul, no emotion, no feeling, no polish. Soon into the game it became patently clear that the game was a quick money grab. DA:O grabbed me into the game, I never once felt any immersion in the game in DA2.

I think I bought too much into the marketing hype around the DA2 and that made it even worse, as my expectations were very high. It's for this reason that I just can't or refuse to get excited for ME3.

I'm happy if you enjoyed DA2, that's great for you ... just expressing my thoughts (because I normally love Bioware games and they can do better)

Modifié par jlmaclachlan, 20 novembre 2011 - 09:37 .