108 réponses à ce sujet

[RosaAquafire]

I'm really, really enjoying Skyrim right now. I don't think that I've ever felt so unrestrained in a game before. I blink and it's like a minute has passed, but I'm hungry and it's dark out and I'm due at work in an hour. I haven't felt so engaged by a game since ...

Well, since Dragon Age 2.

Yes, it's true. Here I stand, the only person in the world who has both DA2 and Skyrim on their GOTY lists. And before everybody throws their hands in the air and walks off, if I could compel you all to read what I'm thinking, maybe I'll be able to finally explain why it is that I thought DA2 was a wonderful game.

Skryim has got me thinking a lot about Dragon Age. In fact, Skyrim has me thinking a lot about Bioware, period. Why is it, I ask myself, that I can extol the virtue of how Bethseda lets me go anywhere and do anything with almost zero restrictions, but then turn around and not only defend DA2, but call Bioware my favourite game devs? Bioware games have never been nonlinear. In fact, they tend to get better the more linear they are. BG2 was considerably and exponentially more structured than BG1, but it was so vastly superiour a game they're not even on the same level. Why is that that I can be so immersed in Skyrim, but scoff when I hear people say they want the same open ended, broad philosophy apply to Bioware in general and Dragon Age in particular?

I figured it out when someone asked me who my favourite character was in Skyrim.

Well, nobody. Because nobody in Skyrim acts like a real person. Some of them are better written than others, and some I even start to get fond of. But I never for even one moment get fooled into thinking that any of them give a crap about my Nord lady or her Fus Roh Dahs, and I wouldn't particularly care if any of them killed their sisters in front of me or watched their brother suffer from fantasy Alzheimers. Skyrim's world is massive and beautiful and wild and wonderful, but it's not populated by people. It's populated by mobs. It's a trade-off.

Immediately, my mind turned to racing games.

Massive jump, I know, but bear with me. I've always loved closed track racing games. Watching my opponants eat my dust while I turn all the corners as tight as I can and then blast over the finish line to the cheering crowds and whirling camera angles. I love them all, from your silly Kart games to your F-Zero to the more serious and realistic ones. However, I've never been able to get into the GTA games. I see the appeal, but I've just never had any fun with them, myself. I don't think that one is better than the other. I just think that for all the fact that they're both ostensibly driving games, they're not the same genre, and they're each providing you with different thrills. A racing game gives you a closed track to drive fast on and beat your opponants with, GTA gives you a living, breathing city to become a part of and affect and change as you will. Neither one is more valuable. They're just a different sort of engagement.

See what I'm getting at, here?

Linear and Open aren't opposite sides on a scale of 0 to 100 points. I'd say they're a lot more like the friendship and rivarly systems. Any point in one direction loses points in the other, but they have equal and entirely opposite rewards.  I will never get from DA2 the wonder Skyrim gives at discovering a new location for the first time, the way your heart jumps when a dragon soars overhead, the amazing feeling of being let loose in a world that will allow you to do absolutely anything you wish. And I will never get from Skyrim the feeling that DA2 gives me of being a part of a real story crafted by skilled writers who had a vision to share, surrounded by characters who feel real, who I can fool myself into thinking really care about me. Neither feeling is worth more than the other, but neither is worth less than the other.

It's perfectly okay to dislike DA2 or Skyrim based on their own merits. But the statement that DA2 is inferiour because it doesn't allow Skyrim's level of choice is as flawed as the statement that Skyrim is inferiour because it doesn't offer DA2's depth of character and relationship simulation. Asking Bioware for open-world freedom or Bethseda for priority to authored narrative is missing the point of what makes EACH of these developers so wonderful. I hope that we continue to blur the lines between what each of them can afford to provide, but so long as resources are limited, I'd prefer for each to stay in their corners and subgenres so we can enjoy both sides of the coin in their best incarnation, rather than playing a watered down middle of the road version that excels at neither.

In other words, you can't say that Arrested Development is objectively a better show than The Wire because it's funnier.

For those of you who managed to get this far, thanks for listening, sorry for ranting, and happy adventuring in whichever world you choose.

[Ponendus]

I think you made some great points there OP. It does seem there is far too much attention on grabbing each others audiences instead of a focus on playing to ones own strengths in my opinion. I just wish we could go back to the 'BioWare' way of doing things. Bethesda seems to stick to their way and it works. THAT is the message I think BioWare needs to take away and think about.

I absolutely agree that you should play the world you enjoy and stop trying to make one more like the other. I enjoy Skyrim but it isn't even in the same ballpark for me as BioWare games. They are quite simply completely different. However, opinions on which is 'better' with these things, as you say, are completely subjective.

[CuriousArtemis]

Really nice post! I agree with you 100%. It's why I'm just not interested in Skyrim at all. I play for the story, and for the characters (the writing, basically). I love to read, and I love to game. It's the marriage of all that I love, DA2. (As an aside, I love to write, too.)

There are people on this forum who hate DA2 with a passion. I try to grasp why and just can't. These people usually worship at the altar of DA:O, too. I also can't quite understand that because DA:O was long and sometimes even boring for me, and I didn't connect at all with my Warden protagonist. The only thing it had going for it were it's characters, wonderful guys like Zevran, Alistair, and Wynne.

But my guess is this thread won't do anything except entice more DA2 haters to come and explain, once again, just why they hate it so much. Sigh.

Meanwhile, I'll go back to my umpteenth playthrough

[HiroVoid]

So which felt more immersive anyway? I do agree both have different focuses though.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 27 décembre 2011 - 08:45 .

[esper]

Motomotogirl has pretty much stated how I feel about everything
I agree with the OP of the difference between Skyrim and Dragon Age but for me freedom and openworldness doesn't matter if I don't care for the persons. What good is it choosing a over b if I might as well flip a coin. After both Oblivion and Skyrim I have given elder scroll a fair chance and can now say that I won't play it again. Maybey I can force myself to actually finish the main quest line in Skyrim, but I doubt it. I am, however, fully aware that it is a subjective opinion.

[AngryFrozenWater]

RosaAquafire wrote...

It's perfectly okay to dislike DA2 or Skyrim based on their own merits. But the statement that DA2 is inferiour because it doesn't allow Skyrim's level of choice is as flawed as the statement that Skyrim is inferiour because it doesn't offer DA2's depth of character and relationship simulation.

Both games don't allow you much choice. However, Skyrim looks like the winner of the two. In Skyrim one can take at least a side in the civil war which opens up an exclusive quest line to support that. In addition to that your character will know what side you have chosen because the NPCs in the game respond to that. Your role in that is recognized. However, in any other quest line, there isn't much choice other than the order in which you do them or not doing a quest line at all. However there are exceptions to the rule in that game and some quests have interesting twists. All that doesn't impact the main story much, but the illusion of choice seems to work, because at times there are also real choices.

In DA2 things are much different. I am perfectly fine with a linear story. However, when Mr Laidlaw makes a big deal that the PC's decisions would "shape the world" (listen to the official pod casts and read his public statements about that in those days) then I am going to expect that the game is capable of that. What BW did with linear stories in the past does not matter. The fact that they would now allow choices that shape the world does, especially after the promise that these would do just that.

There are no decisions to be made because any decision you make will be wrapped back to the same railroaded storyline as soon as you made it. You can take a side in the game, but this is purely cosmetic. In DA2's case taking a side should have an effect on which class you play. But you are never confronted with that. Even if you wear a robe, carry a staff, and kill every templar in sight with blood magic the world does not respond. One even have to tell you are a mage during conversations. Wearing the funny hat was not enough. Taking a side does not change the storyline in any way. You still visit the same places, do the same quests and even fight the same end bosses. Add to it that the game does not give closure on lots of story details in which decisions would have mattered and it will be clear that BW did not tell the truth. And I am being polite with that last statement.

In DA:O decisions mattered more than in DA2. One could opt to side with elves or the werewolves and one of the two could come to your aid in the end game. There were alternative solutions for solving the Redcliffe quests. And so on. Sometimes companions would not agree with what you decided and stand up against you. You could even kill them in that case. Or you could send them away at any time. DA:O shaped the world more than DA2 is capable of. It too has a couple of those elements, but they were too few and didn't standout to fulfill the promise that you shaped the world.

BW also allowed you to import DA:O saves in DA2. But that too at best resulted in an optional quest, a cameo or an e-mail to the Normandy... Erm... Hawke Estate. There were several decisions in DA:O that gave different end results and it was fun discovering what you could do with people like Loghain and Anora. Just like the DA2 "decisions" they certainly did not have an effect on the main story of DA2. Bringing back Leliana in DA2 without giving closure when she was killed by your hands in DA:O leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It gives the impression that BW either didn't care or didn't know what they were doing (as in they forgot about being able to kill her).

It's not that I dislike the game. It is not bad. I have even completed it 4 times. Somehow I cannot bring myself to finish that fifth, though. The more I play it, the more I am reminded of those false promises and the bad implementation of the story. A mechanism like the illusion of choice doesn't work in DA2, because that needs real choice from time to time to make it effective. What remains is that any choice you make becomes a rationalization and the more you play it, the more that becomes obvious. The intonation system which is supposed to help the PC act more realistically does more harm than good because of those rationalizations and it just becomes as silly as a gimmick.

All that results in destroying what BW is supposed to be good at: Storytelling.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 27 décembre 2011 - 10:17 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Oops. Double post. Deleted.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 27 décembre 2011 - 09:50 .

[RosaAquafire]

HiroVoid wrote...

So which felt more immersive anyway? I do agree both have different focuses though.

Again, it really depends on what you're asking

As far as a world simulator goes, absolutely Skyrim. You can really believe it's a real place that you're a part of, just for a moment. It's so big and boundless and unrestrained. DA2 is a series of corridors that limit your movements and never feel real. As far as a people simulator goes, DA2. These characters live and love and lose and die and feel. They grow with you or grow away from you, and you see them go through human emotions that you can connect with. Skyrim's people are almost visible code and regurgitated lines.

So what breaks your immersion more? Not being able to cross a pile of rubble into a part of the cave you should obviously be able to reach? Or having the fort cook not seem to notice when you kill the men she works for around her, and just make some comment about how she's been cleaning there for ages?

Different people are gonna give different answers. The point is that neither answer is right

@AngryFrozenWater: absolutely, positively, Skyrim offers more choice. My point is that "more choice" does not equal "better game" if it comes at the extent of structure and writing. Likewise, "more structure" does not equal "better game" if it comes at the expense of choice and openness. Neither is better. They're just different. If what you want in a game is choice more than anything, then Skyrim is the game that you're going to enjoy more. But that doesn't mean it's the metric that every game should be measured by. Sometimes, more options just dilutes the central issue

[Addai]

RosaAquafire wrote...

It's perfectly okay to dislike DA2 or Skyrim based on their own merits. But the statement that DA2 is inferiour because it doesn't allow Skyrim's level of choice is as flawed as the statement that Skyrim is inferiour because it doesn't offer DA2's depth of character and relationship simulation.

And I'm much more engaged by Skyrim's story than I was with DA2.  It's not "flawed" to consider one inferior to the other- it's personal taste.

Bethesda is so good at storytelling.  The oft repeated refrain that they are not drives me to distraction.  It's a different kind of storytelling, that's all.  It's more the Silmarillion kind than the LOTR kind.  You are given glimpses of the epic, beautiful moments, which you must weave together with your imagination.  This engages me far more than long, boring cutscenes strung together between interludes of repetitive combat.  The voiced PC takes me even further out of the process.  I also thought the political story line was set up more realistically and compellingly than the nuthouse that is Kirkwall.

Beyond the matter of taste, there is a clear difference in the amount of time, effort, and attention to detail that went into one game versus the other.  DA2 was simply not a AAA game.  The direction of the franchises are also taking markedly different paths- the one towards restricting the player and stripping the world, the other towards continuing to prioritize player freedom and classic RPG elements and creating an immersive, reactive environment.  EA/ Bioware tried to go cheap and made a large part of their fanbase feel cheated and disappointed.  There are certainly those who are complaining about Skyrim, but there is far more of a sense that TESV actually improves on its predecessor.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 décembre 2011 - 10:50 .

[bl00dsh0t]

I agree with the OP regarding that a straight up comparison between Skyrim and DA2 is kind of pointless since the two games are fundamentally different and enjoyable in their own ways. BUT what can be stated rather clearly is that Skyrim stuck to what it's developers are great at and refined it while DA2 tried to change too much in a too short development cycle to be able to properly deliver what it could have been.

I'm not in the "DA2 is an abomination" camp, but sure as hell not in the "Ohh noes why u hating on bioware for the best game of 2011 = DA2" camp. There were too many things handled in a manner that few of us would've expected of Bioware, and we do expect an excellent game with its share of bugs, not a good game with plenty of flaws.

Skyrim on the other hand delivered pretty much what I expected: A big, open world in which you could do almost anything you wanted but at the cost of any character development or motivating quests save a few that were kinda awesome like the dark brotherhood questline for instance. Still it delivered on my expectations, and even surpassed them in some regards. DA2 did the opposite unfortunately and for every great moment in DA2, of which there actually are couple ;D, it feels like there were dozens in origins and even awakening felt like it did a lot more things right than wrong in retrospect.

tl;dr - Skyrim simplified what was cluttered (except the interface snafu) in past elder scrolls games while staying true to what makes the series great, DA2 had potential to become a better, more polished origins, but fell short on too many aspects to succeed in surpassing origins in most aspects despite good ideas that fell short in part, I assume, due the short dev cycle, as well as the rather heavy cuts on enemy types and choices the felt like they mattered not mattering much at all.

Modifié par bl00dsh0t, 27 décembre 2011 - 10:53 .

[Pedrak]

(reads last post)

What he said.

[AngryFrozenWater]

RosaAquafire wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater: absolutely, positively, Skyrim offers more choice. My point is that "more choice" does not equal "better game" if it comes at the extent of structure and writing. Likewise, "more structure" does not equal "better game" if it comes at the expense of choice and openness. Neither is better. They're just different. If what you want in a game is choice more than anything, then Skyrim is the game that you're going to enjoy more. But that doesn't mean it's the metric that every game should be measured by. Sometimes, more options just dilutes the central issue

That point is irrelevant. If I am promised that the PC would shape the world and the PC is incapable of that then obviously I am going to judge the game and keep its developers responsible for that. I would be perfectly happy with the linearity of the game without that promise. But the damage is done. I don't like being lied to. It is an intentional lie and not a slip of the tongue. It was featured in an official pod cast and in many public statements. BW knew what they were about to release. Skyrim has nothing to do with it. And that was my point.

[FedericoV]

@OP: I understand your points and agree on a general level. But the problem is not so much in term of general philosophy: each company does some things better than others and we know what to expect from every franchise.

But I would add that speaking of Bioware there are many ways to implement good storytelling and linearity. Most Bioware's games give us at least the illusion of freedom and flavour C&C while DA2 removes even those elements: ME1/2, SWKotOR, Jade Empire, DA:O and BG2 implemented some sort of modular linearity that felt better than what DA2 has done, because those games allowed more room for emergent gameplay.

Having said that: when they make a comparison, players/fan/reviewer/whatever simply stress the differences in term of ambition and effort behind Skyrim and DA2. I mean, in Skyrim they put a country worth of content in a DVD. Skyrim expanded what Morrowind and Oblivion has done. DA2 has gone completely in the opposite direction. So, that' why (sub-genre and design goals aside) any comparison between those games feel ridiculous and inappropriate to me.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 décembre 2011 - 12:39 .

[Brockololly]

Addai67 wrote...
Bethesda is so good at storytelling.  The oft repeated refrain that they are not drives me to distraction.  It's a different kind of storytelling, that's all.  It's more the Silmarillion kind than the LOTR kind.  You are given glimpses of the epic, beautiful moments, which you must weave together with your imagination.  This engages me far more than long, boring cutscenes strung together between interludes of repetitive combat.  The voiced PC takes me even further out of the process.  I also thought the political story line was set up more realistically and compellingly than the nuthouse that is Kirkwall.

Yeah, Bethesda does an excellent job in telling little stories through minimal dialogue- just look at some of the dungeons in Skyrim. And they make the world feel believably "alive" through the little details in the world itself and the atmosphere they help foster. Whereas BioWare seems to go the route of more dialogue is the only way to tell a story. Same thing in The Old Republic where they just bloat up every quest with loads of dialogue as a means of trying to instill some sense of engagement in what may amount to fetch quests. Neither method is necessarily better or worse, but in the case of DA2, its like they completely forgot to do anything in terms of making Kirkwall seem like an authentic place and create any sense of atmosphere outside of dialogue.

And its not like its a zero sum game in creating a more open world plus good writing and characters. New Vegas' writing was just as good, if not better than most anything BioWare has done recently, IMO. Thats not to say DA3 needs to be a sandbox game, but exploration and freedom in character creation and progression are pillars of what many people like about Skyrim and really many RPGs in general and I don't feel like DA2 bothered much with those aspects at all, to the great detriment of the final game.

Modifié par Brockololly, 27 décembre 2011 - 07:54 .

[LinksOcarina]

New Vegas was made by Obsidian, not Bethesda, but the writing was pretty good in that one, although debatable on which is better...

But Bethesda is not good at writing. They are good at atmosphere and exploration, making the world feel more alive through these elements and offering immersion through visuals versus interaction and storytelling. That is the aspect that Dragon Age as a series has sort of lacked, but they make up for it with written dialogue and strong characterization.

The Skyrim world is a character, unlike the Dragon Age world (which is a problem because Kirkwall should have been a more prominent character, but in the end it was somewhat dissapointing). That is the difference between the two games really, other than the fact that one is a dungeon crawler and the other is a more traditional RPG. So any real comparison is pointless, both are good games in their respected spheres.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 décembre 2011 - 08:52 .

[xjrobx]

DA2 offered no real choice but also let us not forget that there was very little advancement in tactically preparing for a fight.

I literally made it through boss battles just spamming backstab. I may have died 5 times through the entire play through... maybe. That is not an improvement, it's a decision made to cripple the battles to make a broader audience feel like they accomplished something.

DA:O required some tactical planning which combined with awesome plot and real results from my choices made DA:O one of my favorite games of all time.

The story in DA2 was just ok but definitely not an improvement in the series. The whole game felt like one long side quest. DA3 could use a more open world by staying linear for the first 1/3 of the game then opening up while using your allies to help you prioritize where to travel next to explore the plot.

[phaonica]

I generally have completely different expectations from the two franchises. I expect an Elder Scrolls game to have a sandbox world, but I don't expect individual characters or even the final boss to be very interesting. I expect an Elder Scrolls game to focus on the exploration of a setting. As opposed to that, I expect a Dragon Age game to focus on characters and the exploration of choices, consequences, and relationships.

I actually find DAO to be more interesting than Skyrim and think that the Dragon Age series has the chance to be *far* better than Elder Scrolls if it *doesn't* try too hard to be like Skyrim. I don't need a sandbox world in my Dragon Age; what I'd like is to see is Dragon Age focus more on visual consequences and non-linear *narratives*, NOT sandbox settings.

Modifié par phaonica, 27 décembre 2011 - 10:34 .

[FaWa]

motomotogirl wrote...
The only thing it had going for it were it's characters, wonderful guys like Zevran, Alistair, and Wynne.

Out of all the characters in DAO, you chose Wynne as one of your favorites? "My goal is to ****block Alistair" Wynne? "I lurve the chantry enslavement" Wynne?

[HiroVoid]

phaonica wrote...

I generally have completely different expectations from the two franchises. I expect an Elder Scrolls game to have a sandbox world, but I don't expect individual characters or even the final boss to be very interesting. I expect an Elder Scrolls game to focus on the exploration of a setting. As opposed to that, I expect a Dragon Age game to focus on characters and the exploration of choices, consequences, and relationships.

I actually find DAO to be more interesting than Skyrim and think that the Dragon Age series has the chance to be *far* better than Elder Scrolls if it *doesn't* try too hard to be like Skyrim. I don't need a sandbox world in my Dragon Age; what I'd like is to see is Dragon Age focus more on visual consequences and non-linear *narratives*, NOT sandbox settings.

Surprisingly, I find it the opposite way.  Dragon Age could never be a sandbox really while if Elder Scrolls focused more on story and dialogue, they could have both a sandbox and a wonderful story.

[Sylvianus]

Brockololly wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Bethesda is so good at storytelling.  The oft repeated refrain that they are not drives me to distraction.  It's a different kind of storytelling, that's all.  It's more the Silmarillion kind than the LOTR kind.  I also thought the political story line was set up more realistically and compellingly than the nuthouse that is Kirkwall.

Yeah, Bethesda does an excellent job in telling little stories through minimal dialogue- just look at some of the dungeons in Skyrim. And they make the world feel believably "alive" through the little details in the world itself and the atmosphere they help foster. Whereas BioWare seems to go the route of more dialogue is the only way to tell a story.

but in the case of DA2, its like they completely forgot to do anything in terms of making Kirkwall seem like an authentic place and create any sense of atmosphere outside of dialogue.

I agree. Skyrim surprised me a lot. ( my first bethesda game is oblivion )

What's cool is the prospect of being able to imagine they are going in the right direction.
The hard part with the dragon age franchise, is after DA2 we're not sure where we go. We'll see.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 27 décembre 2011 - 11:01 .

[phaonica]

HiroVoid wrote...

Surprisingly, I find it the opposite way.  Dragon Age could never be a sandbox really while if Elder Scrolls focused more on story and dialogue, they could have both a sandbox and a wonderful story.

I see what you're saying, that the Elder Scrolls could probably pull off the "best of both worlds" games, while Dragon Age doesn't seem like it would make a good sandbox game. I don't know if that's true, though. If I consider my Warden running around a landscape like Skyrim's, or consider what Orzammar or Kirkwall might have looked like using graphics similar to Skyrim's... it doesn't seem too far-fetched. The main hinderance I could see to doing something like that is maintaining Dragon Age's party-based battle system.

Still, a sandbox world isn't required for a great game, imo. For me, the story is most important, and the more power the player has to mold the direction of the story, the better. The Elder Scrolls and DAO both do this to an extent. I think that Dragon Age would be better off focusing on its storytelling, rather than trying too hard to have a sandbox world. Ultimately, to me, it doesn't matter which one is better if they're both *great*.

[CuriousArtemis]

FaWa wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...
The only thing it had going for it were it's characters, wonderful guys like Zevran, Alistair, and Wynne.

Out of all the characters in DAO, you chose Wynne as one of your favorites? "My goal is to ****block Alistair" Wynne? "I lurve the chantry enslavement" Wynne?

Yeah I really like Wynne.  I've always liked her.  I don't know about the Alistair thing because I never romanced him.  And she gave me a different view of the Chantry, a view I hadn't considered before.  I played DA2 before I playged DA:O.  So it was odd to play with someone who was pro-Chantry and a mage.

The one character in DA:O I hate is Leliana but that's neither here nor there.  

[Fast Jimmy]

Wynne didn't just object to you romancing Allistair, she pretty much objected to any romance option across the board. And her converns were quite valid, being in the middle of a struggle for survival with a small, tight knit group of people can create some strife if romance problems arise.

And she voiced concerns about the Chantry's involvement with mages, but honestly? I'm not a pro-Chantry/Templar sort, but NONE of the free mages we've seen are any indication that the Chantry/Tower solution isn't the best.

We've got Jowan, a blood mage who winds up poisoning an Arl. You've got Morrigan, who will get snooty if you actually try to help anyone and will wind up wanting to absorb an arch demon into her uterus. The crazy old man in the Brecillian Forest, who tries to kill you if you don't play his crazy riddle game. Anders who does REALLY bad things at the end of DA2. Merril, who seems intent on repairing a corrupted artifact with blood magic and demons and makes everyone pay for her choices. A host of NPC bad guys/villains from both DAO and DA2 who Abominate and Blood Mage at the slightest hint of nothing. A Dream Walker who can't control his powers worth squat. And anyone from Tevinter, who are either slavers, blood mages or a combination of both.

The only people in the entire DA franchise who had been apostates (or at least non-Circle members) and HAVEN'T done extremely horrifying things are Bethany, Ethan and Mage Hawke. So, apparently, the Hawke's are the only legitimate argument for anything outside of Templar control of mages.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 décembre 2011 - 04:29 .

[Faded_Jeans]

And I will never get from Skyrim the feeling that DA2 gives me of being a part of a real story crafted by skilled writers who had a vision to share, surrounded by characters who feel real, who I can fool myself into thinking really care about me. 

I would agree with you, if it didn't feel like the story itself (in DA2) was dumbed down for a younger market.

I thought the story in DA:O was much better, and was very impressed by the many starting points.

I look forward to seeing how they craft DA3, but I secretly fear that if they dumb it down again, it will have more in common with Mario Brothers than where they began.

Right now, I'm on my second playthrough of Skyrim, and looking forward to my third.  Don't plan on ever playing DA2 again.

Can't say the same for Mass Effect.  That game just keeps getting better.