410 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

Joy Divison wrote...

@ Hoorayforicecream:

Excellent post except for "People who dislike the game tend to look at the first list and try to lump those issues in with their opinions on the third list as justification."

Justification?  Why do critics of the game need to "justify" their opinions of things they don't like in the third part of your list?  Speaking for myself, if I include a list of asepcts of the game I dislike, I don't "lump" in paratroop reinforcements with the fast-paced combat system which lends itself to mindlessly hitting the "attack nearest enemy" button repeatedly not because I wish to undermine the fast-based combat choice with something everyone knows is bad, it is because I dislike both elements.

People tend to use things that are generally and universally disliked (list 1), and say that the reason that people disliked the stuff from list 1 was actually a reason from list 3. This is an attempt at justifying their opinion on something (list 3) by misappropriating the actual reasoning (list 1). By saying "lots of people dislike the game because of X", then do things like quote sales numbers, they are oversimplifying the issue in an attempt to sway whoever may be reading. I find that disingenuous, because it's oversimplifying a rather complex bundle of issues (typically) to a single one for the sake of an argument.

When it comes down to it, without actual hard evidence, noone can definitively say what the main reasons are. The only thing you can do is present your opinion and speculate, but I personally dislike it when people try to present their speculation as if it were fact, and then support their speculation with specious logic. I have my opinions on list 3, but I recognize that they're just that - opinions. I can support them with evidence from the game and my own personal experience, but I don't feel it is necessary or helpful to resort to ad populum arguments as justifications for an opinion. 

[DarkHod]

JeeWeeJ wrote...

while I see a lot of criticism (I refuse to use the word hate) from the people who dont really care about that and just want a deep, complex and epic story where their choices matter.

This is all I wanted from the game.

With ME3 about to drop I'm worried that BioWare will announce the next DA. This is the last thing I want as I'd hate for the game to recieve the same corner cutting as number 2 recieved due to an insanely sort development period.

DA2 was a massive tarnish on the series for me, and reflected badly on BioWare as a whole. Though, unlike most people on here, I didn't moan endlessly yet still replay the game and buy the DLC. I played the game once and traded it in, I haven't touched the DLC.

Hopefully BioWare don't announce DA3 anytime soon and give it some serious development time. If the game is announced and we see the same problems as before (lacking story, dangling plot threads, two locations) then I will be giving up on the series.

[JeeWeeJ]

DarkHod wrote...

JeeWeeJ wrote...

while I see a lot of criticism (I refuse to use the word hate) from the people who dont really care about that and just want a deep, complex and epic story where their choices matter.

This is all I wanted from the game.

With ME3 about to drop I'm worried that BioWare will announce the next DA. This is the last thing I want as I'd hate for the game to recieve the same corner cutting as number 2 recieved due to an insanely sort development period.

DA2 was a massive tarnish on the series for me, and reflected badly on BioWare as a whole. Though, unlike most people on here, I didn't moan endlessly yet still replay the game and buy the DLC. I played the game once and traded it in, I haven't touched the DLC.

Hopefully BioWare don't announce DA3 anytime soon and give it some serious development time. If the game is announced and we see the same problems as before (lacking story, dangling plot threads, two locations) then I will be giving up on the series.

This is my worry aswel. I've said it before in another post but I'm truely afraid of what they are going to announce in that PAX panel. Why? Because I've got the nasty feeling the type of game I love so much (classical, deep and complex RPG's) and of which Bioware was the undisputed master, will be killed in favour of the action-RPG or RPG-lite. And as a longtime fan, this truely saddens me. So I'm spamming these forums in the hope for a miracle of somekind..

And it's the same here with my treatment of DA2. Played it once, put it back in my DVD rack next to my other Bioware games and haven't touched it since. Also havent bought any DLC, just to make a personal statement.

And Hoorayforicecream, I totally agree with you that nobody can tell anyone that a game sucks (as a fact) because he/she didn't like it. We can share opinions though.

Modifié par JeeWeeJ, 03 mars 2012 - 07:25 .

[Joy Divison]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

@ Hoorayforicecream:

Excellent post except for "People who dislike the game tend to look at the first list and try to lump those issues in with their opinions on the third list as justification."

Justification?  Why do critics of the game need to "justify" their opinions of things they don't like in the third part of your list?  Speaking for myself, if I include a list of asepcts of the game I dislike, I don't "lump" in paratroop reinforcements with the fast-paced combat system which lends itself to mindlessly hitting the "attack nearest enemy" button repeatedly not because I wish to undermine the fast-based combat choice with something everyone knows is bad, it is because I dislike both elements.

People tend to use things that are generally and universally disliked (list 1), and say that the reason that people disliked the stuff from list 1 was actually a reason from list 3. This is an attempt at justifying their opinion on something (list 3) by misappropriating the actual reasoning (list 1). By saying "lots of people dislike the game because of X", then do things like quote sales numbers, they are oversimplifying the issue in an attempt to sway whoever may be reading. I find that disingenuous, because it's oversimplifying a rather complex bundle of issues (typically) to a single one for the sake of an argument.

When it comes down to it, without actual hard evidence, noone can definitively say what the main reasons are. The only thing you can do is present your opinion and speculate, but I personally dislike it when people try to present their speculation as if it were fact, and then support their speculation with specious logic. I have my opinions on list 3, but I recognize that they're just that - opinions. I can support them with evidence from the game and my own personal experience, but I don't feel it is necessary or helpful to resort to ad populum arguments as justifications for an opinion. 

Maybe, but I think you underestimate how much list 1 and list 3 can be connected.  Every games has its list 1 and list 3 and that includes the DA:Os and the Skyrims.  Of course, we don't see anywhere near the mass complaints about DA:O's and Skyrim's and The Witcher's flaws as we do about DA:2 even though they've got them.  I cant speak for everyone, but I am much more forgiving about the list 1 in games if the overall game's qualities and changes in list 3 outweigh its flaws, i.e. I tend to evaluate games holistically.  So in the vast majority of my posts about DA:O and Skyrim, I make no mention about list 1 because its not representative of how I feel about a game: if I very much like it, most of the time I won't bag on it.

If the game's flaws are either too numerous or too significant that its other qualities make them into something more than minor inconviences and I am disappointed or dislike the purchase, then I will include stuff from list 1 and list 3 in my commentary.  In short, I only really pay attention to list 1 if there is too much stuff in list 3 I dislike.

And I think that explains why games get a good vibe or a bad one; metacritic scores of 0 or 10; haters and apologists; and why list 1 gets "lumped" in with list 3.   

Modifié par Joy Divison, 03 mars 2012 - 10:47 .

[Jerrybnsn]

They can go a head and announce "Dragon Age: The Apology" this spring if they would like and still take all the time they need to build a project that they are happy with. Origins was announced in 2005 and didn't come out until four years later.

[DadeLeviathan]

 I don't hate dragon age 2. I love it. But I don't love it as much as Dragon Age: Origins. And honestly, I think that's where most of the hate comes from. Dragon Age 2, by itself, is a good game, a great game, even a fantastic game. The character development is some of the best that Bioware has ever done, and the combat is far more streamlined and fun without being 'dumbed down.' 

With that said, however, while Dragon Age 2 is a great game, it is not a good sequel. The reason for that is because it does not expound upon the good design decisions within the first game. The world is far smaller without more depth, and the dialogue is far more limited without, again, more depth. Kirkwall is barely larger than Denerim and Amaranthine combined and in a game that is a sequel to a game that had such a large game world, that is a fault. If Kirkwall had been half the size of the entire first game, that would have done a lot to curb most of the DA2 'hate.' 

Additionally, the combat system while more streamlined has a lot more flaws. While Boss battles in DAO were, at the worst of times, at least tolerable, Boss battles are boring for the most part in DA2. Even in nightmare difficulty, most boss battles come down to, "Survive as long as you can, and wait until your attacks wear down the Boss's enormous amount of health." That, at the end of the day, is simply not good design. While the rest of the combat system does its best to make up for that significant flaw, it is still significant enough that rest of the game suffers for it. The only boss battle in the entire game that isn't an utter chore, is the final battle. While that gives a tiny bit of redemption, it also serves to highlight how bad the other boss battles are. The Dragon fight in act 3, especially, was an exercise in frustration. Mind you, I'm not talking about DLC here, just the main game.

Additionally, many things that were staples of the original game, such as choosing your own origin, and choosing your voice actor, were taken out of this game, some for obvious reasons (i.e. they wanted a voice protagonist which drastically reduces the amount of choices since it drastically increases the budget) and some were taken out for reasons that many people weren't sure of. Many fans of the original Dragon Age cannot stand the mass effect dialogue wheel, so when it was announced it would be in Dragon Age 2, they felt betrayed. 

Finally, Dragon Age: Origins was all about harkening back to Bioware's roots. It was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2. And while Dragon Age: origins succeeded at this, Dragon Age 2 did not. This is not a bad thing, not at all. Dragon Age 2 is far more of its 'own' game, but still many fans of Dragon Age felt betrayed when what they felt was the 'core' of the dragon age experience was taken out. 


So from where I'm standing, that's where most of the 'hate,' comes from. Overall, Dragon Age 2 is a great game. It just suffered from the unfortunate event of not being as good as its predecessor. 

[alex90c]

So "lol they want more origins" basically.

Errr no, we just expected better than DA2.

[AnImpossibleGirl]

It simply was not Origins...and lacked depth and explanations. More questions less answers. Alone, under a different title, it may have been beloved but under the Dragon Age banner...not so much.

[Realmzmaster]

I like both DA2 and DAO equally. I liked the combat much more in DA2 than DAO especially mage and rogue combat. I like games with more questions than answers because it may mean that somewhere in the series all will be revealed. Much like Wizardry, Ultima, Might and Magic, Bards Tale, and Baldur's Gate.

[Nincehelser]

 I agree with the majority of these posts: I do not hate DA2. Rather, I was severely disappointed with the "rushed" feel to the game.  Waves of enemies that have little to no reason to attack me, labeled only as "slavers" or "thieves" in order to make them evil, broke the immersion factor so necessary in RPGs, as did the copy-pasted dungeons.  

With so much of their target audience introduced to the DA world and story via DA:O, the fact that the DA2 team felt it necessary to change the appearance of the elves, qunari, Flemeth, and darkspawn (re: everyone but dwarves and humans) further added to the immersion breakage (not to mention how creepy Bodahn and Sandal look).  This also prevented us (or at least me) from drawing logical parallels between the worlds of DA:O and DA2, which is so important in a sequel.  Had it at least been marketed as DA:Kirkwall, at least it would have some excuse.

As a further note, the difference between the choices of DA2 and every other BioWare game is that in DA2, everychoice you make is wrong.  It's difficult to explain without spoilers, but at every major plot climax, no matter what you do ends in a terrible event. Had Hawke not come to Kirkwall, the world would be a better place by the end of the story.

(In a side-note, in DA:O the fact that the elves were indistinguishable from humans, just slightly smaller was a huge social commentary on the world of Thedas.  Just because elves were smaller and weaker, they were treated like indentured servants at the best of times, and less than slaves at the worst.  This was a world where the strong dominated the weak, and even the best of people did nothing to change the status quo.  With the change of the elves' appearance, this threw that whole reasoning out the door. The elves now look totally different, and even the real world has far too many cases where a difference of appearance means a difference of treatment.  You can blame that on human nature.)

Sorry, that got long-winded.

[Kroitz]

Every time a thread asks this question it´s only dripping oil in the flames. Just accept that there are people who dislike this game (even with some kind of passion) and let´s move on.

[JeeWeeJ]

Nincehelser wrote...

With so much of their target audience introduced to the DA world and story via DA:O, the fact that the DA2 team felt it necessary to change the appearance of the elves, qunari, Flemeth, and darkspawn (re: everyone but dwarves and humans) further added to the immersion breakage (not to mention how creepy Bodahn and Sandal look). This also prevented us (or at least me) from drawing logical parallels between the worlds of DA:O and DA2, which is so important in a sequel. Had it at least been marketed as DA:Kirkwall, at least it would have some excuse.

This is somethings that bothered me soooooooo much. It just wasn't the Dragon Age world I had become used to.

[K_Tabris]

People that were looking for a new Origins style of game were not going to get it. That game is massive, incredibly varied and would have taken much longer to develop one of it's par. While I hesitate to call DA2 a cash grab, it may as well have been. I honestly don't think the devs were given a time limit, which led to many of the technical problems and limitations in the game. On the other hand, the framed narrative style, one ending, and other issues people seem to have aren't necessarily a big deal. It just didn't meet fan expectations.

[TEWR]

[quote]hoorayforicecream wrote...

Badly hidden waves of combat

Repetitive battle sequences

Recycled map use

Short development cycle
[/quote]

You made a good list of complaints of the game and -- even though I disagree with the rationale for people that disliked the game that you stated later on in your post -- I do want to address these things you brought up. Feel free to respond if you wish and I'll do the same, but I'm just using what you said to address the thread itself so by no means should you feel obligated.

I find that these are truly the only real complaints that have been focused on by the devs. Undeniably, choice does matter in Legacy. But choice doesn't matter in MotA, so I feel that Bioware is focusing solely on these complaints and if they have time then do they focus on choice. It seems they haven't really learned from the folly that was focusing on gameplay over story.

Of which, these are the core complaints made by most -- if not all -- of the people that liked DAII. Now sure, DAII haters -- I dislike the term haters as it has a negative connotation these days, even if people that hate DAII do in fact hate it -- also made these complaints.

But I think it says something when these are the focused on complaints and other complaints made by the haters aren't truly addressed.

Bioware has said over the last year that they're "listening". But are they acting? IMO, they aren't really based on MotA. Actions speak louder then words.

[quote]
Sufficient recognition of the effects of choices[/quote]

To further my point, Legacy was a nice change of pace where choice did matter, even if the grand finale to the DLC was virtually the same.

And for a while, I was hopeful.

"Hey", I thought to myself happily. "Bioware seems to be listening. My choices did matter in Legacy."

Then MotA came along with its anti-Qunari choice at the end. My hopes were dashed, as this was actually something Bioware -- and specifically, John Epler -- was keen on addressing. Where control from the player was sacrificed for the part of the narrative.

Now, I'm not saying an anti-Qunari Hawke should've killed the person in question. Far from it. But I see no need to rehash my ideas on what should've happened and post them here. Suffice to say, I will link to the threads in question and you and other posters may read them at your/their own discretion (THERE WILL BE SPOILERS).

http://social.biowar...ndex/8033475/13

http://social.biowar...4/index/8950836


[quote]
Insufficiently hidden rails - DAO was very linear as well, but it hid the rails better.[/quote]

Much better, as DAII made virtually no attempt -- if it made any at all -- at hiding the rails.

And it didn't even have to be as critically railroaded as it was. There could have been diverging paths in the story where decisions were still wrapped up fairly, neatly, and wouldn't present many cases of importing over into other games.


[quote]
Some items did not feel like they were worth looting (trash items specifically)[/quote]

I much preferred DAO's loot/junk, but I did prefer DAII's system of "auto-sorting". In DAO, I could find Diamonds, Garnets, etc. All of them were more valuable then much of DAII's "loot" consisting of Torn Trousers, Armor Fragments, Rusted Spoons, and the like.

Very rarely would I find something worth more money then three bits.

[quote]
Insufficient differentiation of results from critical path plot choices, e.g. final boss fight is the same regardless of choices.[/quote]

For the final boss fight, I wouldn't have minded that so much had a certain artifact been handled to actually help make the situation morally grey.

For the pre-final boss fight, I have to wonder why Bioware thought removing choice for MOAR boss fights was a good idea in the first place.

I could recount a few ways how that could've been handled better, if this were in the Spoiler section. But it's not -- and I'm not asking that it should be -- so I won't.


[quote]Some of the things that were outside of developer control, but people complain about anyway:[list]

Overzealous marketing[/quote]

When the devs make the same comments in regards to what DAII is going to be as the marketing guys did, then it wasn't outside of their control.

And marketing shouldn't even lie in the first place. False advertising is a crime and will hurt a game company's credibility in the future, as well as its potential sales.


[quote]
Publisher influence[/quote]

That depends on who brought the idea of the 2 year dev cycle to EA's table, doesn't it? If it was Bioware that gave the idea to EA, then it is their fault and wasn't outside of their control.

If it was vice versa, then I agree that it wasn't within their control.

I've seen people claim both arguments and I dont' know which is fact. Some say EA told Bioware to make a game in 2 years while others say Bioware told EA.

I've seen people even claim that Bioware is EA, which makes sense. But it wouldn't make sense to say EA told EA to do this, unless EA refers to itself in the 3rd person.

Also, I find that the devs are to blame for the dev cycle. They halted DAO DLC with the reasoning of "DAII coming along great!" and similar statements -- albeit I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of their comments -- and now they're admitting they rushed the game. From the musical composer to the lead writer to some of the other devs themselves.

In the end, they have only themselves to blame.



[quote]And then there are the thing[s that are genuinely different on purpose, that some people didn't like, but others did. These tend to be much more hotly debated topics.[list]

Voiced protagonist[/quote]

I enjoy the concept of a voiced protagonist, but I think the overall implementation of the system -- Voice, lines spoken, personality system, etc. -- was flawed.

[quote]
Dialogue Wheel vs Not Dialogue Wheel[/quote]

I'm opposed to the Dialogue Wheel on principle and would prefer to see the whole line. I wouldn't skip hearing it. Part of the joy of the line spoken now to me is hearing it.

There's no reason why Bioware can't cater to both portions of the fanbase by refining the system. And there have been plenty of posts detailing such possible methods, ranging from toggles to a full on revamp of the dialogue system that would allow for both sides to enjoy their preferred method.


[quote]
Set character background vs lots of origins[/quote]

No reason aside from the short dev cycle DAII couldn't have done class-based origins showing life in Lothering and fighting at Ostagar -- for Warriors and Rogues anyhow -- and then gone to where you escape from Lothering.

And I mean an actual escape from Lothering. Not an escape from lands on the outskirts of Lothering.

[quote]
Faster-paced combat system vs Slower paced combat (Note: this is not the same thing as encounter design) [/quote]

I enjoy the new basic animations but feel that they also need to be used by all of the enemies. At least to a certain extent. Maybe not all of the animations but at least some of them.

I also feel that certain abilities are too over the top, especially when cutscenes prove that you can do such a thing without incident.

Like stabbing yourself in the stomach with a staff, and then being fine with it afterwards as if you didn't just do that.

[quote]
Talent trees instead of talent progression[/quote]

It has my staunch approval what DAII did.


[quote]
Cross class Combos[/quote]

As was pointed out earlier, DAO had cross class combos as well. To a lesser extent? Yes. But they were there.
 
[quote]
and strong class differentiation, instead of freedom to customize a dual wielding warrior, or heavily armored mage[/quote]

I'd be fine with Mages being only able to equip staves -- or alternatively staves and the other weapons -- and not having any of the weapon skill trees to go with them. Arcane Warrior was a bone thrown to us in DAO.

What I want, what's most important to me, is that I have a guarantee. No more attempts at class restrictions.

The Mages are a tricky issue. Were Arcane Warrior to return, this would be the perfect way for the PC to be able to equip whatever weapon he/she desired. The Arcane Warrior could grant the Mage the ability to pick one of the non-mage trees to have added to his list. And then he could learn them and/or Arcane Warrior talents.

On the other hand, it presents a dilemma for what the other Mage characters would be able to equip, as well as the PC sans the Arcane Warrior spec. The other Mages are restricted into specific class trees. I guess they could all be able to equip the weapons, but not have access to the abilities associated with them.

And for the PC, well, I've addressed that.

Non-Mages should be able to equip whatever they want and have access to the trees associated with them, but perhaps where one ability might require a Warrior to have a certain amount of strength a Rogue would need more.

After all, we don't want the classes to become irrelevant and have everyone being what they want.

Onto armor.

Taken from what I wrote in another thread:

I wonder why -- and more importantly, if -- Bioware can't do a combination of both systems.

You give the followers unique looks but also allow the player to equip whatever they want on them. If the problem is the latter renders the unique body models irrelevant, why can't the unique body models be swapped for the generic ones when you equip something other then the unique armor on a companion?

I have a feeling I phrased that poorly and if left as is then people might get the wrong idea, so let me explain further using Aveline as an example.

Okay, let's say you pick up a set of armor fit for a Rogue but you want Aveline to swap out her Captain of the Guardsmen Uniform for this specific armor. She's got a unique body model with the former equipped, but once the player equips the Rogue armor, her body automatically swaps itself for a generic human female body.

Then, say a cutscene tailored to her unique body model comes up in say her office in the barracks. Then just have her automatically re-equip the Guardsmen uniform and have the Rogue armor find its way back into the player's inventory, where after the cutscene he/she can put Aveline back into it.

[quote]
All love interests are bisexual[/quote]

I found that for DAII it was mere circumstance -- along with each character's story -- that brought the four bisexual people into one city.

But I also would prefer it if bisexual romances didn't become the norm. I don't want every companion to always be bisexual.

This isn't something I'm fit to go in depth on, but there are a few ideas bouncing around in my head right now.

They'll probably be lost in a few hours though.


[quote]
More cinematic conversations (e.g. the ability change camera angles or a character to throw a wine bottle, sit at a table, or move around during the conversation), vs conversation anywhere[/quote]

There should be a balance between the two. The more cinematic approach added with the ability to talk to a companion anytime (which isn't synonymous with anywhere).

I also find that DAII's dialogue with the companions was too short. Yes it was the same amount as DAO's, but that's my point actually. DAO has a year's worth of dialogue with the companions in one game. Whereas DAII spans 7 years and is playable for 3-4, yet only has 1 year's worth of dialogue in it.

I find that as a result, it just barely got away with doing this but needed far more dialogue in it.




[quote]
DA2 Characters vs DAO Characters[/quote]

It still hurts me whenever people criticize Merrill


[quote]
Iconic looks vs Customized appearances[/quote]

Addressed above.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 mars 2012 - 03:00 .

[Rawgrim]

DA2 never felt like a roleplaying game (to me). DA:O absolutely did.

[chris fenton]

I didn't hate this game. It was the worst Bioware game I've ever played, and I still enjoyed it.

[Melca36]

NovinhaShepard wrote...

People that were looking for a new Origins style of game were not going to get it. That game is massive, incredibly varied and would have taken much longer to develop one of it's par. While I hesitate to call DA2 a cash grab, it may as well have been. I honestly don't think the devs were given a time limit, which led to many of the technical problems and limitations in the game. On the other hand, the framed narrative style, one ending, and other issues people seem to have aren't necessarily a big deal. It just didn't meet fan expectations.

Its already been quoted by the developers that they had a time limit. 

[Melca36]

Didn't hate the game. I enjoyed it for what it was but it could have been a BETTER game.

[Joy Divison]

"Sufficient recognition of the effects of choices"

Unfortunately this is in the eye of the Beholder. For someone who bemoans the lack of such TEWR, I am surprised that you deem it ok and thus, "sufficient," to say that a Hawke 100% auto-fail attempt to take the scroll from Tallis qualifies.

If it is that easy to satisfy someone such as yourself who is a harsh critic of having no choice, imagine how easy it is for Bioware to satisfy the many fans out there who do not put nearly as much stock into choice as you.

[elearon1]

I loved DA2 in ways I didn't enjoy the first one. I replayed it far more than I did the original game and aside from the poorly executed third act, and reused maps, thought it was an outstanding piece of game design. It stands as one of my favorite crpgs - above Origins on that list by head and shoulders.

But, then, I am a big fan of the more personal stories, rather than the "save the world" shtick.

[Kelarq]

I would prefer Bioware sit on Dragon Age 3 for a few years, and come back to it with a fresh perspective and new, innovative ideas. I'm afraid they'll rush the next installment to redeem the name of the franchise, and it will manage to displease fans of both Origins and DA2. And if this next one is met with the same criticism as DA2, I think they'll drop the franchise altogether...

[Magicman10893]

I actually liked Dragon Age 2. Admittedly it wasn't as good as Origins, but I still like it a lot. If Origins was a 10/10 than this game would be a 7.5 or an 8. I liked the new combat system, the dialogue system, the characters, and the story (surprise! considering how every hates the story so bad I actually like it, but I will get to it later).

The only things I hated were:
1) Not being able to equip armor to allies
2) classes being too defined
3) Reused areas
4) Being confined to small city

The rest of the game I really enjoyed. The story of Dragon Age 2 fit pretty well into the overarching story line. If you look at the major events and problems from Dragon Age Origins you see that it is all caused be Blood Magic (or at least magic in the wrong hands). Then when you consider that the "main" events of Dragon Age 2 are about the Mages and Templars going to war it all makes sense.

Also, I really liked the touch that Human Mage Warden is Hawk's cousin. It really hit home for me. I hope that Dragon Age 3 is either about Hawk or another family member because I like the idea of 1 powerful, extended family saving the world multiple times over.

[ScotGaymer]

I don't get why the OP even play's RPGs at all if he doesnt like stories with choices and consequences.

Choices and Consequences are pretty much an integral part of Role Playing and thus pretty much mean that without them you cant really call your game an RPG. I mean the fact that its called a Role Playing Game pretty much gives it away.

Seems to me like he would be better off playing an FPS, or some sort of Action Adventure game rather than playing RPGs.

I mean if you dont want to role play then you really aught not to play role playing games.

The fact that he can't seem to wrap his head around the concept, and thus why people were dissatisfied with DA2, is mind boggling to me.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 04 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[slimgrin]

Faerloch wrote...

DA2's graphics and overall gameplay are a vast improvement from Origins.

No way in hell is this the case, DA2 looks like sh*t. It has some of the worst art design I've seen. Never got past the demo, and I wouldn't play the game if I was paid to.

Modifié par slimgrin, 04 mars 2012 - 09:50 .

[Nighteye2]

Too many differences from DA:O, its predecessor - and not all of them improvements, either.
- The system with monster waves and lack of overhead camera made combat worse than DA:O
- The paraphrases and the dialogue wheel made conversations worse and removed the sense of the player being in control of the PC
- The art style was less dark than DA:O, making darkspawn look more ridiculous than scary.
- The lack of a clear purpose, especially in the beginning; in DA:O it was clear that you were up against the darkspawn. DA2 has you raising money to go on some expedition for some reason so insignificant I've already forgotten it.
- The censorship of sex scenes; the underwear staying on in DA:O was bad enough, but DA2 kept even more clothes on.
- Merrill: she looks underage, but she's also a romance interest >_>

The only thing better than DA:O is the graphics engine - in all other aspect DA:O was a better game. That DA2 was still a reasonably good game considering says more about DA:O than about DA2.

And that's another thing: fans of DA:O were expecting another game that would be just as great. Instead, they got very disappointed with DA2.

Hopefully DA3 will be a true sucessor to DA:O, the game that DA2 should have been. :innocent: