51 réponses à ce sujet

[Cold_Breaker12]

 So after the whole mass effect 3 ending debacle im scared to try play dragonage because i heard da2 was bad (never played so dont know how it failed)

my question is should i invest my time in playing these games or has bioware lost thier touch?
Are the games any good?

[Eternal Phoenix]

You should certainly play Dragon Age: Origins. It has an ending unlike Dragon Age 2 so there's nothing to worry about with Origins. I wouldn't recommend Dragon Age 2 as much but it was still enjoyable. Regardless of how the DA series turns out or how much Bioware change you should still play Origins at least. I'd say that Origins is one of the best RPG's out there and hands-down beats all Mass Effect games in terms of story, characters, gameplay, quests, customization and choices with consequences.

While the sequel is called Dragon Age 2 it doesn't really continue the story from Origins because that story ends with Origin. You get a few references to Origins in DA2 and the plot of Origins is the reason why your character in DA2 goes to Kirkwall but other than there's zero relation really. Each Dragon Age game is about a different character and different events.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 22 avril 2012 - 02:39 .

[Maria Caliban]

Yes.

[devSin]

As somebody who was crushed by how horrible the ending to ME3 was... I'd say absolutely.

I'm not sure whether you would like them (they're quite a bit different than ME), but they are great games. DA2 is kind of crappy for a BioWare game, but it's still a good game.

When you play a Dragon Age game, you realize this is what BioWare was put here to do.

[Darth Krytie]

I enjoyed both DA:O and DA:2 incredibly much. So, I'd say they both were worth it.

[Bizantura]

Scared to play a game is simply stupid.

Playing a game is a very personal experience and asking what others think is very subjective at best.

Play the games and make up you own mind is the best way to go especially since both games are budget friendly.

[Sejborg]

Dragon Age: Origins is the best RPG in a long time. I highly recommend playing that.

Don't waste your money or time on DA2.

[goofyomnivore]

DA:O is a great game it is cliche as hell, but cliche done very well. It is your typical BioWare RPG. If you enjoyed ME, KOTOR, BG, etc you will enjoy DA:O.

Now DA:2 is a different animal. If you're expecting something close to DA:O you will be upset and disappointed. It is much different instead of being a typical BioWare RPG, it has some new interesting concepts executed with mix results, and you can tell it had a fraction of development time DA:O had (recycled maps, lack of story paths, etc).

DA:O is a crash course on the lore, universe, etc while you also get to be a big goddam hero and save Thedas. DA:2 focuses on one of those 'issues' you sorta glaze over in Origins and sets it up into the 'world shaping' conflict it becomes.

So I guess you could say DA:O is an intro to the lore of Thedas and DA:2 is an intro to the central conflicts of Thedas.

I'd rate Origins like a 9/10 and DA:2 a 7/10.

[yetiawesome]

Origins is a very conventional fantasy game. Now it does those conventions very well and does to a nice job of deconstructing certain things but you will not be really shocked by anything in Origins. The combat is a bit of a molasses feel to it. I would really recommend it but if you don't like the fantasy genre it might be less interesting.

DA 2 is somewhat more controversial in that it focus much more on the plight of a refugee and his rise to fame while also doing a lot to set up further plot threads. Now I don't like 2 and much as Origins due to the fact that it's story feels much more disjointed, there is a lot less sense of choice in your actions and the game has a couple of big plot holes. It's not terrible by any means, having solid characters (albeit a bit static) and some interesting moral dilemmas (again not properly explored or acted upon) so meh. Pick it up for cheap.

All in all I would recommend both but more so Origins

[Amycus89]

DA:O was great with several different endings depending on your previous choices.
DA2 however... aside from a nonconsistant story and reused maps, the ending was the same no matter what you did in the end, and didn't make any sense. Me3 got differently coloured explosions at least...

Modifié par Amycus89, 22 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[BomberJR]

If you enjoyed old school(pre EA) Bioware stuff, then you will enjoy DAO.

[Jpherb]

I loved them both.

[nightscrawl]

Jpherb wrote...

I loved them both.

Same here. I would certainly recommend playing both, in order.

Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening, Dragon Age 2

You you don't mind spending money, and want a complete story experience go for the following, then you will be all caught up...
Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne (novel)
Dragon Age: The Calling (novel)
Dragon Age: Origins
Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening (expansion to Origins)
Golems of Amgarrak (DLC)
Witch Hunt (DLC)
Dragon Age 2
Dragon Age: Asunder (novel)

Just playing the games is enough of course, but the two pre-Origins novels especially enhance your perspective on the world and some of the characters.

[haroldhardluck]

Cold_Breaker12 wrote...
my question is should i invest my time in playing these games or has bioware lost thier touch?
Are the games any good?

Both are great games but their scopes are different. In DAO you get to save the whole of Fereldon. In DA2 you are saving only your immediate family. While both game stories happen contemperaneously they actually have little in common. Some characters from DAO make cameos in the DA2 though. The one DAO character who has a major role in DA2 appears in DAO Awakening and not the basic game.

In DAO you get to play several different races and classes with different origins.  In DA2 you can only be a human of the Hawke family. In DAO the basic ending is the same but there are some interesting variations in the details. The key point is DA2 is NOT the sequel to DAO.

Many people were disappointed in DA2 because they expected a continuation of the story from DAO and not a new story. The ending of DA2 also screams that a sequel is coming. The epilogue implies that the games are a trilogy with an overall story arc much like the ME games but hopefully with a much better ending.

Harold

[Amycus89]

haroldhardluck wrote...
Many people were disappointed in DA2 because they expected a continuation of the story from DAO and not a new story. The ending of DA2 also screams that a sequel is coming. The epilogue implies that the games are a trilogy with an overall story arc much like the ME games but hopefully with a much better ending.

Harold

I don't think that's the reason people got dissapointed. They had early explained that they planned to have a new protagonist with his/her own story for each game. The reason people got so dissapointed with the game is that it was a really poor sequel. Of course, that doesn't have to mean that it was a bad game, but in DA2 you only got the bare bones of the many features from DA:O. That the story felt railroaded, and was inconsistant with several plot holes didn't help either.

[Tommyspa]

Amycus89 wrote...

haroldhardluck wrote...
Many people were disappointed in DA2 because they expected a continuation of the story from DAO and not a new story. The ending of DA2 also screams that a sequel is coming. The epilogue implies that the games are a trilogy with an overall story arc much like the ME games but hopefully with a much better ending.

Harold

I don't think that's the reason people got dissapointed. They had early explained that they planned to have a new protagonist with his/her own story for each game. The reason people got so dissapointed with the game is that it was a really poor sequel. Of course, that doesn't have to mean that it was a bad game, but in DA2 you only got the bare bones of the many features from DA:O. That the story felt railroaded, and was inconsistant with several plot holes didn't help either.

This is Origins as well.

[Eternal Phoenix]

^
Was it? I don't remember any plot holes.

[haroldhardluck]

Amycus89 wrote...
I don't think that's the reason people got dissapointed. They had early explained that they planned to have a new protagonist with his/her own story for each game. The reason people got so dissapointed with the game is that it was a really poor sequel. Of course, that doesn't have to mean that it was a bad game, but in DA2 you only got the bare bones of the many features from DA:O. That the story felt railroaded, and was inconsistant with several plot holes didn't help either.

But DA2 is not a sequel. It is the second game set in the DA universe and is contemperaneous with the events of DAO but it is not a sequel. Sequels continue the story in the previous game. DA2 starts a brand new story that had little in common with DAO.

And what do you mean by "bare bones"?

DA2 reduced the character development options to make the classes more distinct and development more sensible. You could no longer make a rogue into a warrior by giving the rogue all the weapon options of a warrior. The number of spells were reduced which was much better as I found about half of the spells in DAO to be useless. Crafting was left up to specialists which made more sense than a mage who knew how to make traps and a warrior who knew how to make poison. It never made sense in Awakening that your character could make runes but could not enchant then. In DA2 all this is done by specialists that you pay. That makes a lot more sense.

And what plot holes? The story in DA2 was actually a trilogy of 3 short stories rather than one long novel like DAO. Each act stands on its own and builds on the previous acts. In that context, it all makes sense.

Harold

[Amycus89]

haroldhardluck wrote...

Amycus89 wrote...
I don't think that's the reason people got dissapointed. They had early explained that they planned to have a new protagonist with his/her own story for each game. The reason people got so dissapointed with the game is that it was a really poor sequel. Of course, that doesn't have to mean that it was a bad game, but in DA2 you only got the bare bones of the many features from DA:O. That the story felt railroaded, and was inconsistant with several plot holes didn't help either.

But DA2 is not a sequel. It is the second game set in the DA universe and is contemperaneous with the events of DAO but it is not a sequel. Sequels continue the story in the previous game. DA2 starts a brand new story that had little in common with DAO.

And what do you mean by "bare bones"?

DA2 reduced the character development options to make the classes more distinct and development more sensible. You could no longer make a rogue into a warrior by giving the rogue all the weapon options of a warrior. The number of spells were reduced which was much better as I found about half of the spells in DAO to be useless. Crafting was left up to specialists which made more sense than a mage who knew how to make traps and a warrior who knew how to make poison. It never made sense in Awakening that your character could make runes but could not enchant then. In DA2 all this is done by specialists that you pay. That makes a lot more sense.

And what plot holes? The story in DA2 was actually a trilogy of 3 short stories rather than one long novel like DAO. Each act stands on its own and builds on the previous acts. In that context, it all makes sense.

Harold

We apparently have different perspectives on what defines a "sequel", but DA2 is the second installment in the dragon age franchize. Which, as far as I know, makes it the sequel to its predecessor. And considering the first lines of the description for DA2 is "
Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. ", I think your opinion is in the minority, in this part at least.

As for bare bones? They stripped out many features from DA:O like the origins, races and character customization. Other features were oversimplified, like the equipment system. It's one thing if they want to have iconic looks, but there is NO reason why you shouldn't be able to at least let your companions wear new equipment that only changes your stats at the very least.

Then we have the non-combat skills that were completely removed. Sure, the system in DA:O was long from perfect in this area, but it was better than simply removing it completely.

And more than anything, the dialogue system was oversimplified. I'm not talking about the protagonist being voiced, but with how each dialogue "option" ended up being just the standard 3 tones, which basically all said the same thing, but in different ways.

Plot holes? We have one big fat one from the moment you arrive in Kirkwall and onwards: We are beat over and over again about the templars oppression of mages, and yet the templars and everyone else are completely blind to you casting spells right in their face. In origins people often remarked on your magic use, even some special dialogue if you were a blood mage.

And apart from that, we have others as well. Like in the end of the second act, why couldn't help the qunari even if I always agreed with them in the dialogue and thought the others were wrong. In fact, why is Aveline not pissed at all after I didn't take her side?

Most of the problems start in the third act however, especially if you fight on the side of the mages. Unfortunately spoilers are not permitted here, so I will just say the name: Orsino. Hopefully that will jog your memory.

And DA:O had several endings. Sure, they the archdemon died in all of them, but apart from that there were several things that could change, depending on:
*which groups you chose to ally with
*If you did the dark ritual
*Who ended up in the throne, and at what cost
*who delivered the final blow to the archdemon
*what people were in your final party
*Your race and origin
*Your final dialogue with the current regent

Even gender had some implications, specifically in the dark ritual.

That's just some on the top of my head. In DA2 you had... none. None that I can remember at least, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

No matter what you do in DA2, you still end up fighting the same people, even in the exact same order. And you can without problems choose the final option in the end without regards to everything else you have done in the game. Heck, they didn't even take your romance into account, its always the same single companion that continues to travel with Hawke.

[malamor]

I just downloaded DA:O last night and I am getting ready to start my journey tonight! (Another ME3 ending refugee here). Knowing nothing of the DA games this post was exactly what I was looking to hear..thanks guys!

[AlexJK]

Amycus89 wrote...

haroldhardluck wrote...

But DA2 is not a sequel. It is the second game set in the DA universe and is contemperaneous with the events of DAO but it is not a sequel. Sequels continue the story in the previous game. DA2 starts a brand new story that had little in common with DAO.

We apparently have different perspectives on what defines a "sequel", but DA2 is the second installment in the dragon age franchize. Which, as far as I know, makes it the sequel to its predecessor. And considering the first lines of the description for DA2 is "Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. ", I think your opinion is in the minority, in this part at least.

A sequel can continue a story directly or indirectly, and aside from sharing a world setting or a couple of common characters doesn't have to bear much resemblance to past instalments at all. Dragon Age 2 *does* continue the story of the Dragon Age universe, a story started in the first game. I don't think many (if any) people expected the same characters to all show up again and just pick up where they left off - and those who did were just setting themselves up for disappointment.

Plot holes? We have one big fat one from the moment you arrive in Kirkwall and onwards: We are beat over and over again about the templars oppression of mages, and yet the templars and everyone else are completely blind to you casting spells right in their face. In origins people often remarked on your magic use, even some special dialogue if you were a blood mage.

Possibly the single worst part of DA2. Remember; Wesley spots that Bethany/Hawke is an apostate from the moment he sees her on the road out of Lothering. No other Templar in the entire game is capable of making this connection, despite having it demonstrated literally right in front of them on more than one occasion. It really doesn't help you feel like you're part of the conflict!

And DA:O had several endings. Sure, they the archdemon died in all of them, but apart from that there were several things that could change, depending on [choices]

DA:O had one ending. The exact roles that various characters played in that ending was subject to change, as were the allies that helped you fight towards it, but let's be honest, it only had one story conclusion, and some epilogue chat/text.

I'm not saying there's a single damn thing wrong with the ending of Origins of course! I would point to it as an example of how one single ending, with your game choices reflected in it, can be more or less perfect.

Even gender had some implications, specifically in the dark ritual.

Not such that the ending "changed" though.

Modifié par AlexJK, 24 avril 2012 - 11:08 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Brahmin Schnitzel.

You cannot honestly tell me that the difference between completing the Dark Ritual and performing the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O were the 'same ending' in the same vein as the endings in DA2. Even if you ignore the four dozen epilogue slides that show the impact of your choices, it still is a dramatically different end scene and ceremony depending on if your Warden survived or not.

Compare that to DA2... or ME3. Same ending, same cutscene, with only the slightest of variations.

[AlexJK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You cannot honestly tell me that the difference between completing the Dark Ritual and performing the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O were the 'same ending' in the same vein as the endings in DA2. Even if you ignore the four dozen epilogue slides that show the impact of your choices, it still is a dramatically different end scene and ceremony depending on if your Warden survived or not.

Same ending for the player character and companions, no.
Same ending to the story of Dragon Age: Origins, *yes*.

Compare this to the endings of any of the Deus Ex games, for example. Distinctly different outcomes which send the game world in completely different directions - even though the ending journey for the PC himself, particularly in Human Revolution, actually doesn't deviate all that much in each choice.

But this isn't a bad thing. Entirely the opposite; it's the only sensible way to end a game for which you intend to produce sequels or continue the story in other forms. Small decisions are much easier to reflect in future games, in a much higher quality way than if the ending of Origins had been, for example: (1) kill Archdemon; (2) don't bother. The only real way to continue *that* story is to choose an ending as "canon" and ignore the other choices. Hardly satisfying for the player who wants her choices to matter.

I don't mind having one ending. In Origins, I wasn't playing the game thinking "I really don't want to stop the Archdemon after all." In Mass Effect 2, were there any Shepards out there thinking "I like what the collectors are doing, actually"? The final choices in these games about *how* you stopped the baddies doesn't really matter - the fact is that the game draws steadily towards one conclusion, and then delivers that conclusion, taking into account the work you've done on the way to it.

That's where the complexity and payoff of personal choice comes in - when I can see that my decisions have led my companions to support me and live, die trying, or rebel and be cut down as I proceed on my way; where I can choose whether Loghain lives or dies, as a hero or a martyr; where I can install a new King or Queen, and put myself in a position of great power... but all of these choices come as part of a single narrative.

No matter which path I walk, the ultimate goal remains the game.

Compare that to DA2... or ME3. Same ending, same cutscene, with only the slightest of variations.

So let's look at where these two went wrong.

Dragon Age 2
The ending is impossible to predict - you simply don't have any idea what's going to happen until it's thrown at you like a baseball to the gonads. And once it happens, your choices throughout the game amount to... absolutely nothing. No matter who you've supported throughout the game... you just choose side A, or side B. And then, no matter which side you choose, you get the same boss story and battle(s) anyway. So here we've been given the illusion of choice (which doesn't exist in Origins - your goal is always made clear), and then shown that my choice didn't matter anyway.

I actually wouldn't have minded the ending so much, if it had been made clear to me from at least the start of Act 3 how it might play out, and that no matter who I supported there was a greater evil which needed defeating. Sadly that aspect falls at the wayside, and the player is left more confused than anything else by the events that take place in the last 20 minutes. That's just poor storytelling, if you ask me.

Mass Effect 3
Was there anything right about this? The goal for *three whole games* has been "save everyone from the Reapers". So why, oh why, oh why doesn't the game give me that conclusion? I wanted the Origins ending. Yes, my decisions might have caused some people (or whole civilisations) to live or die. I already lost two valued friends by the time I made it to the ending - I was prepared for that, war sucks. I almost didn't even want my Shepard to live. I felt like Gandalf - come back from the dead once already, beating all the odds... time to win the war, and sail off into the sunset with a tearful goodbye.

Instead I got space child.

Not once in the entire trilogy was the idea even *hinted* that there might be a magical child with the power to stop the Reapers living in full view at the top of the Citadel. That explanation doesn't fit with any single piece of information given to us in the previous 2.9 games - so where does it come from, and more importantly *why*? The ME3 ending was easy, Bioware had it on a plate - DESTROY THE REAPERS. Kill everyone we met personally if you have to, give us a moving death scene for our loved one if we didn't make the right decisions to keep them alive, but give us the ending you'd been promising for three games. Instead we got choice syndrome - give the player a choice. And worse, we got meaningless choice syndrome. Give the player a choice they couldn't have expected or prepared for, which doesn't matter anyway.

...

Wow, that was longer than I expected and slightly ranty.

TL;DR - Yes, DA:O had one ending. But it was a beautifully complex one which could only have been spoiled by giving the player "choices". DA2 and ME3 did not suffer from the same problem, but they weren't good, and could both have been so much better if they'd just paid a little more attention to what worked in their predecessors.

Modifié par AlexJK, 24 avril 2012 - 01:36 .