35 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

Well, I lie a bit, I played origins a while ago, back when I finished ME2. But I never finished origins, as I reformatted the computer and all this stuff.

ANYWAY, I finished it recently (for the story) it was quite satisfying. But to be fair, I had bought DA2 on sale and was ready for it.

Then I finished ME3... well, the less said about THAT game the better,.

So I finished DA:O and am now playing DA2. And I gotta say, the changes I have noticed so far are awesome!

I think the art style is brilliant, I absolutely LOVE it (looks glorious on DX11 mode)
I think the characters are AWESOME, I love the dwarf and Meryll (It's GWEN FROM TORCHWOOD *awesome!*)
FemHawke is great, and the character creator is a lot better then Mass Effect's.
Combat is snappy, but playing with the tactics is really intuitive and fun.

The only real downside is I have found the equipment options to be a little too streamlined.

But to be honest, I am really loving this game, it's quite amazing. ESPECIALLY after Mass Effect 3, which pretty much ruined the whole ME universe for me.

So yeah, DA2, not so bad! (I hear the ending is bad, but I am an ME3 survivor, so I think I can handle it ;P)

[Bizantura]

Good for you. Enjoy.

[Fast Jimmy]

DA2 was designed to appeal to ME fans, so this isn't all that surprising. What scorned most people is that DA:O was designed to appeal to fans of traditional Bioware RPGs, such as Baldur's Gate.

And the ending for DA2 isn't as bad as ME3, but it suffers from the same no-choice-makes-an-impact, all paths leave to the same road symptom and lots of plot 'scratch-your-head' moments.

[Realmzmaster]

I am not an ME fan. I did not play ME and I like DA2. So that generalization is not correct. I have played cRPGS since their inception.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I am not an ME fan. I did not play ME and I like DA2. So that generalization is not correct. I have played cRPGS since their inception.

<shrug> Communism was designed to appeal to the unwashed masses, the common folk of the world. This doesn't mean it didn't wind up appealing to dictators and those seeking power. 

Things designed for their anticipated group does not mean others can't enjoy it. 

[StElmo]

I played DA:O and liked it though. in fact, the only two main changes I would HAVE to keep from DA2 would be the art style (FAR less generic, very cool) and the combat speed.

Everything else is negotiable, I guess an honorable mention would be the main character voice acting, but that's not entirely necessary.

[hussey 92]

I don't think DA2 really improved on anything. It was much smaller and looked to much like Mass Effect

[Pallid]

StElmo wrote...
(I hear the ending is bad, but I am an ME3 survivor, so I think I can handle it ;P)

The DA2 ending is nowhere near as bad as ME3's one.

[Eternal Phoenix]

The problem with Dragon Age 2 was how Fast Jimmy put it, choices don't have major consequences and no matter what you're led down the same path and experience the same ending save for a few dialogue differences. In Act 1 you're forced to do the mage and Templar quests even if you have the 50,000 gold for the expedition into the deep roads. There's no neutral ground.

Then you have the companions who you can't send away or kill. No I don't want to freely kill a companion for lolz but if I'm playing a pro-templar I should have had been able to hand Anders and Merill over to the Templars. There's even a dialogue option when meeting Cullen to inform him that one of your companions (Anders) is plotting against the Chantry but sadly this leads to nothing. You'd have thought that Cullen would have arrested Anders. I mean Anders could still have turned up in Act III. He could have broken free from the Circle like he did countless times before. They did this for Isabella if you give her to the Arishok but you just don't see it. Varric instead says that he heard that she escaped from the Arishok.

The major problems with Dragon Age 2 were caused by the fact that it was rushed. Choices not mattering, re-used area design and waves of enemies are all products of rushed development. Instead of having meaningful enemy encounters which are planned out, Bioware just threw in a few waves of enemies. The DLC corrects these mistakes from what I hear.

I would love for Dragon Age to return to a Origins style game but it's not going to happen. So I hope for the second best thing which is having choices that matter and we already know that they aren't going to do the re-used area stuff. So at the very best we could end up with a game that does feel more like Origins than Dragon Age 2 did. They just need to get rid of those ninja animations and tone the combat speed down a bit. Origins was too slow but Dragon Age 2 was too fast. Dragon Age 3 can be just right.

Hmmm...reminds me of the Goldilocks tale...

Origins combat: "Too slow!"
Dragon Age 2 combat: "Too fast!"
Dragon Age 3 combat: "Just right..."

That being said I would take Origins combat over DA2 combat any day.

[MrGuse]

Elton John is Dead wrote...
Origins was too slow

This blasphemy will not be tolerated!

I didn't much care for DA2 on my first playthrough, but I think that's mostly because of my own, internal, DA:O comparisons. Now that I'm playing it through after not touching it for... 12, 18 months, I'm enjoying the Hell out of it. I had forgotten how many freakin' side quests that there were.

As said by someone else: I'm glad you're enjoying it.

Varric's AI could stand to be less stupid, though. Archers really don't need to run right up to the guy with the big axe.

Modifié par MrGuse, 02 mai 2012 - 02:43 .

[Sejborg]

Origins combat: "Too slow!"
Dragon Age 2 combat: "Too fast!"
Dragon Age 3 combat: "Just right..."

NO! The Origins combat was paced just right. It only had some problems with the shuffling as Laidlaw said, and also that you couldn't switch between party members and give orders when paused. Everything else was great.
Then Bioware went ahead and destroyd all that was good instead of just fixing the problematic things. 

[cJohnOne]

In Origins it also takes awhile to start and complete a move. This was improved in DA2.

[Sejborg]

cJohnOne wrote...

In Origins it also takes awhile to start and complete a move. This was improved in DA2.

Not really. Positioning yourself and defending your mage as she was charging and preparing some spell is better than the instant "awesome" inferno in DA2. 

[hussey 92]

Sejborg wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

In Origins it also takes awhile to start and complete a move. This was improved in DA2.

Not really. Positioning yourself and defending your mage as she was charging and preparing some spell is better than the instant "awesome" inferno in DA2. 

Agreed, there was strategy involved in Origins while DA2 was just button mashing.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Sejborg wrote...

Origins combat: "Too slow!"
Dragon Age 2 combat: "Too fast!"
Dragon Age 3 combat: "Just right..."

NO! The Origins combat was paced just right. It only had some problems with the shuffling as Laidlaw said, and also that you couldn't switch between party members and give orders when paused. Everything else was great.
Then Bioware went ahead and destroyd all that was good instead of just fixing the problematic things. 

Yeah, the shuffling was the major problem but it shouldn't take seven seconds just to swing a one handed sword. I mean even Baldur's Gate was faster and NWN was faster too. NWN actually had your character get faster in combat as he leveled up. By LV 21 your character was like a master but you only reached that level in the final expansion...

[eroeru]

Why do you duplicate threads, OP??

[Sejborg]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Origins combat: "Too slow!"
Dragon Age 2 combat: "Too fast!"
Dragon Age 3 combat: "Just right..."

NO! The Origins combat was paced just right. It only had some problems with the shuffling as Laidlaw said, and also that you couldn't switch between party members and give orders when paused. Everything else was great.
Then Bioware went ahead and destroyd all that was good instead of just fixing the problematic things. 

Yeah, the shuffling was the major problem but it shouldn't take seven seconds just to swing a one handed sword. I mean even Baldur's Gate was faster and NWN was faster too. NWN actually had your character get faster in combat as he leveled up. By LV 21 your character was like a master but you only reached that level in the final expansion...

7 seconds? You might want to upgrade your computer or switch to a console then. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sejborg wrote...

NO! The Origins combat was paced just right. It only had some problems with the shuffling as Laidlaw said, and also that you couldn't switch between party members and give orders when paused. Everything else was great.

I agree that DAO's combat was exactly the right speed.  But you could switch between characters and give orders while paused.  I only ever give orders while paused.  You couldn't queue orders, which was a problem, but you could give orders while paised.

As for the shuffle, I'll agree the shuffle wasn't terrific, but the shuffle is still there in DA2, so there's no reason to favour either game on that front.  DA2 has the same shuffle.

[upsettingshorts]

I'd like to see a combat speed somewhere between DAO and DA2 (also finding a middle ground between the childishly simplistic animations of DAO and the hilariously over-the-top animations of DA2 would be good) but with the added ability to queue commands.

That said, I mostly play in real time with Tactics, so I'd love for the Tactics system to be expanded.

Also, I'd love for people to define - once and for all - a "choice that matters."  Use examples.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 mai 2012 - 05:28 .

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<shrug> Communism was designed to appeal to the unwashed masses, the common folk of the world. This doesn't mean it didn't wind up appealing to dictators and those seeking power. 

Something tells me you haven't read Das Kapital.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 mai 2012 - 05:29 .

[Darth Krytie]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<shrug> Communism was designed to appeal to the unwashed masses, the common folk of the world. This doesn't mean it didn't wind up appealing to dictators and those seeking power. 

Something tells me you haven't read Das Kapital.

You just made my day with that comment.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Something tells me you haven't read Das Kapital.

I want to know why people never translate the title of that book.  Other works of non-fiction get their titles translated - why not Capital?