322 réponses à ce sujet

[ediskrad327]

maybe it's because i approached DA2 expecting a piece of crap and i ended up liking it (but i still think the Origins is better) but ME3.....man i never thought the entire series would be destroyed in 10 minutes

[ThatDancingTurian]

Mass Effect 3 was far more disappointing. I've played through DA2 multiple times and in spite of the serious problems with its writing and development, I still enjoy it. I had no real expectations the moment it was said that DA2 was going to pretty much be a reboot. ME3 had much more to lose and lost it in a fantastically terrible way.

[jeweledleah]

its subjective, depending on which sequel you anticipated more, were involved with more, and which specific aspects of the games you were most attached to.

for me, it was Mass Effect 3 by a landslide.

why?

1. while continuity errors in DA2 annoyed me, they were easier to swallow due to change of protagonist. it didn't feel like a direct sequel but rather another story, set in the same universe, with some of the characters overlapping. continuity issues in ME3 were much more difficult to deal with, becasue I was playing the same character through entire trilogy, so I've come to expect things to progress a certain way. when so much was just handwaved away? I was not happy.

2. while i do enjoy Dragon age universe, I was not nearly as attached to it or its denizens, as I was to Mass Effect. so changes in direction were easier for me to stomach. I still can't deal with some of the changes in Mass Effect without going "lalalalala, can't hear you my headcanon is the only thing that matters, and whatever you think you see, is just in your head. in my game it doesn't exist."

3. I bought Dragon age 2 on sale. deep sale. to describe how deep? I payed for full game (new - so I have black emporium as well)  with all 3 story DLC's and one armor/weapon pack (the one for all classes) less then $60 dollars. I preordered Mass Effect 3. collectors edition. I payed $80 for it and I arguably got less content out of it.

4. DA2 has more replay-ability for me due to 3 very distinct dialogue paths. in addition, all 3 classes play very differently. ME2 - I basically play all biotics the same way, and all non biotics the other way. the only class I play sightly differently is my engineer. but only slightly. and there are no changes to dialogue. both games are extremely linear though and in both games, choices get reset sooner or later.

5. endings. both games had endings that basically made everything you've done prior.. not matter. however. DA2 from the start was not about Hawke making a difference to the plot, but rather Hawke growing through relationship he or she forged. Hawke was never relaly much of a hero. more like one individual caught up in an current, just trying to stay afloat. Shepard? Shepard was supposed to change things. make things better. Shepard was supposed to win the war. and in the end? it didn't feel like Shepard changed anything. it didn't feel like a win.

lastly. Hawke gets to survive, has an option to keep every single companion alive and gets to stay with their LI. Shepard? yeah... about that.

so to me. ME3 was a much MUCH bigger disappointment.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 07 mai 2012 - 02:05 .

[shurikenmanta]

I enjoyed both. But DA2 probably fell shorter than ME3 did, the dungeon reuse was a bit disappointing.

[Karolus_V]

shurikenmanta wrote...

I enjoyed both. But DA2 probably fell shorter than ME3 did, the dungeon reuse was a bit disappointing.

The damn dark forge needs to be demolished, no good is being done here.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

ME 3. I didn't put as much expectations / hope / optimism into DA 2 since the original protaganist in DAO is not in it.

[Guldor]

Tough choice...Ill go with DA2. I didnt care for any of its story or characters. It was such a drag to play.
At least in ME3 I was invested emotionally and couldnt wait to see how Shepherd would succeed until "IT" happened...

[Oldbones2]

andy69156915 wrote...

Now by this point, both games have been out a while, enough for the games to sink in a bit and our likes and dislikes of the game to be pretty much settled in us,  and the intial "shock" to be gone, what game is worse?

I personally think ME3 is the bigger problem game. I actually still quite like DA2, I like the characters, Kirkwall, the new combat. It's not nearly as grand feeling as Origins, but it's still much more grand then Awakening was. Heck, I like DA2 more then Awakening by quite a large margin, even if it doesn't match Origins. Really, only the reused environments and the rather lackluster ending really bother me, and ME3's ending is even more lackluster then DA2's was (who knows, the EC ending might change that though). Besides, DA2 was just following 1 characters rise to fame and how they got swept up in really big problems, nothing too big at stake. Well, the mage civil war was a huge deal, but that only really got introduced in DA2, and the conclusion to that is awaiting the next game. But because it's more a personal story, it being a little lackluster didn't bug me much, it was never supposed to be a big epic adventure like its predecessor was. It was just a nice little lead-in to bigger events later. The hype was just "eh, it will be pretty good", so if it was disappointing it wouldn't sting too much. Bigger they are, harder they fall, and DA2 was never that big to begin with so it didn't have far to fall. It's hype, for me at least, wasn't high enough to destroy it.

ME3 though, was touted the be the "grand epic final of an amazing trilogy". I mean, it was IT. It was the final, supposed to be what everything was leading up to, the biggest and most in depth of the series. It was built up to be the Bioware game to end all Bioware games. It was to be the biggest, bestest, baddest, epicest, lethalist, saddest, happiest, maddest, everythingest game ever. Bioware hyped it to be such, the fans did, gaming "journalism" did, everyone was hyping it to be that. It was massive in hype. Well, again... bigger they are, harder they fall. If it didn't live up, it was going to hit the ground like a meteor the size of Alaska, and the fallout would be just as bad (metaphorically). Unlike DA2, its fall in the event of disappointment was going to be Earth shattering. And... It was exactly the opposite of its hype. It fell. The game was smaller then the previous games, less to do, less dialog, less importance of events, endings that were just "option R, B, G", less choice. It was almost the total opposite of what the hype claimed. It isn't a bad game by any means, but for what it was built up to, it being not as good as it was supposed to be made it sting like the game completely sucked. It was built up the be the alpha and omega, but it just ended up... Good. Frankly, it ending up like DA2 and being only good when it's all that was expected from it would have felt much less painful.

Bottom line, what game is better? I honestly don't know, both are pretty good. But what game fell short of what it was meant to be, was worse compared to its potentiel? ME3, no question. DA2 lived up to what I expected out of it far better then ME3 did.


So, what's everyone else's opinion on this?

Dragon Age 2 was a mediocre game, with characters I wasn't really attached to, poorly connected plot points and weak gameplay.  However I felt it delivered what it promised.  And I was never expecting THAT much anyway. 

And no part of Dragon Age 2 affected my enjoyement of DA O at all. 


Mass Effect was the game I followed in my sleep.  It was the game I waited on my porch for Fed Ex to deliver.

It was a masterpiece.  Small flaws and poorly received game features were quickly forgiven in favor of increased depth and immersion.

And yet somehow 1 ten minute stretch of gameplay ruined not just a great game, but a great series.


Mass Effect 3 will go down in my memory as the game that ruined Mass Effect for me.  And cheapened games as a whole to boot.

[The RPGenius]

ME3. Even if you don't like DA2--and I'm not saying that's right or wrong, necessarily--and even considering that the finale to DA2 is just plain terrible, Mass Effect 3 was, in every significant way, a masterpiece of science fiction storytelling for tens of hours. It's one thing to be disappointed because you had high expectations for something--it's another to be disappointed because the product itself was reinforcing those expectations.

[GreyLycanTrope]

ME3, DA2 was disappointing but still enjoyable for me since I now that wasn't the end of the story arc.

[Filby08]

ME3.
I liked DA2, although I saw how mediocre it was compared to DA:O, at least it was consistently mediocre and I enjoyed playing it.

ME3 was Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, jumping from gripping to frustrating in a matter of minutes. Making me cry one minute and scratch my head the next. Then the ending happened...

I admit I was far more invested in ME3 than I was with DA.

[DALBEN]

Me3 is a very good game with a horrible ending.
Da2 is a regular game.

[Wabajakka]

ME3 just because I didn't play DA2. Heard that it was quite horrid though.

Although most of ME3 was good, where I heard DA2 was just overall a much worse game.

Modifié par Orange Tee, 07 mai 2012 - 02:50 .

[Ghostano]

ME3.... while DA was fun I never was that attached to it since my warden always died at end

[MrFob]

ME3, definitely ME3. I am much more invested in that franchise.
I mean, I also loved DA:O but at east with DA2, I was already sceptical before I ever got it.

[element eater]

ME3

[webhead921]

All of your lives are more disappointing than either game. Get off your computer and go outside.

[H. Birdman]

Which was more disappointing depends on your subjective expectations.

Which was objectively the worse game is not up for debate. It's DA2 by a wide margin. From the claustrophobic, repetitive environments to the cartoon character writing to the "mash A button for awesome" combat to the go-nowhere plot, DA2 was one of the worst RPG's ever made by a top tier developer.

[shadowsmartyr]

ME3, DA2 was a little dissapointing when compared to DA:O but I still enjoyed playing it all the way to the end, unlike ME3 whose ending left a very bad taste in my mouth.

[element eater]

webhead921 wrote...

All of your lives are more disappointing than either game. Get off your computer and go outside.

what a stupid thing to say

[webhead921]

element eater wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

All of your lives are more disappointing than either game. Get off your computer and go outside.

what a stupid thing to say

I'm just kidding!

[Filby08]

webhead921 wrote...

All of your lives are more disappointing than either game.

We know. That's why we play games in the first place.

[Varus Praetor]

Definitely ME3. DA2 was crap from the beginning so you weren't invested prior to finding that out. Also, the demo clued many of us in to how horrible the game was going to be, even if we were in denial a little bit longer. ME3 was a good game that just blindsided you with fail. Plus it's the conclusion to an epic trilogy.

ME3's disappointment will likely never be equaled in gaming history for me. BW can't even top it because my expectations for them have dropped so much.

[ThatDancingTurian]

H. Birdman wrote...

Which was more disappointing depends on your subjective expectations.

Which was objectively the worse game is not up for debate. It's DA2 by a wide margin. From the claustrophobic, repetitive environments to the cartoon character writing to the "mash A button for awesome" combat to the go-nowhere plot, DA2 was one of the worst RPG's ever made by a top tier developer.

That's still a subjective opinion. There's nothing claustrophobic or repetitive about the Citadel (SO much smaller and closed-off than its ME1 incarnation) and planet scanning 'side-quests'?

Modifié par Aris Ravenstar, 07 mai 2012 - 03:19 .

[SetecAstronomy]

Both have problems, but neither is a disappointment. I guess I just don't get broken up that much over my entertainment.