340 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

SKRemaks wrote...

It's great fun for me.  I've only managed to finish DA:O once since DA2 came out.  The horrible, slow combat, the lack of voice, and the terrible wooden facial expression of the Warden drive me nuts, now.

Imagine a plotless dungeon crawl with nothing but combat encounter after combat encounter.

Would you rather play that game with DAO's combat, or DA2's combat?  I'd choose DAO's combat every time.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...

Yes I can, and I did. Easily.

Picking the right options you can do many things.

You can't pick an option when there is none. Hawke simply play out those emotion against my wish. For example, there is no way to control on how Hawke behave when she entered Kirkwall. Even diplomatic neutral Hawke acted the same. I don't want my Hawke to forget the death of Carver or her mother. But there is no way to control that. The cinematic or BioWare's Hawke always contradict with my head canon's character.

simfamSP wrote...

After her mother died I wasn't picking any sarcastic/witty options, even when her LI came she was a ****.

You can't pick an option when there is none. I'm talking about Hawke's behaviour during cinematic cutscene

simfamSP wrote...

Hell, you should have seen her after the Qunari started rioting...she was NOT in the mood.

I noticed that but 5 minutes later she continued to forget that she was supposed to be in no mood. Instead she acted merrily as if nothing happened to her, through her facial's expression. It really disturb me to see a character that had no regard over her own family.

simfamSP wrote...


But three years later she got on with her life.

And here's another problem. Three years later I don't know Hawke anymore. She isn't my character. I've read her letters and everything feel foreign. In three years I've been disconnected from her and the world. I don't like it. I don't know what's she been doing and I cant make it up either because a lot of things were defined through her letters.

simfamSP wrote...



As I said... you can do a lot, but not as much as Origins. A silent protagonist is always preferable, but not a requirement.

Indeed. But as long as Developer continues to interfere with PC's personality and/or invade player's control over their character, I can't create my character and roleplay. I don't roleplay set characters which is why I pick BioWare's games and not the CD Project's games.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 septembre 2012 - 04:27 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SKRemaks wrote...

It's great fun for me.  I've only managed to finish DA:O once since DA2 came out.  The horrible, slow combat, the lack of voice, and the terrible wooden facial expression of the Warden drive me nuts, now.

Imagine a plotless dungeon crawl with nothing but combat encounter after combat encounter.

Would you rather play that game with DAO's combat, or DA2's combat?  I'd choose DAO's combat every time.

I on the other hand would pick DA2 especially given DAO's mages and rogues.

[Cutlass Jack]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I on the other hand would pick DA2 especially given DAO's mages and rogues.

Agreed. DA2 actually made mages entertaining enough for me to play one.

Overall, I did enjoy it more than DAO. The game certainly had its rough edges, but I loved the characters and I loved the personality crafting. I loved that my character participated in conversations instead of listening to everyone else getting the fun dialogue.

Which by does not mean I didn't enjoy DAO. I certainly did. DA2 just pushed my buttons a bit more.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 08 septembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[chunkyman]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would describe many of DA2's features as antithetical to fun. And while many of them could comfortably be ignored (I think the unreliable narrator dramatically lessened the negative impact of the voiced protagonist), ultimately it was the quest design and combat mechanics that reduced DA2's gameplay to an unpleasant chore.

I think DA2 was thoroughly unfun from start to finish.

I agree.

   My number one reason to play these games (rpg's) is to role play a character. In order to roleplay, I have to be  in control of both the actions and personality of my character.  If the mechanics of the game do not allow me to "get into the head of" my character and control what he does, roleplaying is impossible. In DA:O I could roleplay because I could choose what my character said, imagine how he said it, and imagine why he said that based upon his personality/motivations. 

The voiced PC ruined imagining how the the phrase was said (which severely limits what kinds of personalities I am capable of roleplaying). Then the paraphrase system made it so that I couldn't even know what my character would say, because dialogue was turned into a meaningless guessing game. These changes transformed the roleplaying experience of DA:O into the (boring) cinematic experience of DA2. I have fun roleplaying, I do not have fun watching video game cinematics. 

No joke, I can role play better in Pokemon than I can in DA2. 

Since having fun through roleplaying was out of the question, there is combat. DA2 combat was boring because the paratroopers negated a lot of the planning that I prefer making. It felt more hack n slash than strategy, which made it significantly less fun.

So uhh, yeah. Horribly unfun game that was a chore to play through.

Modifié par chunkyman, 08 septembre 2012 - 04:54 .

[deuce985]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I on the other hand would pick DA2 especially given DAO's mages and rogues.

Agreed. DA2 actually made mages entertaining enough for me to play one.

Overall, I did enjoy it more than DAO. The game certainly had its rough edges, but I loved the characters and I loved the personality crafting. I loved that my character participated in conversations instead of listening to everyone else getting the fun dialogue.

Which by does not mean I didn't enjoy DAO. I certainly did. DA2 just pushed my buttons a bit more.

Yea, as much as people like to rip DA2's combat apart, mages are way better. Not only that, they put combo abilities in much better than DA:O. When you're rolling around on nightmare, the combo abilities just compliment each other and adds a tactical layer that's not as easily accessible in DA:O. It had them in DA:O but not to the degree DA2 uses them. Oh and I must say, that staff animation is just badass. I don't care what anyone says.  Some animations are definitely too cartoonish but I felt those staff animations made my mage feel awesome.

Modifié par deuce985, 08 septembre 2012 - 05:15 .

[Renmiri1]

deuce985 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I certainly had fun. More fun than I had with the plodding pace of Origins.

Going to have to agree with this. Much as I love DA:O, it had major pacing issues that DA2 did much better.

THIS

Plus DA2 is a lot "shorter". You can't really play DAO without spending a lot of time on it. DA2 lets you play for a few hours and still get much done. A lot more people finish DA2 than they finish DAO 

deuce985 wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I on the other hand would pick DA2 especially given DAO's mages and rogues.

Agreed. DA2 actually made mages entertaining enough for me to play one. 

Overall, I did enjoy it more than DAO. The game certainly had its rough edges, but I loved the characters and I loved the personality crafting. I loved that my character participated in conversations instead of listening to everyone else getting the fun dialogue.

Which by does not mean I didn't enjoy DAO. I certainly did. DA2 just pushed my buttons a bit more.

Yea, as much as people like to rip DA2's combat apart, mages are way better. Not only that, they put combo abilities in much better than DA:O. When you're rolling around on nightmare, the combo abilities just compliment each other and adds a tactical layer that's not as easily accessible in DA:O. It had them in DA:O but not to the degree DA2 uses them. Oh and I must say, that staff animation is just badass. I don't care what anyone says.  Some animations are definitely too cartoonish but I felt those staff animations made my mage feel awesome. 

 
DA2 mages rock and the staff animation is totally badass!

Modifié par Renmiri1, 08 septembre 2012 - 05:26 .

[Darth Death]

simfamSP wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Errand boy quests...

I'm glad that people don't recognise that 3/4 of RPGs are basically filled with this.

Depends on how the quests are done. Some other rpgs do a better job. 

You're right, but next time, when pointing out flaws, being specific helps.

Bad fetch quests would have been better, no? Because look at the Sacred Ashes quest. That's just one long drawn out fetch quest, as well looking for Branka. But they were great quests.

The Witcher is easily 85% fetch quests, yet it's an amazing RPG.

Geralt is a witcher & his job is to kill monsters (or cure curses) for people to make money. Sometimes Geralt will do a quest to have sex or to solve a mystery. Overall, the game does a good job giving reasons for Geralt's errands. As for fetch quest in DA2, I'm referring to the incidents where Hawke gives random items to random people who don't seem to care. The person receiving the item is like, "You found that old thing? I've never thought I'd see it again." It's pointless, meaningless, & most importantly not fun... IMO. 

[Renmiri1]

Darth Death wrote...

Geralt is a witcher & his job is to kill monsters (or cure curses) for people to make money. Sometimes Geralt will do a quest to have sex or to solve a mystery. Overall, the game does a good job giving reasons for Geralt's errands. As for fetch quest in DA2, I'm referring to the incidents where Hawke gives random items to random people who don't seem to care. The person receiving the item is like, "You found that old thing? I've never thought I'd see it again." It's pointless, meaningless, & most importantly not fun... IMO. 

But you never get a quest to "fetch" the silly items. You find them during a longer quest and then you just have to deliver the item in Kirkwall and get some gold. So it's not really annoying to me. And it is not really a "fetch" quest since you never get the "fetch" request. You just get the "deliver this weird thing you saw in a dungeon to this suspicious guy / gal"

To me it's just some extra gold, and some codex entries are funny. It's not like I have to go out of my way to collect 5 bear arses like those tiresome fetch quests we get on lower games.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 08 septembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[SerTabris]

The delivery quests are pretty pointless, but they're also very short so I don't count them as very much of the game. The best explanation I have for them is that Kirkwall has a 'lost-and-found' board somewhere, and that Hawke does it for the same reason as the player: 50 silver or a sovereign for a piece of random junk I found somewhere and don't want is a good deal.

I generally had fun playing (I would have stopped otherwise), except for certain parts of a couple Act 3 quests (for spoiler reasons). It's hard for me to quantify if I like it better or worse than DA:O; some parts I think are better, some parts I think are worse.

[Cyberarmy]

I felt asleep when playing DA2, its that fun.

[bEVEsthda]

DA2 was a "fun"  game. And such games are NOT FUN AT ALL!

DA2 filled me with disgust and contempt. It was an experience of loathing more than anything else. I was driven to finish it by rage and incredulity.

[Cultist]

DA2 was anything but fun.

[smallwhippet]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I on the other hand would pick DA2 especially given DAO's mages and rogues.

Agreed. DA2 actually made mages entertaining enough for me to play one.

Overall, I did enjoy it more than DAO. The game certainly had its rough edges, but I loved the characters and I loved the personality crafting. I loved that my character participated in conversations instead of listening to everyone else getting the fun dialogue.

Which by does not mean I didn't enjoy DAO. I certainly did. DA2 just pushed my buttons a bit more.

This is how I feel.

As do I. I even enjoy playing as a warrior in DA2, whilst I absolutely hated doing so in DAO. 
I find the reiterated claims in this thread that DA2 was only preferred by fast-combat fanatics, rather than people who enjoy story-telling, to be absurd. As far as I'm concerned, the combat is just something that has to be completed in order to advance the story, so if it doesn't feel like wading through treacle, that suits me.
Likewise the suggestion that it appeals more to players who don't value replayability. I have completed DAO four times, having to force myself to finish, and don't think I can face another play-through, whereas I have completed (and thoroughly enjoyed) DA2 at least six times, and look forward to the prospect of playing more.

[coles4971]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Plus DA2 is a lot "shorter". You can't really play DAO without spending a lot of time on it. DA2 lets you play for a few hours and still get much done. A lot more people finish DA2 than they finish DAO 

more people bought DA:O, DA2 and DA:O had similar completion percentages and more people finished DA2?

[FedericoV]

cJohnOne wrote...

While I enjoy DA2 I don't know if I'd call it fun.


What do you think?

Act. 2 was fun. Good storylines (main and side quest) and the gameplay was still enjoyable in the first part of the chapter (then it gradually became too repetitive and when I reached level 14, it became flat and boring and I started to see the cracks in the system). Act. 1 and the prologue were... odd and felt at the same time directionless and too driven (it's not a contradiction: since the storyline was very thin, they had to force your progression through meta-gaming means). Act 3 was a total mess anyway you put it. The final it's just an insult to the player intelligence and taste.

So, while I had some good time playing parts of the game, overall I would not say that it's that fun. I'm not that fan of DA:O but non one can't deny that it was consistently fun (more or less).

Modifié par FedericoV, 08 septembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[The Elder King]

The game wasn't that bad (though I preferred Origin a lot more), and I had fun until in Act 3Hawke moved so slow due to Isabela's friendship bug, that he could be the new main character of a Matrix film, forcing me to return to Act 1 to avoid Isabela's bug. And I didn't enjoy Act 3, not only because I was annoyed for the bug, but because the act was too much rushed, and the way they handled which side you choose (I hated the fact that you have to kill both Meredith and Orsino regardless of your choice).
I'll maybe play another time after I finish a new playthrough of Origins. I don't think it's a masterpiece or a great game, but it's a decent game in my opinion, and there are characters and part of the game I really like, so I think I could enjoy another playthrough.

[Fast Jimmy]

To the OP's question:

No. Not for me. Not at all.

I could go into more detail, but its nothing I and others haven't said before.

[areuexperienced]

I found it more fun than Origins, which I played only once, really forcing myself to continue at times. Many forumers seem to downplay the importance of combat and its flow, more specifically, but for a game where you spend half your time doing just that (fighting), combat is VERY important in keeping a player's interest, at least for me.

Yes, I know about the exploding bodies and teleporting enemies, sorry, but that's in no way a deal-breaker. I find it a good trade over the all-around sluggishness of DA:O, where even rogue characters felt like they have Down severe motor impairment. Also, the faster combat and parachuting enemies DO NOT remove the strategic element. Rather, it makes you think on your feet and change tactics appropriately. The problem with parachuting enemies is the implementation, not the concept itself.

More varied areas would have been nice but it didn't deter my enjoyment much, as I found the story interesting and compelling me to go forward (I've grown tired of the usual "gather the armies/star maps/randomplotitem" way of doing things that BioWare games usually employ).

Anyway, just my 2 cents, I just think that this game has been criticized way more than it actually deserves.

[Fast Jimmy]

areuexperienced wrote...

Yes, I know about the exploding bodies and teleporting enemies, sorry, but that's in no way a deal-breaker. I find it a good trade over the all-around sluggishness of DA:O, where even rogue characters felt like they have Down severe motor impairment. Also, the faster combat and parachuting enemies DO NOT remove the strategic element. Rather, it makes you think on your feet and change tactics appropriately. The problem with parachuting enemies is the implementation, not the concept itself.

I don't want to get into a long debate about this, but I don't award squat for concepts that are implemented poorly. Enemies popping up after the fight begins can be a good mechanic and require additional tactics, but DA2 did not invent the concept, they only implemented it in a terrible manner. Having a framed narrative that can allow for interesting changes in both the past and present narrative can make for a great story-telling element, but DA2 did not invent the concent, the only implemented it in a terrible manner. Having Devil May Cry, action-based combat in an RPG that makes it equally focused on how high your character's stats are as how fast you can push a button or manueveur away from an attack can be a logical progression to the system... wait, never mind. That one doesn't work at all.

The point is, implementation of features is the ONLY thing that matters, especially in a game like DA2 that recycles feature concepts from other games and genres in order to appeal to a wider number of gamers. You can do any or all of this, but if you just pump out cheap knockoffs of features from other games and don't make them flow seamlessly or without players having a very jarred experience, then it fails.

There is only do or not do. There is no try. And, to me, DA2 does NOT do.

[eroeru]

Besides, lots of people loved Origins' system. I for one loved the "sluggish" nature of combat - it had very neatly discrete actions that you can easily account for, as in chess or earlier BW games. DA2 takes that away completely.

In O, you had control, you had strategy. In ][ you cannot get a good grasp on things, the combat's composed of only nonsensical flash and slash.

To make it short, strategy is not the same as tactics. DA:O had people thinking along strategic lines, DA ][ tried tactics.
And even tactical fighting (which is in my opinion inferior to strategic thinking) was ill-implemented.

Modifié par eroeru, 08 septembre 2012 - 11:20 .