340 réponses à ce sujet

[PaulSX]

I think the basic mechanics is rather fun. I like to mess around with stats and talents but the game's encounter design has big problems. the wave mechanics and the fighting areas are so repetitive that they ruined the most fun I have with the system.

Modifié par suntzuxi, 08 septembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[jillabender]

MerinTB wrote...

Parts of it were a lot of fun. In fact, I'd argue much of the game was fun.

Unfortunately, too many things in the game that I had issues with really dampened the fun.

That's exactly how I felt about DA2 as well.

[Nerdage]

The first play-through was good fun, but -while I've enjoyed subsequent play-throughs- it seems like the more I play the more wasted potential I see; places where you have no influence on the outcome because they seem to be afraid of having good and bad outcomes in case people metagame, or to make sure everyone gets the same amount of content, or to make sure none of the exposition is lost on anybody before things happen, none of which was worth the cost to agency and reactivity.

On top of that, the way almost everything the warrior does has an AoE component forced me away from nightmare mode down to hard because they're just a pain to manage with friendly fire, but without friendly fire most fights are just mindless AoE fests. I did like the mobility in combat, the abilities that help you move about in combat or move enemies about, but outside of Legacy there weren't many fights that made good use of it.

So it was fun for a while, but it didn't last very well.

[Dutchess]

It was not. I found the waves in combat very frustrating during my first playthrough. DAO was my first RPG, so... I sucked at it the first time I played. I died A LOT. But I continued to play on normal, finding a challenge in it and enjoying trying to find the right strategy (exceptions were the broodmother fight and the fight at the doors of the castle during the last battle, those I found frustrating after having died for the tenth time). After reading many strategy topics on this site, I became a lot better in the game, and eventually I could do a run on nightmare difficulty without that much trouble.
In DA2 I started on hard difficulty, thinking I now understand the game's mechanics and could handle it. Oh, was I wrong. My mage was constanly knocked back by every freaking sword hit, making her continuously unable to even cast freaking mind blast. And then there were the waves. No strategic positioning this time, not keeping your mages in the back. Nooo, because after the first wave, fresh enemies fall from the sky right behind your mages. And then they get hit and continuously knocked back. It was not fun, it was no amusing strategic challenge. The Ancient Rock Wraith made me dump the difficulty down from hard to casual, something I have - like I said - never done in DAO. Add to that that I felt that I was drowning in side quests in Act 1 and was eventually travelling from one quest marker to the next without actually knowing which quest it was... not a very good experience.

So no, the first playthrough wasn't "fun". It got better after patches and after I again read some new strategy guides for DA2. But with my first playthrough I was eventually only playing for the next cutscene and was only looking forward to the next time I could finally talk to my companions again (especially Fenris, because I slept with him and he left and I couldn't get a word out of him after that).

[Zombie_Alexis]

I thought it was fun, but not nearly as good as DA:O. There's still a bunch of stuff I have yet to do in DA:O, there's not much new to explore in DA2, if anything at all, and I've played both games about the same amount of times.

Things I miss from DA:O when I play DA2:
*Complexity of missions. I LOVE Orzammar and the Landsmeet (I know I'm in the minority) and having side quests that actually impact the outcome of the main quest was awesome. Almost no side quests impact the main storyline in DA2.
*Approval that does not lock. Even though I preferred the friendship/rivalry system in DA2, I didn't like that it locked once you met 100% either way. I think the ending would have been better if you were uncertain if your companions would stand with you or not.
*Camp. I missed a place where I could have access to all my companions in one go. It was a pain to have to stop at the "changing station" to equip my companions with new weapons and only be able to do three at a time. In camp, I could equip my companions all in one go. And that brings up the next one...
*Armor for companions. UGH! My companions can't change armor! Just those 4 little "upgrade" slots and maybe a rune slot? LAME! Guess I'll just go stop at the shop and unload all this useless armor...
*Strategy. In DA:O, you really had to think long and hard about who you were going to take along for some of those epic battles. In DA2, it really doesn't matter. All that matters is how quickly you can mash the buttons. Fun for a little while, but then it just gets repetitive.
*Relevant finishing moves. In DA:O, I didn't get that last kill shot unless I actually made it. Fist pump for me when I actually got it. In DA2 I get it even if my Hawke is stone-cold passed out on the dungeon floor. Wha?

And I'll just make a passing remark about the ninja waves and repeating maps, only because everyone else dislikes them too.

But there were plenty of things I liked about DA2 to make it enjoyable. The story was great, I liked the new Mage abilities (even though they are over-powered and I would like that to be pulled back just a bit for the next game), the different class abilities were fun, but still too fast and crazy and would be better if pulled back, and I loved being able to summon my Mabari (but missed being able to have him "fetch" items for me). I just wish that the ending were better and that the politics were more complex. It certainly felt like the game was heading toward a political struggle between the Templars and the Nobles getting you in as Viscount, but it never materialized (I wonder if that was going to be in the canned expansion?).

Anyway, short answer: Yes. I did have fun, just not nearly as much as I did with DA:O. (Sorry for the wall o' text!)

Modifié par Zombie_Alexis, 08 septembre 2012 - 07:16 .

[Leanansidhe]

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.

Honestly?  Yes, I'd rather play that type of game with DA2's combat.  It was FUN, not plodding.  For the first time, I actually enjoyed playing a mage. 

Obviously, YMMV

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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

Mages are the main reason I would choose DAO's mechanics.  I couldn't stand DA2 mage gamplay.  Plus, spell combos are amazing.

And Rogues?  Rogues in DA2 were frightfully one dimensional.  Plus, they lacked the recon stealth abilities of DAO Rogues.

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

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.

I hated the staff animations in DA2.  I'd rather my mages calmly destroy things with their minds.  They shouldn't have to flail about like in DA2.

I approach roleplaying cerebrally, which is why I like playing mages.  DA2 made magic into an athletic pursuit, rather than a cerebral one.

Plus, I thought even the DAO staves were cheesy.  I preferred not to carry a weapon at all if the alternative was to use a staff.  DA2 made the staves both worse and mandatory.

[Jerrybnsn]

If DA3 is anything like The Dawn of the Seekers movie, mages won't be casting spells but running aimlessly at their opponents with small knives.

[Sylvius the Mad]

smallwhippet wrote...

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.

I would expect people who enjoy story-telling to prefer DA2.

But people who insist on roleplaying (as I do) often find DA2 nearly unplayable.

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.

May I ask a question?  Why do you replay DA2?  What's different about subsequent playthroughs?  Do you feel like DA2 lets you play meaningfully different Hawkes each time, or are you replaying to re-experience the same story, or simply to make different choices to see what happens?

[Sylvius the Mad]

areuexperienced wrote...

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.

I would agree.  I but I also think that DAO's combat was just flat-out better in nearly every respect.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

If DA3 is anything like The Dawn of the Seekers movie, mages won't be casting spells but running aimlessly at their opponents with small knives.

At least they would get to avoid staves that way.

I really hope we can use daggers in DA3.

[Welsh Inferno]

I actually kinda prefer the mage animations in DA2, barring the last part of the animation where Hawke flings the staff around in the air as if it weighs less than a feather.. I know it was still way over the top just like the rest(and needs to be toned down in DA3) but I do prefer it to the "prodding" animation in Origins.

I can't stand any melee combat in the game. So come to think of it.... maybe I kinda forced myself to like it so I could get through at least one playthrough. Only a mage & an archer are bearable to me.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 08 septembre 2012 - 11:58 .

[Cyne]

cJohnOne wrote...

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


What do you think?

It was a fun game, it just didn't compare well with origins, which was a ****ing amazing game. Still, I got my money's worth and am very excited to see where the franchise goes next. My best guess is that they'll keep the combat of 2, include different areas like 1 and tweak the companion dynamics. I expect it to be a lot better than da 2

[eoinnx03]

I just beat DA2, never played the first. It was a fun story, the ending was extremly engaging and you felt the weight of your choices. It has it's flaws, but it's up there in my favourite gaming list. For me DA 2 had some great characters.

[Scarlet Rabbi]

eoinnx03 wrote...

the ending was extremly engaging and you felt the weight of your choices.

ROFL.
Absolutely brilliant trolling. A+

Modifié par Scarlet Rabbi, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[Renmiri1]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

May I ask a question?  Why do you replay DA2?  What's different about subsequent playthroughs?  Do you feel like DA2 lets you play meaningfully different Hawkes each time, or are you replaying to re-experience the same story, or simply to make different choices to see what happens?

To me is mainly to get all options of dialog. DA2 is not "click to talk" like DAO is so to fully see what your companions say and act, you need to play different classes and different personas. Carver and Bethany being the obvious one, but also LI wise, the romances play a lot different if you romance someone first or take Isabela first. And Sarcastic Hawke is a lot different than Diplomatic Hawke or Direct Hawke. And your companions reaction to your Hawke change with it.

Sometimes you find an "easter egg" completely by surprise. I was recording something on Legacy and got a dialogue between Hawke, Anders and Fenris that wasn't documented anywhere. Was hilarious!

(Upon getting advice from Larius) (If Hawke is in a romance with Anders and Fenris is in the party)
Larius: Yes.. I can show you out.. Yes
Hawke: Because I always like to follow the advice of tainted crazy people.
Fenris: Never stopped you before! 
Anders: Excuse me ?!?!
Fenris: Nevermind!

 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:10 .

[Sylvianus]

Renmiri1 wrote...

And Sarcastic Hawke is a lot different than Diplomatic Hawke or Direct Hawke. And your companions reaction to your Hawke change with it.

Sometimes you find an "easter egg" completely by surprise. I was recording something on Legacy and got a dialogue between Hawke, Anders and Fenris that wasn't documented anywhere. Was hilarious!

That wasn't really good in DAII. I did not like that my hawk was automatically mean with isabela, just because I take pragmatic decisions.

Being pragmatic does not necessarily mean to be nasty with your friends, especially when the person is supposed to be in love. They need to change of fix that system.

The same with sarcastic Hawk. I do not need that my hawk throws all the time silly jokes whenever I talk to a npc, especially when I want him to be serious sometimes.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:10 .

[eoinnx03]

Scarlet Rabbi wrote...

eoinnx03 wrote...

the ending was extremly engaging and you felt the weight of your choices.

ROFL.
Absolutely brilliant trolling. A+

haha, I wasn't the bit where you have to make a choice at the end and some of your squaddies leave or turn against you. That was sort of weightie.....Ah I'll just shut up.

[Ianamus]

I found the combat mechanics/pace much more fun than Origins, but I found the waves of enemies tedious and tireing. The combat skills that knocked enemy's back or pulled them in and did loads of other fancy stuff were fun to play around with, but there were just so many enemies one after the other, making the fights drag on so much more than they had to. I couldn't even walk the streets without fighting off hordes of enemies, and it got rather dull. 

The story was less fun to play through than Origin's, but it was still good and had it's moments. Although most, if not all of those moments came from side quests. 

Speaking to your companions was much less fun than Origins. In Origins I could speak to them for ages, but here the conversations are short, only happen when the plot allows and so specific you have to talk about what they want to talk about rather than what you want to talk about (I really could care less about you and your mage plight Anders. Just shut up and talk about something else for two seconds and maybe I could bring myself to like you!) not than Fenris was much better but at least between mages, slavery and his past there was some variety. 

Overall it was still enjoyable, but not as fun as Origins and some other games are. 

Modifié par EJ107, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:01 .

[wsandista]

I despised DA2's combat.

Rogues were killing machines who would either shoot an arrow that would grievously wound an opponent or slice them to bits in less than a second.

Mages no longer relied on their spells, which I really hated.

Warriors did the least damage(yes, the class whose entire focus is on combat is now the class that does the least amount of damage) and were generally crap in almost every situation.

[Renmiri1]

wsandista wrote...

I despised DA2's combat.

Rogues were killing machines who would either shoot an arrow that would grievously wound an opponent or slice them to bits in less than a second.

Mages no longer relied on their spells, which I really hated.

Warriors did the least damage(yes, the class whose entire focus is on combat is now the class that does the least amount of damage) and were generally crap in almost every situation.

On WoW and several other games, Warrios are NOT the top damage. They are TANKS and as such draw all the enemy fire and have a thick armor and good damage resistence. Top damage usually comes from ranged classes since the melee classes need endurance or evasion to survive being vulnerable to the boss attacks. Rogues for instance use evasion and are pretty overpowered on WoW but not as much as on DA2 

[Yrkoon]

Good God. I can't believe people here are praising DA2's Combat. Despite DA2's mountain of irredeemable flaws, excuse me, mountain range of irredeemable flaws, I'd rank the Combat as the worst part of the entire game. The arbitrary shoe-horning of the new class rescrictions (warriors can't dual-wield or use bows, Rogues can't use swords, mages can't use anything but staves)  Alone was enough to damn the entire system.

But it was only the very surface of the garbage heap.

-Finishing moves are gone.
-Friendly fire is gone, unless you play on the the highest setting
-Stealth game play is gone.
-The ability to lay traps. perform reconniasance, and plan ambushes was removed.
-Boss battles went from being deadly, explosive tactical affairs in the first game to being nothing more than long, BORING battles of attrition, and not difficult at all in the second game.
-Wave combat for every encounter. <gag>
-Turbo speed  crap. Who was the misguided fool who thought it would be a good idea to make combat in an RPG be arcade like?
-combat Animations. Give me a break.   They were embarrasingly childish. Like watching a bugs bunny or road runner cartoon. Despite what Bioware says, they were NOT designed for adults. They were made to excite and amaze kids.

Oh and one more thing... Mages gyrating around and twirling their staves like professional martial artists does NOT make them more fun to play. Just more sad to watch. As it stands, the only thing they gave mages was a warrior feel. But if I want that feeling, I'll just play a friggin Warrior. And Rogues? They Ruined them. Killed them. Destroyed everything that made rogues fun to play. Rogues used to be the subtle silent killers who strike from the shadows. But in DA2, they're the opposite. They're the flashy acrobat center stagers with machine guns.

<gag> But back on topic. No. I didn't find DA2 fun at all. I found it hideously horrifying. I found myself questioning my own gaming tastes (after all, my eyes weren't deceiving me. The game box DID say Dragon Age and it DID have the  Bioware logo, so this had to be the same kind of Bioware  game I had been playing since I fell in love with Bioware in 1999.... right?)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[wsandista]

Renmiri1 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I despised DA2's combat.

Rogues were killing machines who would either shoot an arrow that would grievously wound an opponent or slice them to bits in less than a second.

Mages no longer relied on their spells, which I really hated.

Warriors did the least damage(yes, the class whose entire focus is on combat is now the class that does the least amount of damage) and were generally crap in almost every situation.

On WoW and several other games, Warrios are NOT the top damage. They are TANKS and as such draw all the enemy fire and have a thick armor and good damage resistence. Top damage usually comes from ranged classes since the melee classes need endurance or evasion to survive being vulnerable to the boss attacks. Rogues for instance use evasion and are pretty overpowered on WoW but not as much as on DA2 

I also think that WOW's combat sytem sucks.

I should have clarified that I meant basic attack melee damage.