63 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr. Explosion]

I bought DA2 when it first came out, but I jumped on the hate bandwagon and quit playing when I was less than half-way through. However, now I'm giving it the chance I should've given it a year ago; I'm currently near the end of act 2 and, I like it. It's not perfect, it was obviously rushed and I agree with a lot of the most common complaints, but I don't think it's as bad as most people claim it is.

I like the change in art style: I like the tapestry art loading screens and "cutscenes" used when Varric switches time periods and I like the way the game world looks. I can't point to anything concrete, or really verbalize (or textualize in this case) what aboot the art style I like, but if the look of DA3 is closer to 2 than it is to Origins, I won't complain. However, if they decide to tone down the armour (less pointy, gaudy protrusions) and weapons, I'd be quite happy.

I like the combat: I was one of the people that thought 2H was incredibly slow, so I was very happy that it got a speed boost. I was also glad they got rid of DA:O's "combat shuffle" and added the dashs and leaps warriors and rogues do to close the distance to enemies. What I'm not a fan of is the waves of enemies; I'd prefer if all the
enemies you had to fight were out in the open at the same time. Two other thing I dislike are some of the mage and rogue combat animations; the rogue needs to be toned down (it's at an 11, when a 6 or 7 would be better), and the way mages twirl around their staves when performing their basic attack needs to go (I'll admit it's a step up from DA:O's "mage poke", and spirit staffs' ghostly gauntlet is one of the coolest things in the whole game, but I'm playing a mage, not a baton twirler).

I like that my companions have lives of their own, visit each other and don't just hang around camp all the time. If any Bio-folk are reading this, take this to the next level by stealing ME3's idea of having party members go to different places when at the Citadel or moving around the Normandy in-between main missions (Isabela and Varric are in the same damn building and as far as I know, they never interact! Do they hate each other?).

I like the talents: The branching talent trees and talent upgrades are awesome. 'Nuff said.


I could go on, but I won't. The point that I evidentaly tried so hard to avoid in my wall'o'text is that overall, I wouldn't mind if 3 was more like 2 than Origins. 2's biggest problem wasn't that it's inferior to Origins (Origins is better, but not by as big a margin as many claim), but that it was rushed and suffered as a rusult.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

*snip*

The critic scores prove you can't trust reviewers. Even if it's a bad game, they'll give it a good score because they want EA to keep sending them free review copies of their games. It certainly doesn't deserve a 82 metacritic score. That's insulting to all the good games out there that really do deserve a high score, like Dragon Age: Origins.

Tinfoil hat time people! The critics are all being bribed!

Just like those sports games that EA releases which frequently get negative reviews from major critics! Clearly EA is bribing critics to give their sports games bad reviews. 

It's a fact that EA and other publishers send reviewers free copies of the games to review. But if they give a game a bad review, the publisher often stops sending them free copies for review purposes. This gives reviewers incentive to give a game a positive score, especially if it's from a large publisher and well known developer.

I wouldn't call it a bribe. It's more in line with coercion.

The $60 game doesn't stop critics from giving negative or mediocre reviews for many EA games. IGN and Gamespot can afford to pay for games to review. 

Just because they can afford to buy games at retail price doesn't change the fact that they would rather get them for free. The publishers are under no obligation to send out free review copies. They do it to give game reviewers incentive to give the game a good score. The score is what matters, not the write up.

[Vandicus]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

*snip*

The critic scores prove you can't trust reviewers. Even if it's a bad game, they'll give it a good score because they want EA to keep sending them free review copies of their games. It certainly doesn't deserve a 82 metacritic score. That's insulting to all the good games out there that really do deserve a high score, like Dragon Age: Origins.

Tinfoil hat time people! The critics are all being bribed!

Just like those sports games that EA releases which frequently get negative reviews from major critics! Clearly EA is bribing critics to give their sports games bad reviews. 

It's a fact that EA and other publishers send reviewers free copies of the games to review. But if they give a game a bad review, the publisher often stops sending them free copies for review purposes. This gives reviewers incentive to give a game a positive score, especially if it's from a large publisher and well known developer.

I wouldn't call it a bribe. It's more in line with coercion.

The $60 game doesn't stop critics from giving negative or mediocre reviews for many EA games. IGN and Gamespot can afford to pay for games to review. 

Just because they can afford to buy games at retail price doesn't change the fact that they would rather get them for free. The publishers are under no obligation to send out free review copies. They do it to give game reviewers incentive to give the game a good score. The score is what matters, not the write up.

Gamespot and IGN persist in giving many EA sports titles bad scores. This demonstrates how much this little $60 incentive really matters, and that would be, it doesn't matter much at all.

[Darth Death]

Bfler wrote...

I'll second that. DA2 is a large step backwards compared to DAO.

Agreed.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

*snip*

The critic scores prove you can't trust reviewers. Even if it's a bad game, they'll give it a good score because they want EA to keep sending them free review copies of their games. It certainly doesn't deserve a 82 metacritic score. That's insulting to all the good games out there that really do deserve a high score, like Dragon Age: Origins.

Tinfoil hat time people! The critics are all being bribed!

Just like those sports games that EA releases which frequently get negative reviews from major critics! Clearly EA is bribing critics to give their sports games bad reviews. 

It's a fact that EA and other publishers send reviewers free copies of the games to review. But if they give a game a bad review, the publisher often stops sending them free copies for review purposes. This gives reviewers incentive to give a game a positive score, especially if it's from a large publisher and well known developer.

I wouldn't call it a bribe. It's more in line with coercion.

The $60 game doesn't stop critics from giving negative or mediocre reviews for many EA games. IGN and Gamespot can afford to pay for games to review. 

Just because they can afford to buy games at retail price doesn't change the fact that they would rather get them for free. The publishers are under no obligation to send out free review copies. They do it to give game reviewers incentive to give the game a good score. The score is what matters, not the write up.

Gamespot and IGN persist in giving many EA sports titles bad scores. This demonstrates how much this little $60 incentive really matters, and that would be, it doesn't matter much at all.

IGN gave Fifa and Madden a 9 and up every year, including this year.

[Tootles FTW]

DA2 > DAO. I love both, and the end of DAO actually made me cry (which is the first video game to do so), but I find the DAO hubs to be a chore. I never go through a DAO playthrough thinking "Yay! Time for the Brecillian Forest/Orzammar/Mage Circle!".
The repetitive DA2 dungeons were pretty bad, but at least I'm in and out in under 10 minutes.

DA3 should be a natural progression of both games, and neither a return to DAO or a repeat of DA2.

[Vandicus]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

*snip*

The critic scores prove you can't trust reviewers. Even if it's a bad game, they'll give it a good score because they want EA to keep sending them free review copies of their games. It certainly doesn't deserve a 82 metacritic score. That's insulting to all the good games out there that really do deserve a high score, like Dragon Age: Origins.

Tinfoil hat time people! The critics are all being bribed!

Just like those sports games that EA releases which frequently get negative reviews from major critics! Clearly EA is bribing critics to give their sports games bad reviews. 

It's a fact that EA and other publishers send reviewers free copies of the games to review. But if they give a game a bad review, the publisher often stops sending them free copies for review purposes. This gives reviewers incentive to give a game a positive score, especially if it's from a large publisher and well known developer.

I wouldn't call it a bribe. It's more in line with coercion.

The $60 game doesn't stop critics from giving negative or mediocre reviews for many EA games. IGN and Gamespot can afford to pay for games to review. 

Just because they can afford to buy games at retail price doesn't change the fact that they would rather get them for free. The publishers are under no obligation to send out free review copies. They do it to give game reviewers incentive to give the game a good score. The score is what matters, not the write up.

Gamespot and IGN persist in giving many EA sports titles bad scores. This demonstrates how much this little $60 incentive really matters, and that would be, it doesn't matter much at all.

IGN gave Fifa and Madden a 9 and up every year, including this year.

http://www.ign.com/g...fl-11/ps3-36265

Typed in IGN Madden 2011 and the first game that pops up got an 8. Now I can go hunt down some of the really bad scores that EA sports series have gotten, but I think people here are smart enough to find that on their own rather than listening to your hyperbole.

[Androme]

o Ventus wrote...

Minus the recycled dungeons, I would actually prefer a more DA2-like game. Being a console player, the core gameplay and combat was better in DA2 for me.

Stop polluting RPGs with your voice.

[ledod]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

I love a lot of things about DA2 and had more fun with it than DAO. Most of my problems with DA2 comes from the game being rushed so I liked the overall direction they took the game.

Same here. I especially prefer the combat in DA2.

I, on the otherhand, did not like DA2's combat relative to Origins. (In a nutshell: constant ambush mode, less-meaningful tactics, and, perhaps, too flashy).

What did you like about DA 2 compared to Origins?

Modifié par ledod, 07 octobre 2012 - 11:25 .

[Shadow Fox]

Yay more bickering between Origins and 2 fans.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Vandicus wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

IGN gave Fifa and Madden a 9 and up every year, including this year.

http://www.ign.com/g...fl-11/ps3-36265

Typed in IGN Madden 2011 and the first game that pops up got an 8. Now I can go hunt down some of the really bad scores that EA sports series have gotten, but I think people here are smart enough to find that on their own rather than listening to your hyperbole.

If you think my comment is a hyperbole, you haven't seen many hyperboles.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 07 octobre 2012 - 11:28 .

[slimgrin]

Not that I'll be buying this game, and I'm usually a staunch defender of DA:O...but I've been replaying it lately, and the combat is just this side of watching grass grow when it comes to entertainment.

Modifié par slimgrin, 07 octobre 2012 - 11:29 .

[Vandicus]

*Tried to format this post and ended up double posting. Look below for somewhat more clear post. Still had issue with the quotes.

Modifié par Vandicus, 07 octobre 2012 - 11:34 .

[SirDoctorofTARDIS]

I'd rather have an equal mix of both. The Friendship/Rivalry system and combat from Dragon Age 2 for example are things I'd like kept for Inquisition.

[Vandicus]

Vandicus wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...


IGN gave Fifa and Madden a 9 and up every year, including this year.

Vandicus wrote...

http://www.ign.com/g...fl-11/ps3-36265

Typed in IGN Madden 2011 and the first game that pops up got an 8. Now I can go hunt down some of the really bad scores that EA sports series have gotten, but I think people here are smart enough to find that on their own rather than listening to your hyperbole.

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...


If you think my comment is a hyperbole, you haven't seen many hyperboles.

Hyperbole is an exaggeration. You exaggerated, and quite clearly. People exaggerate all the time. Doesn't make their any exaggerations anything besides what they are.

http://www.ign.com/g...09/psp-14241217

There's an EA sports game with a rather poor score. EA has a monopoly on football games due to a contract with the NFL, and as such have very limited competition there. Not familiar with the FIFA series, but does it lack any major competition as well? 

[King Cousland]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The fans have not been clear. The opinions are all over the landscape. In this thread alone you have gamers who are split. There is no consensus. The only part this forum agrees on is no more re-cycled environments.

Again we hear "consensus". Along with "generic", it has to be one of the most over used words on these forums. What exactly do you define as consensus? Majority rule or unanimous agreement? At the time you posted this the majority of people who had posted seemed to be in favour of the OPs proposition, yet if you're looking for unanimity, fans may as well not offer any feedback whatsoever. 

[ledod]

slimgrin wrote...

Not that I'll be buying this game, and I'm usually a staunch defender of DA:O...but I've been replaying it lately, and the combat is just this side of watching grass grow when it comes to entertainment.

I will agree that most battles are trivial in origins, and thus unexciting/mind-numbingly slow. However, certain encounters were so well-designed/challenging, that the combat afforded a satisfying pace

(A personal fav' are the battles at Ostagar tower)

[slimgrin]

ledod wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Not that I'll be buying this game, and I'm usually a staunch defender of DA:O...but I've been replaying it lately, and the combat is just this side of watching grass grow when it comes to entertainment.

I will agree that most battles are trivial in origins, and thus unexciting/mind-numbingly slow. However, certain encounters were so well-designed/challenging, that the combat afforded a satisfying pace

(A personal fav' are the battles at Ostagar tower)

Never did play DA2, but it's not just the combat, it's the skill trees in DA:O which offer very mundane choices.

[Realmzmaster]

King Cousland wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The fans have not been clear. The opinions are all over the landscape. In this thread alone you have gamers who are split. There is no consensus. The only part this forum agrees on is no more re-cycled environments.

Again we hear "consensus". Along with "generic", it has to be one of the most over used words on these forums. What exactly do you define as consensus? Majority rule or unanimous agreement? At the time you posted this the majority of people who had posted seemed to be in favour of the OPs proposition, yet if you're looking for unanimity, fans may as well not offer any feedback whatsoever. 

I am talking about posts on this forum that I have been reading and responding to  for more than 18 months. Anytime someone says the majority I want to see the data to back up that assertion otherwise it is just opinion. I do not use the word majority I only speak for the minority of one myself.

[Bigdoser]

I want something that is between both games since da2 did some things better than DAO and DAO did some things better than DA2.

[Chromie]

ledod wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Not that I'll be buying this game, and I'm usually a staunch defender of DA:O...but I've been replaying it lately, and the combat is just this side of watching grass grow when it comes to entertainment.

I will agree that most battles are trivial in origins, and thus unexciting/mind-numbingly slow. However, certain encounters were so well-designed/challenging, that the combat afforded a satisfying pace

(A personal fav' are the battles at Ostagar tower)

What I want is for Bioware to change encounters. Instead of fighting a huge group of enemies how about a small number. Denerim's alleys had like 10-16 bandits attack the party at once maybe more why not just haven't though enemies that really require the group to attack in a strategic manner? Fighting a Revenants with a group of enemies was always fun because how challenging it was.

But what Slimgrin is talking about is entirely different which I also agree. The talent system didn't offer much in the way of customization. You get so many talents and skill points you end up having over half the abilites by the end of the game. The terrible cooldown system sure doesn't help either. 

Modifié par Skelter192, 08 octobre 2012 - 12:35 .

[Sejborg]

o Ventus wrote...

Minus the recycled dungeons, I would actually prefer a more DA2-like game. Being a console player, the core gameplay and combat was better in DA2 for me.

Being a console player aswell I disagree wholeheartedly.

[Rylor Tormtor]

I think we see something of the divide. As far as combat and controls go, it seems many console players preferred DA2. I am happy for them on that account.

I am unhapppy, however, that, for me, this comes as a determent to enjoyment of the PC version for me. That isn't their fault, and I suppose it isn't really Bioware's fault either. They went with a cross platform design choice, which is their prerogative to maximize sales and exposure and such, but I think there was a cascade of design choices that lead to at best a mediocre in DA2 for me.

[Realmzmaster]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

I think we see something of the divide. As far as combat and controls go, it seems many console players preferred DA2. I am happy for them on that account.

I am unhapppy, however, that, for me, this comes as a determent to enjoyment of the PC version for me. That isn't their fault, and I suppose it isn't really Bioware's fault either. They went with a cross platform design choice, which is their prerogative to maximize sales and exposure and such, but I think there was a cascade of design choices that lead to at best a mediocre in DA2 for me.

I like DA2 and DAO. I play on a PC. The basic mechanics of the games are not that different. Aside from the recycled environments the rest comes down to preference.