63 réponses à ce sujet

[TheCharmedOne]

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.

DITTO!

[SafetyShattered]

Yeah...pretty much. Not going to go into it again because I've done that so many times before. But I'll just sum it up like this DAO>DA2.

Modifié par Shadowfang12, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:51 .

[addiction21]

Funny how after DA2 when BioWare reps said "there were fans that wanted DA:O2" the **** fit that was thrown around here.

I guess its okay when nameless forumites say it...

[TheGreatLordShatner]

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. 

They might be able to afford the $60 but they sure the heck can't afford their review to come out after release date.

[The Six Path of Pain]

Sejborg wrote...

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.

I second this.

[FINE HERE]

I think we should all just forget DA2 even happened. The less from that game the better. In fact, they should just make a sequel to DA:O, not DA2.

[Eckswhyzed]

Disagree.

DA2 felt much more engaging to me. Well, if BW is to be believed we'll get the best of both worlds.

[AlexJK]

Everyone who says that DA2 is a categorically bad game, worthy of scores in the 3-4/10 range, has got a serious objectivity problem.

DA2 is NOT a bad game. Yes, it has flaws (more, perhaps, than players were prepared to allow), and yes, the gameplay diverged from that of DA:Origins in a direction that some (clearly, many) fans felt was wrong.

But it is absolutely a solid, well above average quality game, worth 6-8/10 any day.

[Cutlasskiwi]

ledod wrote...

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?

I felt more engaged in the combat. Rogues and mages was a blast to play and that's coming from someone who normally hates playing as a mage. They felt like they were actively taking part in the combat if that makes sense. Also cross class combos!

Now, there are parts that I didn't like and the ambushes were to much. Shorter version: I had more fun fighting in DA2.

[zyntifox]

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 myself i disagree. Not that the core gameplay was better for you but that it was better because you are a console player. In my opinion the only thing DA2 did better than DA:O, in terms of gameplay, on the console was implementing the move-to-point command.

[zyntifox]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...




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.

The reason why the system is corrupt is hardly because the reviewers wants free copies of the games. It is corrupt because they are dependant on money from adds. And since their products are game-reviews people interested in games are more likely to visit their pages and thus game corporations will offer most money for advertising spots. That's why i only trust game-reviewers that is working for a webpage or magazine whose purpose is not just game-related.

[Pelle6666]

The story in DA2 withered away after the deep roads expedition. Unless DA3:I has a plot that is developed and maintained from star to finish it will meet the same fate. The combat was too messy and unrealistic and the characters ha way to little "screen time" for me to get involved with them.

[EricHVela]

Someone (I think DG) mentioned that people expecting DA:O might be disappointed.

[Killer3000ad]

Agree with OP. DA2 was such a traversty in so many areas, especially combat, encounter design, party inventory management (or lack of it) and some weak storytelling (long timeskips between acts). Bring back DAO I say! About the only things DA2 did better and should be kept in DA3 was the more varied non-linear skills trees and sarcastic Hawke.

Modifié par Killer3000ad, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:11 .