118 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

DA2 is definately better in dialogues and characters. Origin's lack of PC voice and personality made the protagonist pretty dull and characterless. I don't know why I loved Origins so much more than DA2 upon its release, but recently I've been trying to replay those and I find DA2 more enjoyable due to said reasons above.

DA:O has better choice-and-consequences, but the exitement wears thin if you have already experienced the plot. I prefer combats of DA:O too, but the whole combat part is not what is appealing about DA franchise and doesn't affect my rating.

DA2, while obviously rushed in many places, has done dialogue/characters better and those are the core of RPGs. Since DA2 took 11 month to develop(if the rumors are true) or 2 years as Bioware claims, I wouldn't mind if they pump out DA2 quality games every 2 year rather than waiting for the next sequel for 5 years.

Bioware's storytelling is good in average game standard, but they are not worth the waiting of 5 years. I know it's not a popular opinion, but I would rather have DA3, DA4, DA5 with enjoyable stories and characters with some shortcomings in gameplay instead of a masterpiece that would be DA3 currently in development.

It comes from me consideirng RPG's value as storytelling only. Recycling maps never bothered me as I never cared for graphics. Life is short and there are only limited gaming experience you can have. I would want to hear as many stories as possible. No matter how well-made DA3 is, its gameplay will get old in few years anyway.

I consider myself more of hardcore gamer; surprisingly however, I find DA2 more fun than DA:O the story of which is too much of cliche and the main protagonist missing vital personal interactions with other characters.(his/her relationshi with others are mostly one-directional.)

[Eamon696]

I sort of agree.

I think Dragon Age 2 has better characters (Isabela, Merril, Varric, Aveline, etc.), a better combat system, and better UI. On the other hand Dragon Age Origins has a better story, a better world, and better RPG options.

 I like each game about equally, but I find it is easier to replay DA2 because DA:O's combat is boring to me(which is wierd because I loved KOTOR's).

[Ferretinabun]

I don't know about *preferring* it to DA:O, but I definitely got to like DA2 more on subsequent playthroughs. For this, I found, there are two essential things to keep in mind:

1) Do quests one at a time. This helps to keep clear in your head exactly what you are doing and why, instead of it being just a clusterf**k of sidequests where you just run about killing stuff but forget why. Which makes the plot so much more comprehensible.

2) Keep reminding yourself this is a framed narrative - told by Varric of all people. With this in mind, all plot holes (and least, ones internal to the game) are explained away and the overly sexualised women and cartoonish combat actively make a lot of sense - they're exactly the things Varrric would exaggerate. Even the recycled environments can be put down as a metaphor for Varric's lack of interest in describing background locations. Yes it is an ass-pull, but it's one that works amazing well.

Modifié par Ferretinabun, 18 février 2014 - 06:54 .

[Pateu]

Weird, I thought DA:O's characters better while the plot of DA2 was superior.

I mean, how does one compare Alistair and Morrigan to Isabela and Varric.

Seriously...

[weaselshep]

Ferretinabun wrote...

I don't know about *preferring* it to DA:O, but I definitely got to like DA2 more on subsequent playthroughs. For this, I found, there are two essential things to keep in mind:

1) Do quests one at a time. This helps to keep clear in your head exactly what you are doing and why, instead of it being just a clusterf**k of sidequests where you just run about killing stuff but forget why. Which makes the plot so much more comprehensible.

2) Keep reminding yourself this is a framed narrative - told by Varric of all people. With this in mind, all plot holes (and least, ones internal to the game) are explained away and the overly sexualised women and cartoonish combat actively make a lot of sense - they're exactly the things Varrric would exaggerate. Even the recycled environments can be put down as a metaphor for Varric's lack of interest in describing background locations. Yes it is an ass-pull, but it's one that works amazing well.

All but the recycled environs are how I have felt about the game for a long time.
Mind you I have the console version not PC so the differences between DAO and DA2 were far smaller.

[DrZann]

Pretty much. The reused environments are still a real drag, though.

[Hrungr]

I definitely like the banter in DA2 and the voiced Hawke (Sarcasti-Hawke is pretty damn funny at times).

 

I sort of agree.

I think Dragon Age 2 has better characters (Isabela, Merril, Varric, Aveline, etc.), a better combat system, and better UI. On the other hand Dragon Age Origins has a better story, a better world, and better RPG options.

 I like each game about equally, but I find it is easier to replay DA2 because DA:O's combat is boring to me(which is wierd because I loved KOTOR's).

I agree with some of this - I really did enjoy the banter in DA2, and the voiced Hawke (especially Sarcasti-Hawke). But on the PC side at least I felt the UI took a step backward. I do like some of the combat changes in DA2, but it take away from the tactical side...

[Korusus]

Being more of a BioWare fan than a Dragon Age fan, I'm more than happy to see them take the 3-5 years to make an epic game that lives on in the memories of gamers for decades to come because I know first-hand what they are capable of when give the time and resources.  BioWare is more of an idea than a developer in my book.  Normally I would trash DA2 here, but I'm not going to do that because I happen to agree that it does have a great story and a great cast of characters and I'll leave it at that.

[KaiserShep]

I love DA2. If the environments were richer and more varied and its combat a bit more down to earth, I would have considered it sublime. Loath as I am to forgive some really glaring technical faults with the game, I love the character focus and its story and writing enough to overlook them even on multiple playthroughs.

[Bizantura]

"DA2 is definitely better in dialogues and characters."  Not in my perception, alltogether written for a totaly different demografic.  Put politely, very young teens.

"Origin's lack of PC voice and personality made the protagonist pretty dull and characterless. "  For me that is the reverse, Hawke has no personality and I would not recognise the voice male or female to this completly uninteresting/bland protagonist.  Most of the cast of characters are boring/infantile and annoying and I hope will not be appearing in DAI.

 

So no I hope DAI will find a more balanced aproach demografic wise and does not cater to the ages of 9-99 all though they have the right and if it boost sales for Bioware then I wish them good fortunes and be on my way.  The label "adult" I never understood on DA2.

[KaiserShep]

I wouldn't agree at all that the dialogue is aimed at very young teens.

[Ruairi46]

I think loghains character bumps up any and all characters of dragon age origins.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I myself like DA2 over Origins, but that has a lot to do with the combat and gameplay in general. The fast pace gameplay, along with the actual mechanics of attacking, running, targeting, and all of that filler goodness for the story bridge, we're a heck of a lot more enjoyable. And it got ride of one of my major gripes with origins, which was the daiper walk and repositioning shuffle that went on almost constantly in gameplay. I just had a lot more control, which helped me play better, which helped me rp better.

 

The story and characters were about origins quality, meaning they hit and missed but were still pretty enjoyable. I actually didn't mind the story either, and felt it refreshing and feeling less linear then origins story. While choices didn't matter as much as origins out it's choices to be, I felt I had more control over my character and plot, while origins feels very guided and on the rails at times. Overall, DA2 was just a better experience as far as games go.

 

But no, I would not want them to rush the games to keep churning out mediocre plots and stories, because that almost diminishes on characters and gameplay. Reused graphics and rushed storyline arcs were big problems in DA2 and I don't want them coming back. Bioware should take its time to craft the best possible balance they can.

[Thermopylae]

I liked the idea of DA2, and the changes in the environment over the years had a strong resonance but they could have shown this change more. For example a dungeon close to a river, over time becomes flooded, a tribe or group of dungeon dwellers that over time (with the players help) eventually take over or shape the dungeon/ area. The city of Kirkwall could have demonstrated more influenced by the player, in a mundane way, whether they became a merchant, politician or underworld figure, for example. The narrative progression of the city, where the influence of the player does not really change the outcomes conveys a sense of powerlessness of the player to change an inevitable evolution of events but is somewhat irritating as i does take away a sense of player agency. But yeah, the characters are quite well written and I appreciate the less heroic cycle narrative and a more mundane life as lived approach of DA2, with of course its cathartic & heroic moments as well. 

[LostInReverie19]

I agree. I too prefer DA2 over Origins. I've replayed 2 many more times than Origins. However, I still love Origins, obviously. It's a great game, but it feels more...tedious to play than 2. I'm not sure how anyone can think of 2 as being more juvenile a game than Origins. The storyline of Origins is very cliche to the fantasy genre. Dragon Age 2, on the other hand, felt more adult in the way that you were playing a rather ordinary person with minimal control over their fate. They couldn't make huge changes in the outcome of Kirkwall, and that felt very realistic to me. The Warden on the other hand was just another Chosen One, which is why I felt more distance between me and the character. I definitely felt closer and could relate more to Hawke. Now of course there are things I don't like about the second game, mainly how we're stuck in Kirkwall, and we had no choice but to play a human character. I'm looking forward to Inquisition and hoping they combine the best elements of both games: the choice and freedom of Origins with the more mature, less cliche story and more intriguing, less cliche characters of Dragon Age 2. 

 

Basically, imo, Dragon Age 2 has the better, more mature, and less cliche story and cast of characters than Origins, and that is why I prefer it, even though I like both games. 

[Rawgrim]

When the player`s choices doesn`t matter at all in a game, it is a poor rpg. The same goes for being forced to play a character developed by the developers, and lose controll over the character`s actions and dialogue in cutscenes. The game felt more like Diablo + Soul Calibur + Dialogue options.

 

Putting the player in the passenger`s seat is a capital offence when it comes to roleplaying games. The player should be in the driver`s seat all the way.

[Frostmourne86]

When the player`s choices doesn`t matter at all in a game, it is a poor rpg. The same goes for being forced to play a character developed by the developers, and lose controll over the character`s actions and dialogue in cutscenes. The game felt more like Diablo + Soul Calibur + Dialogue options.

 

Putting the player in the passenger`s seat is a capital offence when it comes to roleplaying games. The player should be in the driver`s seat all the way.

So you don't want to have a plot/storyline?  It seems that if player choice is limited it gives the developers better opportunity to craft a tighter story, though YMMV.  Look at Skyrim - it was lauded for its RP/player choice, but there was no overarching story.

[Rawgrim]

So you don't want to have a plot/storyline?  It seems that if player choice is limited it gives the developers better opportunity to craft a tighter story, though YMMV.  Look at Skyrim - it was lauded for its RP/player choice, but there was no overarching story.

 

Plot and storyline, sure. But I want my actions in game to affect the outcome of that storyline. DA2 completely ignores the player`s choices. If you help Anders with his quest, he blows up the chantry. If you don`t help him, he manages to do the quest himself and then blows up the chantry.

 

I see that the developers gets a better oppertunity to craft a tighter story if they do it this way, and that is all good. For any genre other than roleplaying games. This way is often used in action-adventure games likes Assassin`s Creed etc, and it works perfectly there. Roleplaying games are all about the player, choices, and outcomes based on choices.

 

Skyrim had about 20 separate stories. You got to pick wich ones you wanted to play. Skyrim is way different than Bioware games anyway, so one can`t really compare the two.

[calvinien]

I find my biggest issuie with da2 is lack of polish. It's one of the games where I play by what I refer to as 'house rules' that is to say I put extra restrictions on myself to make the game more fun.

 

So I can't get the templar specialization without getting rich first (to afford black market lyrium). Can't get assassin without meeting zevran or tallis. Can't use blood magic without an evil tome or befriending merril. Can't get spirit healer without going into the fade. Can't use various item pack stuff until an appropriate quest (no lion of orlais/golden pricne until after MOTA). And at the end of certain quests I allow myself to abuse the money cheat so I can afford the mor einteresting looking armors so I'm not just in the Champion gear in every game.

 

From a character/plot perspective I like it more than origins. Origins is a fairly rote fantasy story. And the replay value lies in the different backstories, whether you killed trian willingly or were tricked into it has huge implicatiosn for the dwarf noble etc. By playing the origins differently you can change how the entire game, whihc helps given its somewhat generic character. 2 doesn't have that problem and the personal relationships are rewarding enough on teir own. Gives me big hopes for inquisition if it can combine the two.

[Shrave]

Weird, I thought DA:O's characters better while the plot of DA2 was superior.

I mean, how does one compare Alistair and Morrigan to Isabela and Varric.

Seriously...

 

Uh... easy. Varric and my Hawke became BFFs. Bros, man, Bros. Varric was the one guy I HAD to have in my party. I could trust him, I got his back, he got mine. Alistair was a nitwit. All our conversations dealt with morality, duty, etc. Isabella was weak in my opinion, but Aveline was amazing. She was the female version of Varric. We were all pretty loyal to each other Morrigan, on the other hand, while strong, I never got close to. 

Character development was far superior in DA2 than DAO in my opinion.

[NextArishok]

I did facepalm when I read the title.....but........Arishok

[Wafodie.]

I understand OP. I actually think DA2 is Bioware's best game.

[sonyajeb]

You know, I tried to replay DA:O recently and got totally bored after a while. Though maybe my problem was doing the mage quest first... gah, all that stuff in the Fade is so dull and drags on FOREVER.

[sonyajeb]

Ack, hit post too soon. Was just gonna say, I like DA2 better, too. So you're not alone. :-)

[Hydwn]

I like both games, and find them a little difficult to compare because they're so different.  Comparing epic fantasy and fictional biography is a little odd.

 

I do think DA2 never got its due.  Fans reacted badly to it because it was so different from DAO, and it did have flaws like repeated environments.  DA2 rewards multiple playthroughs, though, and the story develops richly for it.

 

You know, DA2 is often referred to as episodic, because of its three-act structure.  Bu when you think of it, DAO was in its own way even more episodic.  What you do in the Brecilian forest has no impact on what happens in Orzammar, and the Landsmeet won't care what you did at the circle tower.  But your game is going to be deeply affected based on choices in early episodes in DA2 - starting with your sibling and what happened to them.  Choices build off choices, even choices across different storylines, though it sacrifices some open-worldedness for it.  

 

For that reason, DA2 looks more different from playthrough to playthrough than a game of of DAO.  No matter what you've done in DAO, you won't ever have to slaughter innocents and choose whether or not to kill your sister on the way up Fort Drakon, or find your brother instead fighting for the enemy.

 

As for the characters, the world is evenly split.  I think every main companion in Origins and DA2 is well-written, complex, and interesting, and whether you like Alistair or Fenris, Morrigan or Merrill probably depends on the kind of person you are more than the writers.  Awakening, though, is another story (I swear Velanna doesn't have the same personality or values in any two cutscenes or party banters...).