509 réponses à ce sujet

[dekarserverbot]

Having not read the whole thread, my points may well have been covered by others, but here they are anyway, make of them what you will.

1. Lack of a coherent narrative - foremost what DA2 lacks is a single overarching narrative that ties it all together. Instead of a single story we really have three only tangentially connected stories bolted together with a few hints and references here and there to tie it together. Act 1 is poor refugee makes good. Act 2 is people poke a bear (the Qunari) with sticks until it attacks. And act 3 is everyone goes mad and tries to kill each other because reasons. They tried to weave elements of the plots through the chapters, but it just feels like plot-by-committee (which it most likely was).

2. Player agency - In the end, for everything that Hawke does, the result is the same. All Hawke ends up doing is witnessing the descent of Kirkwall into collective insanity. In a book or film, this could be quite a powerful and poignant narrative (hero does everything in his power, but events are beyond even his control), but in a videogame disempowering the player is a cardinal sin. Videogames are all about the player and their actions (and RPGs even more so), so making Hawke actions and choices amount to almost nothing but window dressing was bad form.

3. Blatant recycling of art assets - The cave. Need I say more? DA2 had such a paucity of art assets and the repetitious way they were used really dented immersion and made the game less interesting (aesthetically) due to the lack of variety in the artwork. The Qunari are another example; they are such an interesting race, and they only had one model (other than the Arishok) in the whole game. That's just a really weak effort, which was probably mostly indicative of where corners were cut to ship it in such a shot turnaround time.

However, credit where credit is due, I do think that the combat in DA2 was much more engaging and fun to play than DAO's, which was pretty slow going a lot of the time. I rather enjoyed the more frenetic pace of DA2 combat.

DA2 is a decent game, we just expect a heck of a lot more from Bioware because we know they can do so much better. Fortunately, Inquisition looks like it will offer a heck of a lot more than DA2 did.

BRAVO! finally a coherent post here that helps my uncoordinated and qunarish speech sintetize in a "not-so-closed-minded-as-it-looks" post.

I agree with everything except the conclusion. I don't enjoyed the combat in DA2, it was screaming "God Of War", "lolipop chainsaw" or "Dynasty Warriors" games that i hate because all what must be done is pressing the same buttons all over the time while your character manages to use a weapon as if it was a pillow with mortal kombat effects on infinite hordes of enemies that have a "kamikaze pinata" strategy. Maybe DAO combat is slow, but i preffered it to DA2...

About inquisition I like what i see, seems like it's doing it right. Well the mage combat still sucks big dragon age 2 balls, but the knight goes in a soul calibur fashion (realistic skilled instead of "HEY! MY MASSIVE HAMMER IS MADE OF FOAMMY") and the "jagged alliance" like tactical movement is also cool. The ridicoulus and non-sense skill trees from DA2 had been rehearsed and enhaced into more logical ones

[KaiserShep]

DA2 is the only reason I was ever able to complete a Dragon Age game as a mage. If Inquisition's design had the mage go back to the ambien pill that was DA:O's, needless to say the arcane would be left strictly to the supporting characters indefinitely.

[Realmzmaster]

IMHO, DAO was sadly lacking compared to Baldur's Gate I & II especially considering it was billed as the spiritual successor. I like DAO, but I found DA2 more fun to play even with its faults. DAO also had its share of faults when I compare it to other crpgs that Bioware created (like Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate).

 

My primary consideration for a game is fun. I simply had more fun with DA2. DA2 made playing a mage fun.

[SpaceV3gan]

The aspect which really killed DA2 for me was the lack of customization. Not only because you are forced to be a human, or the fact that you can't change your companions clothing. But because you can't create any build outside the archetypal Warrior/Rogue/Mage.
Where is my mage tank, my rogue tank, my ranger who sets traps and summons animals, my archer/DW weapon specialist warrior, my Morrigan Arcane Warrior, my Wynne Blood Mage and so on?
Everything as far as build possibilities were concerned was streamlined to appeal to a playerbase that either don't care about customization or were too unimaginative to use them.
There were some attempts to create a high DPS elemental warrior, but Bioware nerfed the warrior class. There were also some rogues and mages running around in heavy armor and warriors running around in light armor, but Bioware discouraged such practice by giving us overpowered class specific Weapon/Armor Packs.

I also didn't like the Story much, I found it too shallow and most of the companions to be one-dimensional, but I am pretty sure the majority of players concur on those aspects.

I only hope that DA:I allow us to customize on a level that is expected from a Western RPG.

[Elhanan]

While I also miss the more open choices of DAO, DA2 improved the remaining Warrior classes, esp when it comes to versatility. The new tiers allowed for a wider range of choices for the S&S and 2H.

And while Archer and DW were restricted, these were preferences I used for Rogues anyway, for the additional abilities, skills, etc. But I understand that others liked these options, so I try not to speak for others of a differing opinion.

While DA only has three classes, there is a lot of choices in how they can be customized. While DAO offered more options, and one reason I also prefer DAO, DA2 offered less restrictive tiers, better Follower loyalty mechanics, full VO, and other changes that I enjoyed more than the prequel.

[MagicalMaster]

Serious question: why SHOULD rogues and mages be able to tank?

 

Why SHOULD you be able to force Morrigan to be an Arcane Warrior when she's shown to be a shifter?

 

Why SHOULD you be able to force Wynne to be a Blood Mage when that's something she'd incredibly disapprove of?

[dekarserverbot]

Serious question: why SHOULD rogues and mages be able to tank?
 
Why SHOULD you be able to force Morrigan to be an Arcane Warrior when she's shown to be a shifter?
 
Why SHOULD you be able to force Wynne to be a Blood Mage when that's something she'd incredibly disapprove of?

Not every tank in the world is a huge extra size fat paladin that covers everyone or a dwarf crumpled in heavy armor and shields, a tank could also be a fairy that provokes enemies and dodges attacks or a slime that sludges the floor near him while devouring their opponents. Mage tanks are actually DAMAGE TANKS surrounded by auras that deal damage, debuff and suck enemies life. Rogues can be EVASION tanks, that taunt for atention by doing use of their dual weapon combat style and provoke enemies to attack them while Oghren or any two handed warrior prepares his "one hit ko" attack.

About Morrigan she can use the arcane warrior talents to equip close combat weapons and use for spellpower instead of strenght in her bear, swarm or spider forms. Also it's stated that arcane warriors are mostly dalish elves, plus it appeals her more than blood mage or healer spirit.

The last point i have no objection, Wynne as blood mage would be either hypocrite or OOC but players sometimes go "what the heck! I summon my Alien Space Bats" and force the character to do things that they won't do, and this applies to EVERY SINGLE GAME.

[HTTP 404]

A lot of people (not everyone) tend to measure things as either good or bad.  I look at Da2 as somewhere in the middle with a bit more good than bad.  I thought there was some positive improvements made in the second and some things that had me scratch my head.  I plan on replaying it soon and actually look forward to it.

[Nicholas Nunes]

I liked da:o more because it feelt darker which is a thing i really like

but i like da2 as well im replaying it for the third time at this moment

[Darkly Tranquil]

I liked da:o more because it feelt darker which is a thing i really like
but i like da2 as well im replaying it for the third time at this moment

Obviously you're interpretation is your own, but in many ways, I actually find DA2 to be just as dark, if not more so than Origins because the lines of who is good and who is bad and where the fault lies are far more blurred and because, rather than the central threat being some "alien" existential foe like the Darkspawn, the central threat in DA2 seems to be the flaws in human nature, and the unintended consequences of people's actions. Origins feels like a far more traditional "band of renegade heroes battle the forces of evil while having to defy the system" type of adventure story. In DA2, the adversaries are primarily manifestations of the character faults of groups and individuals. We have the greed/hunger of Bartrand, the pride/arrogance of Patrice, the "love"/desire of Quentin, the paranoia/fear of Meredith, and the hate/anger of Anders, all of whose actions massively influence what takes place. Then you've got the rogue Templars Tranquillizing mages, blood mages running amok, nobles summoning demons, Merrill's demon in the mirror, religious radicals on various sides provoking trouble, dragons, bandits, slavers, and, of course Corypheus to top it all off. And that's just a few of the nasty things going on in DA2. Basically, Kirkwall is a Hellmouth.

[SpaceV3gan]

Serious question: why SHOULD rogues and mages be able to tank?

 

Why SHOULD you be able to force Morrigan to be an Arcane Warrior when she's shown to be a shifter?

 

Why SHOULD you be able to force Wynne to be a Blood Mage when that's something she'd incredibly disapprove of?

There are several ways to tank. Mages and Rogues in DAO can be excellent tanks in their own rights. Personally, I like hybridism and the possibilities of coming up with non-standard builds. And DA:O wasn't particularly challenging, to a point on which playing highly optimized characters was boring.

The examples of Morrigan's and Wynne's specializations were only to emphasize that the player was in control of the game. In DA2 you have no control whatsoever. If you want a Healer in your party, they give you Anders and that's it. If you don't like him or his ideology, that is your problem. Also, if you want a tank, they give you Aveline. You have no secondary choice, other than Hawke him/herself.
Refusing the player the possibility to create something other than the single option which is given turned me off.

[Elhanan]

Serious question: why SHOULD rogues and mages be able to tank?
 
Why SHOULD you be able to force Morrigan to be an Arcane Warrior when she's shown to be a shifter?
 
Why SHOULD you be able to force Wynne to be a Blood Mage when that's something she'd incredibly disapprove of?

Freedom of choice; not force. And while I do not accept the general role of Tank, if the Mage or Rogue are able to be more durable than the typical design, each indv Player should be able to choose to utilize that role or not.

I have never used the Shifter talents, even when Morrigan had the Specialization. For me, it is a wasted selection. And while I have never used BM for Wynne, those Players doing so should have the option; easy enough to explain RP reasons as the heavy influence from others in the tower, as well as her already being possessed by a Spirit.

[KaiserShep]

I guess if people want to RP that Wynne is a huge hypocrite that protests the use of blood magic in the alienage, that's cool. Personally, I always found the option kind of dumb. I personally liked that DA2 did not allow you to turn Anders and Bethany into blood mages, but then blood magic was always a very poor specialization in terms of how it's built up roleplaying wise in the franchise, and I'm not surprised that it was canned for Inquisition.

[Sidney]

There are several ways to tank. Mages and Rogues in DAO can be excellent tanks in their own rights. Personally, I like hybridism and the possibilities of coming up with non-standard builds. And DA:O wasn't particularly challenging, to a point on which playing highly optimized characters was boring.

The examples of Morrigan's and Wynne's specializations were only to emphasize that the player was in control of the game. In DA2 you have no control whatsoever. If you want a Healer in your party, they give you Anders and that's it. If you don't like him or his ideology, that is your problem. Also, if you want a tank, they give you Aveline. You have no secondary choice, other than Hawke him/herself.
Refusing the player the possibility to create something other than the single option which is given turned me off.

 

 

...because your companions aren't blank slates.  HATED DAO for the fact that your companions have zero real will of their own. You can make Wynne a blood mage or Morrigan a spirit healer. Awful. Boone in FNV wouldn't, for example, let you put him in legion armor no matter how much better it was than what he was wearing. Greatness. Made him feel like something more than a tool in my toolbox. Sorry that Anders is your only healer, maybe you have to adapt to not having a pure healer. Find other ways to fight. If you are wedded to a role like tank and healer that is your problem not the game.  The funny thing is the game allows a myrid of options but you want to have a very fixed set of options like the game has to cater to exactly how you want to play by giving a Type A healer and a Type B healer. 

 

Choices have consequences and if your choice is that Anders is a crazy possessed nutbag you want nothing to do with that has a price unlike in DAO where you could just spec some other mage out so that your party looks exactly the same no matter if you kill Wynne for example.

 

People always talk about choice but  what it comes down to is you want cosmetic choice. I want to pick a meaningless race (and yes race was meaningless in DAO don't eve try and pretend otherwise), meaningless gender, I want to make meaningless choices on armor (stats between juggernaut, legion and such don't make a lick spit of difference) but make a choice where something bad can happen and hold the phones!

[Sidney]

Freedom of choice; not force. And while I do not accept the general role of Tank, if the Mage or Rogue are able to be more durable than the typical design, each indv Player should be able to choose to utilize that role or not.

I have never used the Shifter talents, even when Morrigan had the Specialization. For me, it is a wasted selection. And while I have never used BM for Wynne, those Players doing so should have the option; easy enough to explain RP reasons as the heavy influence from others in the tower, as well as her already being possessed by a Spirit.

 

...but rogues in DA2 are insanely durable because their defense gets so high they literally can't be hit. My rogue wades into fights, hammers people with assassinate and vendetta draws all the attention off that massive output of damage. Is he a traditional tank where he absorbed a ton of damange, no. He's a non-traditional tank who draws a lot of attention and doesn't die because he can't be hit. People are too wedded to literal types of roles.

 

See, the thing is Morrigan isn't just something useful to you - she is a character. This is the difference bewteen something like Icewind Dale which wasn't really an RPG as much a tactical (using a verrrrry loose definition of the term) wargame where your party were deaf, dumb mute creations there to be min/maxxed and something like the DA series where I want my allies to be individuals and not just a function for me to employ.

[Elhanan]

...but rogues in DA2 are insanely durable because their defense gets so high they literally can't be hit. My rogue wades into fights, hammers people with assassinate and vendetta draws all the attention off that massive output of damage. Is he a traditional tank where he absorbed a ton of damange, no. He's a non-traditional tank who draws a lot of attention and doesn't die because he can't be hit. People are too wedded to literal types of roles.
 
See, the thing is Morrigan isn't just something useful to you - she is a character. This is the difference bewteen something like Icewind Dale which wasn't really an RPG as much a tactical (using a verrrrry loose definition of the term) wargame where your party were deaf, dumb mute creations there to be min/maxxed and something like the DA series where I want my allies to be individuals and not just a function for me to employ.

Perhaps YOUR Rogues were insanely durable, but not so with mine. Varric was often the first to die until I had him fitted with multiple ways of evading combat. I do not accept the MMO roles for the DA series (eg; pass on most Aggro abilities), and desire the freedom of choice to make alterations.

In DAO, I often choose to wear Heavy armor for my Rogues, and started this because the prevalent thought on the forums at the time said it should not be done. While my designs may not be optimal, they work and offer benefits that min/ max and other builds may not have.

As for Followers, in the initial playthroughs, they are allies and companions in my games, too. However, when I started to play Solo, they were moved to support roles, and having the freedom to alter them to other designs is helpful and desired.

[MagicalMaster]

Choices have consequences and if your choice is that Anders is a crazy possessed nutbag you want nothing to do with that has a price unlike in DAO where you could just spec some other mage out so that your party looks exactly the same no matter if you kill Wynne for example.

While I agree on the whole "characters aren't blank slates" thing, I do disagree that you should be stuck without a healer if you don't like Anders.  Should have an alternative companion (who still has a personality).  Doesn't need to be as GOOD of a healer as Anders, just needs to be able to access the Creation tree.

[Jayce]

I'm with Darkly Tranquil for the most part, though I'd disagree on the combat. I liked the improvement to mages but disliked the arcade beat 'em up approach to mobs, literally regressing Dragon Age to the sort of boss/miniboss + multiple waves of bad guy cannon fodder that most game studios have moved away from because, frankly it's a cheap, hacky way to create and balance encounters.

 

Add in locked companion equipment and the removal of a barter ability that turns a third to half the decent loot drops to little more than inventory clogging undervalued junk and frankly this was a pretty mediocre RPG.

 

Not bad but not good... and massively underwhelming by Bioware standards

[Darkly Tranquil]

I'm with Darkly Tranquil for the most part, though I'd disagree on the combat. I liked the improvement to mages but disliked the arcade beat 'em up approach to mobs, literally regressing Dragon Age to the sort of boss/miniboss + multiple waves of bad guy cannon fodder that most game studios have moved away from because, frankly it's a cheap, hacky way to create and balance encounters.

Perhaps because I'm a player of fast paced beat 'em ups like Final Fight, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, etc. from way back, my tolerance for that hackslash style is greater than most RPGers who prefer a more turn-based/tactical style of combat (although I did play Ultima and Lands of Lore back in the 80's). While I agree that DA2's combat was less tactically sophisticated due to the wave mechanic and the way mages stood around waiting for you till kill their minions before engaging you, really I just meant that was more fun in the visceral action sense.

My last DA2 playthrough was a dagger rogue focused on mobility, so I was Backstab-ing, Rush-ing into enemies, then Back-to-Back-ing to allies, back flipping, stealthing and generally bouncing around like a demented rubber ball killing everything in sight; it was awesome fun being able to be everywhere at once and the fighting felt really interactive and engaging (probably because I try not to pause in combat any more than absolutely necessary).

I tended to find DAO combat entertaining enough and it did the job, but in hindsight, it seems kind of laboriously slow paced to me. I just felt DA2's was more energetic and I liked that aspect of it. Purely a personal taste thing, I suppose. Ideally, it would be nice if they could somehow make both modes viable options, with "action" (fighting game style) and "tactical" (rpg/tactics style), so players could do the encounters in their preferred mode.

As it stands, it seems like Inquisition is trying find a happy medium between the style of DAO and DA2, but it remains to be seen if they succeed or just end up disappointing everyone.

[Sidney]

 

Add in locked companion equipment and the removal of a barter ability that turns a third to half the decent loot drops to little more than inventory clogging undervalued junk and frankly this was a pretty mediocre RPG.

 

 

Why is companion equipment locked? Yes, it looks the same but the stats change as you find upgrades and with the runes you can customize it to a much greater degree than you can in DAO where the only way to customize is to switch to another set of armor and there are not, frankly, that many sets of armor at any point in the game that are good enough to be front line material. I can llikely tell you exactly what armor you are wearing at the end of DAO by loading up any of my save games because your will be the same by contrast at the end game of DA2 i doubt your allies and mine are kitted out with the same set of runes on armor or weapons.

 

This is the funny thing, I LIKED DA2 precisely because I could customize my allies to a much greater degree than in DAO even though I couldn't play dress up with them.

[Sidney]

While I agree on the whole "characters aren't blank slates" thing, I do disagree that you should be stuck without a healer if you don't like Anders.  Should have an alternative companion (who still has a personality).  Doesn't need to be as GOOD of a healer as Anders, just needs to be able to access the Creation tree.

 

I ran the game a lot without Anders so maybe my sense that the healer is essential is less than some others but I never missed him. People always talk about tactical this and tactical that but part of what makes tactics interesting are when you aren't in an optimal position. Everyone can win when they have cover and the high ground.....what happens when they do is far more interesting. Not having the healer isn't even that level of handicap.

[KaiserShep]

After Bethany ended up in the Circle, I always took Merrill everywhere. Sometimes having a healer would've been handy, but I lean more towards being able to kill the enemy quickly enough that it doesn't matter, and Merrill can do quite a lot of damage, though Bethany is still the best as the all-rounder at high level.

[Sidney]

After Bethany ended up in the Circle, I always took Merrill everywhere. Sometimes having a healer would've been handy, but I lean more towards being able to kill the enemy quickly enough that it doesn't matter, and Merrill can do quite a lot of damage, though Bethany is still the best as the all-rounder at high level.

 

 

Well an in a game with auto-regen after combat healers are a lot less needed than in something like BG2 where every nick and scratch was permanent..

[MagicalMaster]

I ran the game a lot without Anders so maybe my sense that the healer is essential is less than some others but I never missed him. People always talk about tactical this and tactical that but part of what makes tactics interesting are when you aren't in an optimal position. Everyone can win when they have cover and the high ground.....what happens when they do is far more interesting. Not having the healer isn't even that level of handicap.

What difficulty were you playing on?

[Elhanan]

What difficulty were you playing on?

Hard for me; same results. Anders was key on my first run with a Rogue, but not on any campaign after that due to changing tactics.