509 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

Aside from the writing and the over-reliance of reused assets, just look at the dull and ugly color palette; especially in the wounded coast and in darktown. 

[DragonAddict]

I liked DAO with all the DLC's and even Awakenings the best, not becasue it had the best graphics, and cutscenes, but becasue of the characters and how well written DAO was done. I played that game through 6+ times, romanced Morrigan, my woman, and still have DAO on my hard drive. High replayability and I loved the iometric view using my mouse.

 

DA2 I pre ordered and I was let let down big time. More a console hack and slash game and simplfied more than anything. I played it through once, got into it and even tried a second play through but then stopped. An okay game, not addictive and no isometric view, more for console controller users now. Still on my hard drive more as a collection.

 

DAI I only bought when it was on sale, digital deluxe edition. I was almost bored for a lot of the game. Too simplified for me, big open empty eye candy areas to explore, very restrictive to what you should be able to do, and for a console controller user. No ismoetric view for my mouse and still not PC optimzed after upcoming PATCH 5......I played it through once and I'm done with it. Still on my hard drive as a collection. Way too many features taken out of DAI, too simplified, to restrictive, etc.

 

I would of paid up to $100 CAD without hesitation for DAO2, one version for console controller users and another optimized for PC keyboard and mouse users with iosometric view.

[Scofield]

incase you never knew ppl on these boards wear rose tinted glasses, any game that aint DA:O or BG 1 or 2 is bad, especially if released after EA took over, ignore what anyone on these boards or any board/site says about a game, make your own opinion up on it

 

DA2 did some things wrong, same as DA:O an DA:I, same as any game tbh, dont make it a bad game, but it aint DA:O2 so on these boards that makes it bad

[Aaleel]

Well for me personally it wasn't that it was bad in comparison to DA:O,  just thought it was bad because it implemented things it was trying to do poorly.

 

The one city setting:  The city never changed in ten years, it was empty dead and lifeless.  If you're only going to have one city it should be bustling, you should be able to interact with it, invest in it.  You couldn't do it even after you obtained wealth.  

 

Family: The game never gave you a reason to care about them.  They were only there to kill off in an attempt to make it dark fantasy.  You had all these cutscenes with your companions and the dog.  But how many times did you come home and talk to your family.  You were in the city of your birth IIRC and how many quests did you do pertaining to your family in this "personal" story.

 

Personal Story: You were told way more than you actually were allowed to play through.  If the first act was going to be random quests, why not let you plat through the part where you made a name for yourself.  Do random quests as a mercenary or a smuggler.  Maybe that's where you meet Varric, or someone close to Varric and that's why he pick you out to help him with the expedition.  That's just one example of where the game could have allowed you to play through more of your story.

 

The Ending: Just preposterous.  Orsino talks about having hope but feeling that with the Champion there they may just have a chance.  You beat back the Templars and then inexplicably he chooses that moment to go crazy and not only use blood magic, but attack his allies, the survivors from the group he was just sad about those who had died.  

 

Then I don't even think I need to elaborate on the wave combat, enemies falling from ceilings and the sky, or the horribly reused environments.  

 

This is why I never understand the whole people didn't like it because it wasn't Origins.  All games have flaws, the questions is the ratio of things it did well to things it didn't, and for me there were far more things that it did wrong than right.

[Natureguy85]

incase you never knew ppl on these boards wear rose tinted glasses, any game that aint DA:O or BG 1 or 2 is bad, especially if released after EA took over, ignore what anyone on these boards or any board/site says about a game, make your own opinion up on it

 

DA2 did some things wrong, same as DA:O an DA:I, same as any game tbh, dont make it a bad game, but it aint DA:O2 so on these boards that makes it bad

 

Why did you give an opinion after telling us to ignore other people's opinions and form our own?  Especially such an ignorant one that relies on ignoring all substantive commentary on the two games and saying it's just rose tinted glasses. People are not claiming Origins was perfect, but it was certainly the better game. DA2's problems did make it ok at best.

[Natureguy85]

Just out of curiosity, how long was Dragon Age 2? Was it somewhere between 10 to 100 hours long? I wouldn't be surprised if Mark Darrah allowed it to happened seeing he was the man responsible behind that game.

 

I don't remember how long it was. It had one-dimensional characters and a goofy stories. It has the worst time skips I've ever seen. And it fails on it's premise of showing a "rise to power".

[Elhanan]

Just out of curiosity, how long was Dragon Age 2? Was it somewhere between 10 to 100 hours long? I wouldn't be surprised if Mark Darrah allowed it to happened seeing he was the man responsible behind that game.

DA2 was about 80+ hrs for me on avg, though some campaigns were longer due to being quite new to me. Overall story was quite entertaining for myself, but the game lacked the polish of the others, IMO.

[springacres]

Adding another reason...

 

Bugged Zevran romance.  Even with the import flags fixed, he's acting like my Warden performed the US.  Stupid buggy dialogue.

[GoneGrimdark]

I enjoyed playing DA2. I know it gets a lot of flak, and it is the weakest Dragon Age title due to the rush to get it out- as everyone said, very few areas to explore, overused scenery, etc. But I really love games that have choices, and I still had fun with this one. I liked the companions a lot, and felt they were more memorable in some ways than even DA:O companions. (Or maybe thats because I played DA:O so long ago). The story was fun, though linear. It didn't have the 'be whoever YOU want' aspect of the first game, but the story of Hawke was well done and interesting. You get invested in Hawke and your sibling and mother- I enjoyed RPing with family characters. Varric was a shining star and it had some very memorable and interesting moments like the Arishok and Merril destroying her clan.

 

Sure it had a lot of weak aspects compared to other Dragon Age games, but I still enjoyed myself as I played. Which is the overall point of a game.

[line_genrou]

DA2 is bad because it's a sequel to one of the greatest RPGs ever made

If it was a stand alone game, it would be good enough

However, it stands in DAO's shadow

Maybe if it had another name like Dragon Age: Kirkwall or something, it wouldn't scream so loud "hey check this out, it's a sequel to dragon age origins!". People go ahead and expect the same quality and depth of the first instalment

[Natureguy85]

I enjoyed playing DA2. I know it gets a lot of flak, and it is the weakest Dragon Age title due to the rush to get it out- as everyone said, very few areas to explore, overused scenery, etc. But I really love games that have choices, and I still had fun with this one. I liked the companions a lot, and felt they were more memorable in some ways than even DA:O companions. (Or maybe thats because I played DA:O so long ago). The story was fun, though linear. It didn't have the 'be whoever YOU want' aspect of the first game, but the story of Hawke was well done and interesting. You get invested in Hawke and your sibling and mother- I enjoyed RPing with family characters. Varric was a shining star and it had some very memorable and interesting moments like the Arishok and Merril destroying her clan.

 

Sure it had a lot of weak aspects compared to other Dragon Age games, but I still enjoyed myself as I played. Which is the overall point of a game.

 

Oh it certainly had it's moments, but I disagree strongly that the characters were better than those in Origins. Other than Varric, they were pretty much flat characters, though I admit I did enjoy Merrill. The DLCs are the best part of the game though.

[springacres]

I will admit that it does have its moments, but by Act 3 it ends up feeling like, as someone said earlier, Hawke & co are basically running errands for people in the tavern.

 

The Legacy DLC and the Deep Roads sections are the only parts that actually made this game feel like a sequel to DAO, for me.  Especially when bringing Anders and my Warden sibling along for Legacy.

[Obadiah]

A lot of the choices from DAO are gone, or just don't seem to matter much to the story as it unfolds, other than shaping Hawke's personality and worldview. The major plot developments with the family seem completely arbitrary (unless you know how to keep one sibling alive).

On the plus side, though, it was the first Bioware game to saddle the main character with a fair amount of backstory and history that develops (largely out of your control) over the extended time period of the game.

[cronshaw]

I'll weigh in even though this thread is a year old 

People didn't like the game-play and they were pissed they some of the mechanical choices were taken away

it didn't tickle their tactical fancy so they invented a bunch of other spurious reasons to dislike it

narratively it is superior to the cliched origins in pretty much every way

[springacres]

A lot of the choices from DAO are gone, or just don't seem to matter much to the story as it unfolds, other than shaping Hawke's personality and worldview. The major plot developments with the family seem completely arbitrary (unless you know how to keep one sibling alive).

On the plus side, though, it was the first Bioware game to saddle the main character with a fair amount of backstory and history that develops (largely out of your control) over the extended time period of the game.

There's also a relative lack of moral gray areas/middle ground compared to Origins, which (to me at least) gives Origins a much more real-world political feel.

[hoechlbear]

The only problem I have with DA2 is the way they designed the world really. It's so.. meh. The colors are so muddy. Since most of the game happens in a city, you'd think they would make this amazing and fully detailed buildings. But well, the lack of time is probably the one to blame here. I just think that DA2 could be even better than DAO if only they had like another year of development. Hawke is my favorite PC. But I do prefer the companions in Origins. In DA2 most of them are a bunch of whiny idiots.

[Natureguy85]

A lot of the choices from DAO are gone, or just don't seem to matter much to the story as it unfolds, other than shaping Hawke's personality and worldview. The major plot developments with the family seem completely arbitrary (unless you know how to keep one sibling alive).

On the plus side, though, it was the first Bioware game to saddle the main character with a fair amount of backstory and history that develops (largely out of your control) over the extended time period of the game.

 

To be fair, the choices in Origins didn't matter much to the plot either, but they did matter to the characters. They were also properly reflected in the epilogue text, something the Mass Effect 3 team should have learned from.

 

Ironically, that backstory and history developing out of your control is the exact wrong approach if the story was meant to be more personal, as was the claim.

 

I'll weigh in even though this thread is a year old 

People didn't like the game-play and they were pissed they some of the mechanical choices were taken away

it didn't tickle their tactical fancy so they invented a bunch of other spurious reasons to dislike it

narratively it is superior to the cliched origins in pretty much every way

 

Not at all. First, I'd argue that Origins is classic, not cliche. Yes, it's familiar, but I didn't find it to be in a boring way. Classic adventure series have pretty simple bad guys. On the other hand, while the Darkspawn were the ultimate evil, it's Loghain that takes the role of primary antagonist. The blight is mostly in the background until after the Landsmeet.

 

Anyway, Dragon Age 2's story sucked. It failed on it's premise of showing a rise to power and skipped way too much time. Not only did they skip the first year, which was probably the most important time to show given the premise, but Hawke has ten years of relationships that we only get a few brief glimpses into. The characters were also mostly dull and not up to the level of those from Origins. Contrast to Mass Effect 2, which also had a terrible plot but had great characters.

[DreamSever]

game would've executed better without the reused dungeons, my sense of realism waned after dungeon copy 84

[parico]

Repetitive areas, terrible combat and Anders getting pissed off because my male Hawke wasn't gay.  Other than that the story was alright   

[Obadiah]

With the reuse of maps and dungeons, the game really does feel more like a prototype for a plot rather than a finished game. It seems like something you would present to your team lead and say, "this is how I'd like the story in this mission to flow."