509 ответов в этой теме

[Natureguy85]

And it is a rise to power. It is a climb on the social ladder. Hawkes rep grows. From refugee to Champion. Going from yrs 3, 6, 9 to 1, 4, 7 will change little if anything at all.

 

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

The transition from the prologue to Act 1 is that Varric seeks out Hawke, though we really don't know why. The transition to Act 2 is moving into a nicer house (while leaving your Uncle that took you in back in his hovel. I know Gamlem is a bum, but this always bothered me.) The Viscount seeks Hawke because of one interaction Hawke had with the Arishok. Hawke is still errand boy in Act 2. Act 3 does a little better with both Meredith and Orsino trying harder to sway Hawke to their view.

 

For me, the rise to power was never really demonstrated. Where is the power? Also, I'm not suggesting showing years 1, 4, and 7. I would condense the whole thing. There was no reason the time skips had to be so long.

 

 

Aside from the overuse of the same environments, it's a great game. I like all the DLC's too. Lots of atmosphere and Cory is hella scarier in Legacy then he is in DAI.

 

I also love the combat. Lots of fun being a rogue. The party banter was amazing in that game. DAO too. Both games I would stop just to listen. Sadly, DAI got that wrong too.

 

The DLCs are better than the entire main game.

[Hurbster]

Yes, why make a new game when you can copy/paste an old one.

Indeed, they can just copy the caves/dungeons/sewers/warehouses instead...

[Commander Rpg]

Multiple reasons, all due to EA pression to get the game come out sooner than necessary.

 

Repetitive maps

Short game

Confusing combat, with a lot of micromanagement on higher difficulties

Uninspired graphic design

Inconsistent on many levels

 

Luckily for me, I got it at 1/4 of the price.

[FemShem]

Which game is better?  DA:O is better written, more epic, kicked off an incredible RPG series, etc.

Which game did I enjoy playing more?  DA2.  I loved the fights and loved the F/Hawke Isabela romance.  

 

Going to the original title of the post...People almost never think the sequel is better, and generally the sequel isn't better written.

In this case, however, the games are more like cousins, IMHO.

I enjoyed playing DA2 more and did 9 or 10 playthrus.  DA:O I did one...(never wanted to do the damn Fade again).

Is DA:O better?  I recognize it is a better product; however, does it matter which one is better if I enjoyed playing the "bad one" a whole lot more?

[KaiserShep]

Is DA:O better?  I recognize it is a better product; however, does it matter which one is better if I enjoyed playing the "bad one" a whole lot more?

 

And that's it right there. On paper, Origins is the better game. It's meatier, has all the trappings of an epic, has a more satisfying ending, has bigger battles, more expansive environments, good writing overall blah blah blah, yet I replayed DA2 far more times, because I simply had a great deal more fun doing so. I got more laughs and more of a sense of fun as well as frustration (more often the good kind) out of the dialogue and various quests.

[Gotholhorakh]

DA:O is better on paper and in practice.

 

DA2 is a half-baked mish-mash of poorly conceived and/or repeated content, a poorly done unification with the Mass Effect "technology", combat is a mess of bad camera angles and irritating obstacles to tactical play. As a sequel to Origins it doesn't feel right, as a stablemate to Mass Effect it is shockingly clumsy, poorly put together and horribly written, and even as the sub-Fable funfest it so obviously aspires to being, it just isn't as much fun as other games that do the same stuff, better.

 

DA:O for all of its imperfections (of which I could list a good few) was a great game. Its combat found a place for the Infinity Engine fan and the MMO fan alike, its narrative was interesting and evocative, its characters were memorable and it was one of those rare games where even though everybody had areas they got cheesed off with (fade, deep roads, library whatever), a lot of us had that feeling that we wished it would never end, and sat watching the end credits on that first play-through thinking it was beautiful and feeling sad it was over.

 

DA2 on the other hand, was mostly flaw, with some people managing to salvage something from it. A hack-job, a cash-grab. and while you can dress up a shitty half-written narrative as "interesting" and "counter-cliche" as much as you like, really the failure to finish the work on it, and on much of the rest of the game, jumps out from behind every corner throughout the experience.

 

I played and enjoyed DA:O and still remember the characters, story, areas and combat now. For the second half of DA:O I felt sadness that it was going to end. DA2 on the other hand was like having your nose rubbed in a slimy pool of killed dreams for hours at a time.

 

 

Still, like I said try it yourself. We have all had games we love and hate, and they aren't the same for everyone.

[IanPolaris]

They didn't care about that in DA:O either. You can learn blood magic even if that Warden didn't make any deal with a demon, as long as the spec's unlocked. At least in DA2 Hawke has to know Merrill.

 

1.  There actually was a scenario in DAO where a bloodmage might wind up with neither the mages nor templars as allies, and it hinged on whether or not you were a bloodmage.  That had to be taken out at the last minute because it bugged the rest of the game...but the intent was there.

 

2.  Having everyone "not care" about Warden bloodmagic is actually supported by the lore!  Warden Mages and only warden mages are allowed to practice magic (including blood magic) outside of Chantry control legally.

[Natureguy85]

sat watching the end credits on that first play-through thinking it was beautiful and feeling sad it was over.

 

One of the reasons for this is that they wrote proper epilogues and simultaneously closed the game in a satisfying way, yet left enough material for future stories, much like Mass Effect (the first game) did. Contrast DA2 and ME3 which did none of that.

 

 

 

I played and enjoyed DA:O and still remember the characters, story, areas and combat now. For the second half of DA:O I felt sadness that it was going to end. DA2 on the other hand was like having your nose rubbed in a slimy pool of killed dreams for hours at a time.

 

This just made me laugh. Yeah, I got some enjoyment out of DA2, but it wasn't nearly as good as Origins.

[ApostleinTriumph]

I actually really enjoyed DA2 but there were a few niggles, like the recycled environments, as others have said. For me, the party members and the plot were enough to make up for the less impressive aspects of the game, so I don't regret the time I spent playing it. The combat was fun, too, despite it being such a change from DA:O; not a marked improvement or a downgrade in my eyes, just different.

 

I think the main problem with DA2 was that Origins set the bar so high with the sheer depth of its gameplay and plot. It was a hard act to follow.

 

This. I can't add anything more to what you said. I liked DA2 aswell, and did 4 playthroughs.

[frostajulie]

my only problems were the painfully overused environments that made the game a real chore and bore to get through and the railroaded storyline.  However that is Biowares new MO; ME3, DAI, all suffer from that- there is not even an illusion of choice anymore that made DAO and ME1 and ME2 so epic.  I found DA2 to be the last game made by Bioware with living characters that drew in my heart.  Mods for DA2 took care of hair and clothes so that it was a more pleasant gaming experience but they do not exist for DAI may never exist so I actually like DA2 better than DAI.

[Ash Wind]

DAO and DA2 were two very different games, those who were expecting DAO2 where vehemently disappointed with the direction DA2 took. DA2's defenders almost universally say, If the Devs only had more time..., and while that might be valid point, the simple fact is that DA2 is what it is, and it is judged on what it is... not what it could have been.

 

Some love it, some like it, some hate it... it was OK for me as a standalone game, but as a sequeal to DAO, it was lacking.

[Kevorka]

The first one just had better options for the character and story.  With DA2 it was more like Mass Effect you had to only use Hawk's story.

I hated his brother. If I played as a mage I was stuck with that guy.

I could only have a good time as a warrior or a rogue.

[DanteYoda]

I feel it deserved the bashing it got, I also steered clear of it for the longest time because of the reviews but on the flips side after playing it i agree with those reviews, honestly after origins DA 2 was a hot mess...

 

Over used areas again and again and a gain..

Tiny gameplay map

Really pointless story

Fixed characters

No race selections

Religious insanity / Mage insanity / Qunari insanity... way way over done

Pointlessly saving npcs only to watch them die over and over..

Companions completely changing from what they were

Races getting retconned into odd aliens to the first game..

Limited clothing on all the main characters

Forced Companion killing..

No ending..

 

Yeah it was pretty bad..

 

The only thing i liked about DA 2 was the combat systems and controls, and people even debate that with me...

[KaiserShep]

Forced Companion killing..

 

The funny thing about this is that when you're capable of saving everyone, some people complain that certain deaths should be mandatory. ME2's Suicide Mission is the perfect example.

[Ambivalent]

Umh i personally liked it a lot but you can't change a game to anime styled hack&slash combat while claiming this series to be spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate.

 

But i see Dragon Age as a lore. Sure Bioware can make a nice Tomb Raider style game or a RTS in this universe, i don't mind a bit. I took DA 2 not as "DA 2", just another game in same universe. That's the main reason Dragon Age Inquisition isn't named as Dragon Age 3 i think.

 

Just like how KOTOR, Episode 3 movie, Republic Commando, Mara Jade books share same universe and rules but have no real connection between them.

 

PS: Coming from someone who finished both 4-5 times. Not counting "I didn't like this face" rerolls in the middle of the game or mod crashes

[Dieb]

I'm currently replaying it, and can now say for certain that Dragon Age 2 is my favourite of the three.

[Bunny]

I'm currently replaying it, and can now say for certain that Dragon Age 2 is my favourite of the three.

 

Post in this thread please:

 

http://forum.bioware...kes-theme-song/

 

[Miss Golightly]

I'm replaying it right now... it feels like I'm playing a game that was a little over halfway through development when it shipped. Combat is okay, but everything else just feels incomplete or it leaves me wanting more than I'm given. Of course, I believe now we're in a time where getting games that are half-baked is becoming some sort of demented industry standard.

DAII almost feels very... Mass Effect-ish. I can't put my finger on it. But Dragon Age needs to be free to be its own thing.

 

Is it a horrible game? Goodness, no. Could you do worse than this? Absolutely. Are there better things to play? Yes. 

If anything, I just tell people DAII is optional and all it really does it add to the lore.

[Natureguy85]

The funny thing about this is that when you're capable of saving everyone, some people complain that certain deaths should be mandatory. ME2's Suicide Mission is the perfect example.

 

That's because they called it a suicide mission and it was easy to get out with no casualties other than the hidden formula behind the last stand at the door.

[Ambivalent]

I like the game, i really do.

 

I can understand why some people didn't like it aswell.

 

But i wouldn't blame EA for everything that was changed. Sure for Westwood feel free to flame EA but that's out of topic

 

To be fair I don't think EA holds blame for over the top characters and simplified story for example. I don't think EA sent someone to write the game and bypassed Bioware "hierarchy".

 

I don't think EA designed Isabela(Who i find funny and interesting... Though i'm pretty sure she shouldn't have to show her underwear all the time and it wasn't needed for her to try to choke us on with her hmm "assets". She was already interesting in DA:O, a "make up" would be enough.)

 

I don't think EA made "mage vs templar" a focal point.(It was well done in first game, took 10% or 20% of whole game, interesting, Fade was nice at first time too... In DA 2 it was all about this powermongers war.)

 

I wouldn't blame EA for lack of "companion armor customisation", it is a simple piece of code people. Check Nexus there are mods to make it happen, a simple but "ignored" process. I'm pretty sure if a modder(Probably works or studies in a different branch but coded in his/her free time) can do it, for Bioware it was piece of cake.

 

Stuff like recycled enviroments, possible bugs, events not triggering correctly, pricing, anything about distribution etc might be EA's fault. Actually EA's so called "strict" deadline's fault, not the CEO himself

 

Sure it is easier to blame distributor for everything but it simply doesn't make sense. Should we feel grateful to EA for Origins or ME series for example? No because 90+ % of it was Bioware's work. So why blame them if things went south?

 

TLDR: I'd say most of problems lies on Bioware's shoulders but EA also isn't too innocent. Though i love the game as it is so i don't mind anyway.

[Dieb]

DA2 was "sort of an art house thing" and "not supposed to be a classic full release" (insert BioWare official who said that in a panel here please), i.e. it was probably intended to be an episodic thing. I think that kinda explains mostly everything that was supposedly off about the game.

 

Which is also why everyone not hating the game commonly agrees that it "feels" like a good TV show, and that maybe EA's part in this was to suggest rather making it a normal, full-blown sequel after all.

[Sifr]

The transition from the prologue to Act 1 is that Varric seeks out Hawke, though we really don't know why. The transition to Act 2 is moving into a nicer house (while leaving your Uncle that took you in back in his hovel. I know Gamlem is a bum, but this always bothered me.) The Viscount seeks Hawke because of one interaction Hawke had with the Arishok. Hawke is still errand boy in Act 2. Act 3 does a little better with both Meredith and Orsino trying harder to sway Hawke to their view.

 

The reason Varric sought out Hawke was because they'd built a reputation as someone dependable who got the job done, either as a member of the Red Iron or with Athenril's Smugglers. According to Varric, with the Smugglers, Hawke is partially responsible for their rise from a minor operation to something that various criminal organisations in Kirkwall were starting to take notice of.

 

Furthermore, as a freelance mercenary fresh off the boat who's not got any ties to organisations like the Carta or Coterie, that might want to take some cut of the profits from the venture, Varric thinks that Hawke's the best option for a business partner that Bartrand will accept?

 

I think Hawke leaving Gamlen in the hovel is actually a pretty fitting punishment. While he did get you into the city, it was by selling you into indentured servitude for a year in order to pay off your debts and his. While he gave you a roof to sleep under, you later find out that your dear Uncle stole his sister's inheritance (and by extension, yours) and ended up blowing the entire family fortune mostly on himself, before selling the family home to people he knew were slavers? By rights, Hawke could have had him thrown into jail for what he did, so leaving him in his hovel is showing a lot of restraint.

 

As for why the Viscount and the Arishok want Hawke to be their errand boy, as well as Meredith and Orisno later in Act 3, Hawke's role in DA2 is mostly that of a neutral third party outsider who each faction can call upon to deal with things on their behalf, without fear of upsetting the other side?

 

I think Hawke's "rise to power" as it were, is that they are quickly viewed by most people in the city as one of the few competent people in Kirkwall and the only one capable (and willing) to cut through the red tape and actually do something when a problem arises, because all the other major powers are too busy politicking and arguing with each other?

 

Which is probably why the Arishok remembers Hawke and asks for them as a mediator, because he recognises that if you ask Hawke to do something, it will get done? A lot of Qunari in the game comment that Hawke is "closer to the Qunari than you think", because they recognise that Hawke shows the same single-mindedness and determination when set to a task as they do, which sets them apart from a lot of the other people in Kirkwall.

[Vandarr1]

as a standalone title DA2 is great.People who were expecting DA:O2 would be disappointed.

[Natureguy85]

The reason Varric sought out Hawke was because they'd built a reputation as someone dependable who got the job done, either as a member of the Red Iron or with Athenril's Smugglers. According to Varric, with the Smugglers, Hawke is partially responsible for their rise from a minor operation to something that various criminal organisations in Kirkwall were starting to take notice of.

 

This is something we are told, not shown. That's the problem and a pattern with this game.

 

 

Furthermore, as a freelance mercenary fresh off the boat who's not got any ties to organisations like the Carta or Coterie, that might want to take some cut of the profits from the venture, Varric thinks that Hawke's the best option for a business partner that Bartrand will accept?

 

Sensible, but I don't recall that being a reason given.

 

 

I think Hawke leaving Gamlen in the hovel is actually a pretty fitting punishment. While he did get you into the city, it was by selling you into indentured servitude for a year in order to pay off your debts and his. While he gave you a roof to sleep under, you later find out that your dear Uncle stole his sister's inheritance (and by extension, yours) and ended up blowing the entire family fortune mostly on himself, before selling the family home to people he knew were slavers? By rights, Hawke could have had him thrown into jail for what he did, so leaving him in his hovel is showing a lot of restraint.

 

That's one way to look at it, but the game allows Hawke to be more forgiving and understanding towards Gamlen as far as conversation goes. It would have been a neat player choice.

 

 

As for why the Viscount and the Arishok want Hawke to be their errand boy, as well as Meredith and Orisno later in Act 3, Hawke's role in DA2 is mostly that of a neutral third party outsider who each faction can call upon to deal with things on their behalf, without fear of upsetting the other side?

 

I went back and watched some cutscenes. The Viscount calls on Hawke because the Arishok asks for him by name. The Arishok remembers Hawke from dealing with the dwarf who wanted the explosive powder. As Act 3 opens, Orsino does call on Hawke to aid him in arguing for Meredith to allow a civilan leader to take control of city government. Meredith dismisses this idea and the Champion's involvment. Later, Meredith and Orsino both try to influence Hawke because having the Champion on your side would go a long way in swaying public opionion. This makes sense. The problem is that it's just a title. We never really get to see this influence in any other way.

 

 

I think Hawke's "rise to power" as it were, is that they are quickly viewed by most people in the city as one of the few competent people in Kirkwall and the only one capable (and willing) to cut through the red tape and actually do something when a problem arises, because all the other major powers are too busy politicking and arguing with each other?

 

This may be true, but Hawke is just an errand boy/girl. Where is the power?

[Inkvisiittori]

1. Human only

2. I wanted to play my awesome elf Warden, not Hawke.

3. Story is not epic

 

That said it's much easier to enjoy DA2 now that they redeemed the franchise with DAI.