509 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

DA2 had the misfortune to cross a lot of people deeply devoted to RPG tropes and game mechanics from the 1990's. It then had the even bigger sin of being a clearly rushed product which made it easy pickings.

 

The game is very unconventional because most RPG's have you saving the world. This one has you setting it up for destruction. As we saw with the reaction to the ME3 ending people like their happy/standard endings. Different is bad.

 

In most RPG's the world is filled with the unwashed masses waiting for some Hegelian superman to move the world forward. Here your allies are actually in motion without you telling them to be so - Anders, Isabella, Merrill for example. What the poster above me calls "not respecting your choices" was to be the best part of the game because in spite of my best efforts people still have a will of their own and I can't save everyone and stop all the bad things of the world from happening. Hawke can make a choice (which is what defines your character) but the world doesn't automatically revolve around his choice. The events of history are bigger than one man - that really being the point of Varric's "truth" for Cassandra. It was a really refreshing take on a very stale trope.

 

People hate the lack of dress up options but functionally speaking there are more actual options on DA2 than DAO. By end game in DAO your warriors are wearing one of 3 suits of armor. That is your choice 3. In DA2 with slots and runes you have many more options - say there are 5 armor runes and 2 run slots per ally (which is a low figure if you fully upgrade armor)  that is 15  "suits" you can play with for each ally -- but only one appearance. I preferred this kind of customization, which actually is customization, and not just slapping a pre-built suit of armor onto a different ally..

 

The quest design I thought was far more engaging than DAO's. Things like Prime Suspect starts as a simple quest but morphs into a much larger concern over time as it unfolds. I really enjoyed that.

 

I also enjoyed the skill trees as lot more than DAO's simple ladders

 

Of course the problems are many and start with the horrible re-use of dungeons and maps. Bioware had re-used stuff before but this was a whole other degree of lazy and slipshod where maps were not even rotated to "look" different ala Golems of Omgorak and the mini-map brutally slapped you upside the head with the re-use by always showing you the "real" map even when parts of it were blocked off. Then the re-use across time also includes no changes to the region or people which again made it awfully dull.

 

Combat mechanics were better than DAO (anything would almost have to be given the sluggish unresponsive actiosn that eliminate any hope of doing anything tactical) ) but the encounter design was terrible. The use of the paratroopers should embarrass anyone associated with it. 

 

The art style, for me, was terrible. The re-done Darkspawn look terrible, the armor and weapons are eye-searingly bad. Combat animations (blood balloon foes) are also sad.

 

My final gripe is that Bioware doesn't do cities or urban spaces well. Kirkwall never felt like a city to me - I've been in a lot of cities and none ever looked like this in terms of layout - and with Kirkwall being at the core of the game that was a huge problem. Kirkwall wasn't worse than Denerim for example but Dernerim was a part of the game whereas Kirkwall realy was the game.

[KaiserShep]

My final gripe is that Bioware doesn't do cities or urban spaces well.

 

This is something I felt was an issue with both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series. The sense of scale always seems off everywhere, for both the cities of Thedas and the Citadel.

[Elite Midget]

People were NOT angry about ME3's ending not being a happy one. They were angry because it made no sense, had a ton of plotholes and rendered your choices moot. That and you were forced to do what the Reapers told you to do or everyone dies.

 

That and everyone hated the Starchild and how that one orphan kid, whose name you didn't even know and didn't even know for like more than a minute, traumatized Shepard more than a comrade or someone close dying.

[Realmzmaster]

I actually like DA2 slightly more than DAO. I was not disappointed with DA2. It had its flaws but so does DAO. The dlc for DA2 in my humble opinion is better than DAO. The Awakening expansion did not do DAO any favors. It simply overpowered all of the classes. A few gamers blame DA2 for some of the skills and abilities that actually began in Awakenings. Rune crafting in Awakenings was an abomination. DA2 actually made playing a mage fun. 

 

The skill trees were also better in my humble opinion. I have already pre-ordered DAI. I also take most of the opinions on this forum with a big grain of salt. Because people YMMV.

[LiquidLyrium]

I think it really does depend on a lot of things. DA2 is what brought me into the franchise, and I frankly prefer it. Not just because I played it first, but also because I didn't go into it with any preconceived notions of what the game should be. I think a LOT of people were expecting another Origins, but I also get the sense that people are looking through the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia too. IMO, DA:O did not age well, the combat and commands were slow and frustrating compared to the fluid nature of the battles in DA2. (Although for whatever reason, I'm horrible at being a mage in DA2, I can only mage well in DA:O.) And the graphics are not anything special for the time. (Although I'm playing on the console mostly, so PC users probably had a different experience there.) 

 

Neither game is perfect, and DA2 definitely had more potential than what it ultimately ended up being, but I felt closer to the characters, I felt more in tune with the world of Thedas. DA:O didn't seem quite that special to me in terms of gameplay or story, other than it was told really well, and it included the chance to play non-straight characters which is almost nonexistent in mainstream games. 

 

I know a lot of people also knock DA2 for not allowing racial choices, but honestly, besides the Origin story itself, your racial choice rarely impacted gameplay. It felt like an afterthought to me, so again I think people were remembering certain aspects better than they were. (I love the choice to play non-humans myself in fantasy games whenever possible, but I didn't think DA2 was terrible for focusing only on Hawke's story.)

 

Also I actually read the tie-in stories on the DA2 website, and for Anders especially it explains a lot about what happened with him after Awakening. Though I have also seen plenty of meta and examination of both games so his apparent change in character makes complete sense to me. He was never okay in Awakening. (Solitary confinement changes people mmkay? No body comes out of a year of solitary confinement all hunky dory.) He was just hiding his frustration and helplessness underneath a mask, which he dropped because it no longer served him or his needs. 

 

So yeah, I think the major issue people had with DA2 is that it didn't meet their expectations of what the next game would be. 

 

I do agree that Orsino's heel-face turn at the end in particular is kinda bad, if you side with the mages, but honestly in my head, he did that because he let something slip to Hawke about protecting Quentin and that sent Hawke reaching for the murder knife. (Varric kindly edits this out b/c while Hawke's rage may have been justifiable, there's nothing really palatable in hitting the heroic BSoD and threatening to kill all mages in the vicinity for merely being associated with Orsino and having to be talked down off a homicidal cliff. I have a lot of feels about this game and many intricate headcanons. Including Quentin being Amell's father.)

 

Plenty of people have listed the flaws for both games though. For me though, story is what's most important in an RPG, and I really enjoyed the more intimate and personal tale of Hawke and his/her companions. I felt like I got to know them a lot better than the Origins and Awakening companions. (Heck, in multiple playthroughs I have gotten high friendship or adore with Leliana and she has still never told me about Marjolaine to this day.)

 

Also someone else said that people left these forums because of DA2/here is the only place DA2 is still defended, I don't agree with that at all. A lot of the fandom circles I run with on other sites left the BSN specifically because of pervasive and overwhelmingly toxic attitudes of racism, homophobia, and transphobia that were rampant back then. I, myself, only came back because I got an invite to the Keep beta and I decided to see if anything's changed at all since then, because honestly the BSN was not a place I felt welcome to voice my opinion when I was just going to be shouted down by a bunch of "dudebros." I will say that it does seem much better, but honestly that's not really hard to achieve, either.

[Sidney]

I actually like DA2 slightly more than DAO. I was not disappointed with DA2. It had its flaws but so does DAO. The dlc for DA2 in my humble opinion is better than DAO. The Awakening expansion did not do DAO any favors. It simply overpowered all of the classes. A few gamers blame DA2 for some of the skills and abilities that actually began in Awakenings. Rune crafting in Awakenings was an abomination. DA2 actually made playing a mage fun. 

 

The skill trees were also better in my humble opinion. I have already pre-ordered DAI. I also take most of the opinions on this forum with a big grain of salt. Because people YMMV.

 

The DLC's for DA2 really highlight what the game could/should have been. They were excellent. It changed most of the encounter design problems and re-use of maps. Really taking out those two elements I think the perception of the game among most players would be very different.

[dekarserverbot]

Guys i see we are going absolutely nowhere like philosophers...

 

Let's just face it, veteran warmongers like me preffer tactical combats, choices tree, interactivity, and serving a purpose.... but there is people that hates chess for a reason, and loves god of war for the same opposite reason.

 

Those last ones feel that Dragon Age 2 is more appealing to them. For me, and my personal opinion is that every "ENDLESS FLESH PINATA PARTY" sucks big dinosaur balls, and this englobes a huge library of "awesome go bullshit" starting from Resident Evil, final fantasy and Saints Row (obviously including Dragon Age), passing from "exclusive to the genre" sagas (dynasty warriors, god of war, lolipop Chainsaw) and ending in the independent scene (too lazy to recall examples here). If i wanted to "see the great plot" i would not be playing, i will turn off the pc, light the lamp and read a good book. If i wanted to beat endless streams of slowpoke ninja pinatas during hours i would just throw myself out of the window in the third floor (because i have no patience for that... same reason i play spore in space on EASY dificulty). If i wanted to mash buttons i will just do extra hours in a factory.

Personally for me Dragon Age 2 has no good points, only bad ones: Flemmeth Qunarification, Anders' sissification, Merill's bastardization, Hero uselessfication, skills nonsense-ification, "artsy game"-ification, romance simplification (and romance in origins was already as simple as Harvest Moon one), replay value nullification, combat PINATIFICATION, gameplay "plants vs zombies"-fication, plot holle-ification and design destruction... wait! actually find a good point on DA2: Alistair weight gain was hilarious.

 

In other words, Dragon Age 2 is just for me an ubber expensive and "follow the fashion" version of Lelianna's song (which i consider the worst DLC for origins), but my point of view won't change yours, and neither yours will change mine.

[MagicalMaster]

Let's just face it, veteran warmongers like me preffer tactical combats, choices tree, interactivity, and serving a purpose

 

Hey, I prefer those too!

 

That's why I liked Dragon Age 2 over DA:O.

[LadyDraven]

I'm going to jump in with my personal opinion... Yikes.

Firstly I played DA2 first. I hadn't played games for about 2 years after I feel pregnant, before then it was almost exclusively mmorpg's. I picked this up a few months ago on a recommendation. Despite its very obvious problems, I enjoyed it. It was easy to play and made it very easy for me to get back into gaming, which was great. At this point the only thing really bugging me was the excessive (again my opinion) overuse of maps.

After completing this a couple of times and getting the dlc, I got origins and it felt so different. The fighting took a while to get into and I preferred it. All round I preferred origins except for the dreaded fade part in the circle.... Oh maker, I really dread that part!

Without delving too deep (typing on a tablet is poo), I accept that DA2 has obvious issues and was definitely hurried but I still enjoyed it for what it was and I loved origins but I think both games could learn from each other and I think inquisition will be the better for it.

[Sidney]

Let's just face it, veteran warmongers like me preffer tactical combats, choices tree, interactivity, and serving a purpose.... but there is people that hates chess for a reason, and loves god of war for the same opposite reason.

 

 

If you think DAO was "tactical" you are swimming in the kiddie pool of end of tactical depth. You might also think Risk is a deep strategy game. DAO had no tactics that mattered because your people didn't respond at all to your "tactical" directions. You couldn't block a chokepoint because your fighters couldn't hold a point by reacting to hit anything running by them. You couldn't take advanatge of rogues unless you were directly controlling them because the AI didn't manuever for position and frankly unless you were 100% managing them you couldn't keep them in position. By the time you issued a command about half the time it was out of date as your guys shuffled and milled about looking for that animation sweep spot.....unless of course you were caught by the animations and despite moving were still standing under the golem's boulder. When time doesn't mater tactics don't either. Toss in that you have a slew of skills that make position irrelevant (hey, warriors can't be flanked goood news!) and manuever not only isnt really possible it doesn't matter anyways.  You might think your "tactics" mattered but I have 100% run the game on every level using insanely basic AI scripts and let me tell you, the outcome is the same. You don't actually matter in combat 95% of the time and that 5% are a handful of goofy boss battles (broodmother for example) where the basic AI tactics fail because of the encoutner design.

 

Choice trees, "purpose" and such are just your need to be the one and only superman in your world. If you will something to be it must be. Mother must be saved because that is what a "hero" does. You didn't want a templar/mage war so why is there one? Only your choices and desires matters what Anders wants, what Isabella wants, what a serial killer wants can't and shouldn't matter in your world? Again, the mighty chosen one fsort of story is old, tried and true and it works when done well - tropes are tropes because they work if done right - but must eferything fall into those same boundaries? For someone pushing a massive superiority trip (chess, seriously?) you show a decidely limited view of what can be in terms of story telling and structure.

[dekarserverbot]

If you think DAO was "tactical" you are swimming in the kiddie pool of end of tactical depth. You might also think Risk is a deep strategy game. DAO had no tactics that mattered because your people didn't respond at all to your "tactical" directions. You couldn't block a chokepoint because your fighters couldn't hold a point by reacting to hit anything running by them. You couldn't take advanatge of rogues unless you were directly controlling them because the AI didn't manuever for position and frankly unless you were 100% managing them you couldn't keep them in position. By the time you issued a command about half the time it was out of date as your guys shuffled and milled about looking for that animation sweep spot.....unless of course you were caught by the animations and despite moving were still standing under the golem's boulder. When time doesn't mater tactics don't either. Toss in that you have a slew of skills that make position irrelevant (hey, warriors can't be flanked goood news!) and manuever not only isnt really possible it doesn't matter anyways.  You might think your "tactics" mattered but I have 100% run the game on every level using insanely basic AI scripts and let me tell you, the outcome is the same. You don't actually matter in combat 95% of the time and that 5% are a handful of goofy boss battles (broodmother for example) where the basic AI tactics fail because of the encoutner design.

Ok, either you are a moron because you are actually telling me that i must relly on AI to deal with my party instead of pressing spacebar to get everyone to do what they MUST do...

Choice trees, "purpose" and such are just your need to be the one and only superman in your world. If you will something to be it must be. Mother must be saved because that is what a "hero" does. You didn't want a templar/mage war so why is there one? Only your choices and desires matters what Anders wants, what Isabella wants, what a serial killer wants can't and shouldn't matter in your world? Again, the mighty chosen one fsort of story is old, tried and true and it works when done well - tropes are tropes because they work if done right - but must eferything fall into those same boundaries? For someone pushing a massive superiority trip (chess, seriously?) you show a decidely limited view of what can be in terms of story telling and structure.

If I wanted to be a commoner I will just get rid of both consoles and pc and pursuit the dream of being a drunkard that just talks nonsense... and changes absolutely nothing. I don't care if i have full control of my party thoughs, that's what PERSUASSION CHECK was SUPERing... I hate to be less than a sim... at least in GTA San Andreas I was an important sim, Dragon Age 2 put me in the role of the classic idiot of any date sim, and even in date sims people hear you.

[Sidney]

No you rather badly missed the point that the weak AI scripts could get wins just as surely as your pause every second and twiddle around efforts. If no effort = same outcome as effort then what you do doesn't matter. There are no real tactics because you think you are being clever and winning when in reality just walking into the encounter = winning.

 

As for just being a commoner...you aren't that is silly to even say. Hawke does a lot of things - fights off the Qnari invasion, stops a seral killing bloodmage, stops a plan to possesses innocent victims, saves miners and so forth. Those are hardly things you and I do everyday. Again, your gripe isn't that you can't do heroci things but that you have to be the only one doing things. I get how fullfilling that is, I liked DAO and BG/BG2 which are full of "chosen one" tropes.....but is that ALL we have to have. Can't we get more and different types of stories? For all your chessmasyter comments you'd think you'd like a bit o' variety. Watch a film like Paths of Glory. Kirk Douglas is defending  group of soliders from obviously trumped up charges. He does his best, he is passionate - you know a lot about that character but in the end it is for naught. The die has been cast and the fix is in. That isn't him being a nobody but it is somebody trying against a tide that can't be thwarted.

[dekarserverbot]

As for just being a commoner...you aren't that is silly to even say. Hawke does a lot of things - fights off the Qnari invasion, stops a seral killing bloodmage, stops a plan to possesses innocent victims, saves miners and so forth. Those are hardly things you and I do everyday. Again, your gripe isn't that you can't do heroci things but that you have to be the only one doing things. I get how fullfilling that is, I liked DAO and BG/BG2 which are full of "chosen one" tropes.....but is that ALL we have to have. Can't we get more and different types of stories? For all your chessmasyter comments you'd think you'd like a bit o' variety. Watch a film like Paths of Glory. Kirk Douglas is defending  group of soliders from obviously trumped up charges. He does his best, he is passionate - you know a lot about that character but in the end it is for naught. The die has been cast and the fix is in. That isn't him being a nobody but it is somebody trying against a tide that can't be thwarted.

Well in real life no serial killer has treatened my family yet, but when i was in what you call mid school I used to beat some thugs of my age, plus I lost my virginity, also saved a kitty from streets and school was hell. The best part? i just had 3 friends and one of them was a PSX... does this makes me different from any commoner? will I stand a chance against Atila the Hun or Eric the Viking in hystory books?

And variety comes with roles. Sadly in DA2 you were forced to only one background... No matter what profession you performed playing in Hawke's shoes will end in just one end, unless your brother survived if you were no mage I see absolutely no point on siding with the chantry after being forced (literally) to do all the dirty job for no glory at all. This didn't happened in Origins, you could put yourself into the alienated backgrounds of both castless and city elf, or in your own shoes by playing the circle of magi (let's face it, the school system only promotes indoctrination), the fallen princess on both noble origins or the semi-gypsy way of dalish. Each character will end to have different POVs, trying to be on their shoes, you just dabble with morals. I doubt an human noble will left Redcliff instead of defending it, but a city elf surely will say "**** that dumb ******" and walk away, and the last one will always reject the proposal from tevinters. Only an spoiled sweet princess Aeduncan will forgive Bhelen, most Aeduncans will make Harrowmount the king... the only way to get the utopia and dystopian endings is by meta-gaming a walkthrough instead of roleplaying. The Origin stories are what make the difference between Dragon Age and games like Zelda or Elder Scrolls where you are EXACTLY the chosen one. Only Dragon Age and Vampire the Masquerade can give me that replay value by letting me to choose roles instead of classes.

[MACharlie1]

People were NOT angry about ME3's ending not being a happy one. They were angry because it made no sense, had a ton of plotholes and rendered your choices moot. That and you were forced to do what the Reapers told you to do or everyone dies.

 

That and everyone hated the Starchild and how that one orphan kid, whose name you didn't even know and didn't even know for like more than a minute, traumatized Shepard more than a comrade or someone close dying.

ME3 also had the added problem of one of the first rules of writing: show - don't tell. 

 

I don't want to be told that the Racnhi are fighting the Reapers. I don't want to be told that Jacob's kill count is through the roof when he's in Rio. SHOW IT TO ME. We had an entire list of war assets that were just playing numbers. I don't want to play numbers. I like excitement. It's lazy when we don't get to see these things. Would it REALLY had been that hard to throw in a squad of Racnni coming to your aid during the final battle before the missiles? Or have Jack and her students giving you cover? 

[Sidney]

And variety comes with roles. Sadly in DA2 you were forced to only one background... No matter what profession you performed playing in Hawke's shoes will end in just one end, unless your brother survived if you were no mage I see absolutely no point on siding with the chantry after being forced (literally) to do all the dirty job for no glory at all. This didn't happened in Origins, you could put yourself into the alienated backgrounds of both castless and city elf, or in your own shoes by playing the circle of magi (let's face it, the school system only promotes indoctrination), the fallen princess on both noble origins or the semi-gypsy way of dalish. Each character will end to have different POVs, trying to be on their shoes, you just dabble with morals. I doubt an human noble will left Redcliff instead of defending it, but a city elf surely will say "**** that dumb ******" and walk away, and the last one will always reject the proposal from tevinters. Only an spoiled sweet princess Aeduncan will forgive Bhelen, most Aeduncans will make Harrowmount the king... the only way to get the utopia and dystopian endings is by meta-gaming a walkthrough instead of roleplaying. The Origin stories are what make the difference between Dragon Age and games like Zelda or Elder Scrolls where you are EXACTLY the chosen one. Only Dragon Age and Vampire the Masquerade can give me that replay value by letting me to choose roles instead of classes.

 

I snipped the really silly part of the quote but I doubt beating up dudes in MS rates as highly as stopping an invasion and defeating master criminals, casting off demonic possesions and salavaging a dreamer who can destroy the world. Again, there is a lot of heroic stuff....you just want to be Superman not a hero.

 

You rattle of a litany of how you might play those originas but my city elf didn't play the way you suggest - he had a lot more sympathy for the threatened and the vulnerable. My human noble did walk away from Recliffe as a pragmatist. Backgrounds do not enforce outlook and if they did (and thank god they don't) then they would be awful. The idea that only having one background forces you into certain paths is silly and grossly narrow minded.

[dekarserverbot]

I snipped the really silly part of the quote but I doubt beating up dudes in MS rates as highly as stopping an invasion and defeating master criminals, casting off demonic possesions and salavaging a dreamer who can destroy the world. Again, there is a lot of heroic stuff....you just want to be Superman not a hero.

Ok I'm now the great hero of cats because i protect and save them, maybe cats will sing about me someday and describe me as a 10 foot giant with flames in his eyes or an Axe welding warrior that killed 17 evil human lords. Sadly city life can't offer us what fantasy can... i'm not asking to be superman, i will do with being captain america or spiderman. Comparing our world with no demons swarming the veil, criminals that have guns who cand make holes in tanks and the fact we only live once, my actions will be as heroic as Hawke ones compared with Warden's ones. A friend of me stopped my plan to actually burn a highschool at night, so he would be also Hawke... guess what? he is still a commoner
 

You rattle of a litany of how you might play those originas but my city elf didn't play the way you suggest - he had a lot more sympathy for the threatened and the vulnerable. My human noble did walk away from Recliffe as a pragmatist. Backgrounds do not enforce outlook and if they did (and thank god they don't) then they would be awful. The idea that only having one background forces you into certain paths is silly and grossly narrow minded.

If you read between the lines i said that we just dabble with morals, if you stop right in the line when i recall Aeduncan forgive or slay his/her brother your argument becomes actually supportive. I don't that say every city elf MUST burn both Amarantine and RedCliffe, but mine did. Some Morrigan lovers will choose to kill her in the epilogue, some will join her to face the future together and some will just miss her because they were more interested in parenthood. As a matter or fact the only warden which made me sided with templars was the Magi one, not because he was a "pragmatist", it was because he pursuited freedom. If i metaplayed him i would make him support Bhelen instead of Harrowmont, but he destroyed the anvil and gave the crown to Harrowmont thinking that Bhelen will be a tyrant instead of a Good Guy FeCal (strange combo for a character, maybe the best Hepler's work).

In other words, I never said how your background decided HOW YOU SHOULD play, just pointed that different backgrounds give you different POVs. Ask who is the most selfish warden of mine? the dwarven commoner, what end I had with him? the Martyr one

[Sidney]

In other words, I never said how your background decided HOW YOU SHOULD play, just pointed that different backgrounds give you different POVs. Ask who is the most selfish warden of mine? the dwarven commoner, what end I had with him? the Martyr one

 

 

The same background can give you a different PoV as well. I've played 3 very different city elves in DAO for example.Not having origins shouldn't have any limit on how many ways you can play Hawke anymore than not having different back stories limits how you play the Courier, Geralt, Bhaal Spawn or Vault Dweller....or pretty much every other RPG. It was like DAO wiped from people's minds that the "orogons" bit was their gimmick in the game and not standard fare.

[Elite Midget]

Well in real life no serial killer has treatened my family yet, but when i was in what you call mid school I used to beat some thugs of my age, plus I lost my virginity, also saved a kitty from streets and school was hell. The best part? i just had 3 friends and one of them was a PSX... does this makes me different from any commoner? will I stand a chance against Atila the Hun or Eric the Viking in hystory books?

And variety comes with roles. Sadly in DA2 you were forced to only one background... No matter what profession you performed playing in Hawke's shoes will end in just one end, unless your brother survived if you were no mage I see absolutely no point on siding with the chantry after being forced (literally) to do all the dirty job for no glory at all. This didn't happened in Origins, you could put yourself into the alienated backgrounds of both castless and city elf, or in your own shoes by playing the circle of magi (let's face it, the school system only promotes indoctrination), the fallen princess on both noble origins or the semi-gypsy way of dalish. Each character will end to have different POVs, trying to be on their shoes, you just dabble with morals. I doubt an human noble will left Redcliff instead of defending it, but a city elf surely will say "**** that dumb ******" and walk away, and the last one will always reject the proposal from tevinters. Only an spoiled sweet princess Aeduncan will forgive Bhelen, most Aeduncans will make Harrowmount the king... the only way to get the utopia and dystopian endings is by meta-gaming a walkthrough instead of roleplaying. The Origin stories are what make the difference between Dragon Age and games like Zelda or Elder Scrolls where you are EXACTLY the chosen one. Only Dragon Age and Vampire the Masquerade can give me that replay value by letting me to choose roles instead of classes.

There's plenty of reasons to side with the Templars as you cannot deny the RoA(But you can try and mitigate the losses which Hawke tells Merrill when she questions him), to prevent a Holy Crusade of sorts, you're told all game that to become the defacto ruler of Kirkwall you need Templar support, the Blood Mage issue IS a huge issue which Orsino didn't help to mitigate at all as he denied and tried to hide its presence, Anders blew up the Chantry thus the people WILL want blood(As many are religious and follow the teachings) so at least if Hawke denounces it by helping the Templars he gives the Mages a chance as he can spare them as the people are far more likely to listen to a Hawke that protected them from the Blood Mages than one who protects them after the Chantry blew up, and ect.

 

Furthermore it's established that the Templars SEVERELY outnumber the Mages even with Abominations running around. It's only a matter of time til the Circle falls which happens even if you aid Orsino. At least if you're side with the Templars you're on the winning side here and, like with the other Mages, can better protect Bethany if she's in the Circle as the Templars, if you side with them, have FAR more respect for Hawke than Meredith whose rumored to be insane.

[the_last_krogan]

because origins was epic you rose up from tragedy to smash the archdemon

 

dragon age 2 hel i can't even remember what happened in that game

[Elite Midget]

because origins was epic you rose up from tragedy to smash the archdemon

 

dragon age 2 hel i can't even remember what happened in that game

DA:O - You were conveniently placed within the Grey Wardens and stopped the Blight and later became a Warden Commander.

DA2 - You rose from nothing to become the Champion of Kirkwall and were dragged into the start of the Templar/Mage War.

[Thermopylae]

I honestly liked the concept of Dragon Age 2, a representation of change over time in a city and the chapter organization of it was cool, it allowed some interesting narrative devices. I would have preferred it to be less "linear" in the sense that you could develop a career within the city as noble, merchant or underworld and use these resources to "try" to influence an outcome. That would have been cool. The environments were "repeated" too much, without showing change, going to the same spot over time and showing the changes over time is a cool idea but it wasn't really implemented. 

 

The city itself was ok to good, locations do tend to have similar architecture according to culture, there was enough variation and I liked the themes of what could be called random encounters. The Mark of the Assassin DLC is well done, the whole Felicia Day/ Tallis tie in is an excellent example of a community based multimedia reference that was successfully done. When I think about other Bioware titles I am becoming consciously aware that it is a marketing strategy that Bioware has experimented with, developed, successfully implemented and is continually assessing for their titles. The Mark of the Assassin definitely made the experience of Dragon Age 2 more engaging for me and possibly represents Bioware developing a concept of Orlai as a culture. 

 

With regards to the narrative, I am not an American, so I apologize for potential insensitivity but the whole Anders plot to me possibly shows a post 911 influence, where Anders represents a lot of combined counter culture influences, which to me is narratively interesting. Quite honestly I would like to have been able to "save" Anders and possibly the city. (Perhaps in the end much like the "Save Garret" line from Community, which is hilarious).

[Sidney]

 

 

Agreed, it lacks the scope and reuses environments but underneath the cut corners

there's still some real BioWare here.

 

I look at DA2 the same way I look at KoTORII. Both are games where, as you said, if you look at what could have been and the core is there should have been games that surpassed their predecessors but both were rushed, KOTORII being buggy as all get out and lacking a lot of cut contesnt, and wound up being deeply flawed.

[dekarserverbot]

DA:O - You were conveniently placed within the Grey Wardens and stopped the Blight and later became a Warden Commander.
DA2 - You rose from nothing to become the Champion of Kirkwall and were dragged into the start of the Templar/Mage War.

I liked because i saw that if you change the protagonist for Loyd at RedCliffe is exactly the same and made me LOL

[Jinglepocket]

I was disappointed with Origins. It had a silent protagonist, tedious combat, dungeon crawls that dragged on way too long, and a generic chosen-one-destined-to-save-the-world-from-the-big-bad plot. Mechanically, it was clear they were trying to do a throwback to their early work with gameplay that felt way too much like Baldur's Gate. BG was a masterpiece in its time, but games have gotten a lot better since then.

 

There was a lot to like about it - Thedas is one my favorite settings ever, to start. Alistair alone made the cast fantastic. The story, generic as it was, was told well. Overall, I still I enjoyed the game, but I was just coming from Mass Effect with way-too-high expectations for Dragon Age.

 

DA2 felt like a return to form. Everything that matters to me was better. Combat still wasn't great, but it wasn't tedious like Origins was. The content was all well-paced, without any of the gruelingly-long dungeon crawls. The story was more personal, more unique, and more interesting. I've read enough chosen-one-destined-to-save-the-world stories to last a lifetime, and DA2 was a nice departure from that. Varric -- like Alistair -- could have made the cast fantastic on his own, but the whole cast was great (aside from Fenris, who just didn't work for me). Aveline is incredible. Anders grows a personality between Awakening and DA2, and the friendship between him and Varric brings me all kinds of joy. Isabela is hilarious. FemHawke shares the podium with FemShep as my favorite protagonist ever. 

 

I laughed, I cried, and I played it again and again.

 

A minor touch I thought was brilliant: Hawke's personality changed based on the sorts of dialog choices you picked; if you were sarcastic, she'd make quips along with Varric and Isabela. Instead of a required Charm/Intimidate skill you had to pick up, Hawke got different dialog choices based on that personality. Fantastic.

 

My only substantial complaint with DA2 was Orsino giving up at the end. The rest -- repeating dungeons, waves of enemies, and the like -- barely registered because those things just aren't all that important to me in the grand scheme of things. The meat of the game was a masterpiece, and it's a tragedy that it doesn't get the respect it deserves.

[Jinglepocket]

I look at DA2 the same way I look at KoTORII. Both are games where, as you said, if you look at what could have been and the core is there should have been games that surpassed their predecessors but both were rushed, KOTORII being buggy as all get out and lacking a lot of cut contesnt, and wound up being deeply flawed.

 

Good characters are what make stories good, and Kreia was good enough to carry KOTOR2 through all its flaws and then some. I remember it much more fondly than KOTOR1, even though I'd readily admit that KOTOR1 was a better game.