57 réponses à ce sujet

[Beltan]

I don't at all understand how DA2 was considered inferior to the first one. I just finished the game for the first time (the end-credits are running on the other screen) and I'm still reeling from the story and all that happened in the adventure.

I so much more liked my Hawke than my Warden because I got to hear him speak. I loved his story much more as he grew from nothing to the champion. Since I sided with the mages, the ending I thought would happen didnt, but I am still very happy. I appreciated the story-telling device and the multi-year arc of my character.

 

The oft-heard complaint about reused sets didn't bother me in most places. As the story takes place in the city, I'd expect to see the same places over and over. It only mildly irritated me when it was a cave or a sewer or some passage. Those were all the same and boring, but the story and all that happened completely banished the irritaion.

 

In romancing Anders, I was completely taken aback and what he did, and wrestled for a while about what to do. That is powerful story-telling.

 

I regret listening to the haters way back in the beginning of this game's life; I stopped because people said it was horrible. It wasnt.

 

I'm very happy that I got to experience the game and the DLCs. They were wonderful.

 

 

[Beltan]

-Reused dungeons.

-Rushed third act.

-Lack of non combat abilities.(removing sneak? Really?)

-Abysmal pacing in the first act.

-lack of environmental reactivity

-Bad mob system

 

Solid 6/10 for me

I didn't feel any rush in act 3. I was itching for the end. Stories usually move up in their pace, so it was natural for the act to be quicker. 

 

I'm going to start another game and check out act 1. I can't remember the pacing to see.

[Jester]

-Reused dungeons.

I can understand some dungeons being reused - but what they did in DA2 is inexcusable. 

 

To what you mentioned, I'd add the fact, that NONE of your choices, apart from whether to take Bethany/Carver with you into the Deep Roads matter. 

Literally NONE.

• Side with Meredith? You must kill Orsino and Meredith. Side with Orsino? You kill both Orsino and Meredith. In exactly the same fights. For very contrived reasons.
• You decide to help Anders? He blows up the Chantry. You don't help him? He blows up the Chantry.
• You gain Arishok's respect? He razes Kirkwall and you have to kill him. Arishok despises you like the rest? Same (except you can't duel him if Isabella doesn't come back).
• You can't kill Petrice after she betrays you.
• Whether you give Merill the Arulin'holm or not it doesn't metter - she seeks the help of the demon in Act III.
• Feynriel is having Nightmares and must be helped in Act II no matter if he is in the Circle or with the Dalish. The quest is identical, and for some reason Feynriel is allowed in the Alienage despite being in the Circle and being in a Fade-induced coma.
• Despite Flemeth saying she half expected her amulet to land in a merchant's pocket, Hawke can do no such thing. There is no option of breaking a promise to her, because the game won't progress if you don't do that quest.
• In the quest "The Act of Mercy", there is no option to kill Grace, despite her being in a company of a Blood Mage and suggesting to kill a templar. Why? Because she is needed for a quest "Best Served Cold" in Act III.

All of that makes you feel like a spectator to the story, and not the actor in it.

[Geth Supremacy]

to each their own.  If you can put DAO beside DA2 and say they are equal or DA2 is better then more power to you if thats really what you think.  It doesn't matter what other people say, its about what you like and what you get from it.

 

 

I will say that I will never get that line of thinking though.

[Icy Magebane]

Dragon Age 2 was a decent game but there were just too many problems, many of which have been mentioned already.  I'd call it average at best, and well below what I was expecting.  I'm guessing that the OP heard that DA2 was lousy before they played it?  If so, that may have contributed to the positive review... I mean, generally when I hear that something sucks over and over, I expect it to really, really suck.  If it's not that bad, I tend to think it's better than it actually is because I expected it to be incredibly bad... you see?  At least, that's how I would explain it.  Going into the game fresh, when it's totally new to you is a different experience entirely, as you are not looking for the negatives that people have previously warned you about.  The same is true for overwhelmingly positive reviews... "legendary" games rarely live up to the hype.

 

I'm not saying that DA2 was bad, since it's better than many rpgs even with its flaws.  I just don't think it's as good as DA:O was in terms of story... even the improvements to combat are null and void when waves of enemies jump down from the ceiling of the Chantry or materialize literally out of thin air.

[Elhanan]

DA2 did not appear to be as polished as DAO, but it is still a solid game, IMO. And as I recall, a lot of the hate came immediately around release from so-called Players for whatever reasons; seemingly unrealistic that they actually had played the game.

I pre-ordered and am content, though I hope that DAI goes above the standards set by both of the earlier games in the series.

[CrazyGobstopper]

• You decide to help Anders? He blows up the Chantry. You don't help him? He blows up the Chantry.
• You gain Arishok's respect? He razes Kirkwall and you have to kill him. Arishok despises you like the rest? Same (except you can't duel him if Isabella doesn't come back).
• Whether you give Merill the Arulin'holm or not it doesn't metter - she seeks the help of the demon in Act III.

Oh, just how horrible that characters in a story will act contrary to the PC's wishes. Don't these characters know that they exist solely to do as we want?

[Hydwn]

I'm a rare person who likes both of them a lot.  It's easier if you accept that they're two different games.  One's an epic focused on story, the other's a biography focused on personality but they're both great games and great additions to the universe.  

 

And honestly, if every game is "save the world" it's going to get old.  Hawke's 7 years of relative peace in Kirkwall, and the fact that's he more of a witness than a hero, meant we got to see the world through a fresh pair of eyes and we have a palette cleanse before the world is threatened again.  I'll be ready to save the world again in Inquisition, though. 

 

I actually like the gameplay better in DA2.  I suspect that has a lot to do with the PC/console split.  Combat was seriously dumbed down for PC people but was actually smoother and more fluid and more fun for console folks.  I suspect this is a major reason why there's so much of a split on whether the combat was better, and why people in both camps seem to be talking about two different games when they argue.

 

Reused environments, though, there's no defending.  I'm fully expecting there'll be party banter in the next game where Varric admits that "all places look the same" to him and that's his weakness as a storyteller

[Jester]

Oh, just how horrible that characters in a story will act contrary to the PC's wishes. Don't these characters know that they exist solely to do as we want?

You clearly misunderstood the whole point I was making.

Hawke doesn't affect the story, or companions. At all. He/She can't persuade them so they make different decisions. Whether Hawke helps them or not - it mostly doesn't matter. 

Hawke cannot influence the outcome of the story in the slightest. Everything always ends the same. The only difference in ending, is that Hawke can be a Viscount of Kirkwall for w few months/weeks (I don't remember). You can't stop the mage rebellion. You can't prevent most of the mages from dying. You can't prevent Orsino from becoming a Harvester. You cannot avoid fight with Meredith, even if you supported every decision she made through the entire game. You cannot prevent Isabella from running with the Tome of Koslun...The list goes forever.

Hawke is a passive spectator throughout the whole story, and this was not the case in Origins, or Mass Effect, or KOTOR...

 

I'm a rare person who likes both of them a lot.  It's easier if you accept that they're two different games.  One's an epic focused on story, the other's a biography focused on personality but they're both great games and great additions to the universe.  

 

And honestly, if every game is "save the world" it's going to get old.  Hawke's 7 years of relative peace in Kirkwall, and the fact that's he more of a witness than a hero, meant we got to see the world through a fresh pair of eyes and we have a palette cleanse before the world is threatened again.  I'll be ready to save the world again in Inquisition, though. 

While I can accept a personal focus with ease, I cannot accept being a spectator in the story. That's not what I play RPGs for. That's what movies are for. Or action games. I had more influence on the outcome of the main story in Bioshock 1&2 than in DA2. 

It doesn't mean, that the story is necessarily bad. I like playing action games (like Bioshock series, Assassin's Creed series, Far Cry (only played 3) or Batman Arkham series. There you are also merely a witness to a story. Does it mean, that the story is bad? Certainly not. But the whole point of RPGs is that you, as a player can actually affect the world and CHANGE things. Change the outcome. That's the whole point of this genre.

[Roses]

I actually loved the feeling of helplessness in the second game. I know people play things because they want to feel oh so powerful, in control with everything, and get the pretty princess in the end. Instead, DA2 they get the ashes of Chantry in their face. And a lover who snuggles them one moment but runs away with their cause another. Well welcome to life, it's how it goes, both real and virtual! Not always can one emerge a total winner at everything. I found DA2 an interesting break from my usual "I change lives and save the day" stories.
 
I can definitely see why not everyone might like it but hating it? That's a bit too extreme. Just like some idiot guy's accusations about DA2 offending straight male gamer and wanting the writer to be fired. By the Maker, some people don't know where to vent their frustration.

While the game wasn't a masterpiece - it IS a rushjob - it was definitely not as bad as the internet paints it to be.
It is more about the personal drama than a journey of heroic scale, sure, but just because it doesn't seem like Origins (and thank God it does not - I would probably fall asleep if I had to go through 60 hours of DAO combat again) doesn't mean it can't be appreciated.

[Hydwn]

While I can accept a personal focus with ease, I cannot accept being a spectator in the story. That's not what I play RPGs for. That's what movies are for. Or action games. I had more influence on the outcome of the main story in Bioshock 1&2 than in DA2. 

It doesn't mean, that the story is necessarily bad. I like playing action games (like Bioshock series, Assassin's Creed series, Far Cry (only played 3) or Batman Arkham series. There you are also merely a witness to a story. Does it mean, that the story is bad? Certainly not. But the whole point of RPGs is that you, as a player can actually affect the world and CHANGE things. Change the outcome. That's the whole point of this genre.

 

I think it depends a lot on whether you're playing it as an RPG, or as part of the Dragon Age world.  I've mentioned in another thread that people have a deep psychological need for the Monomyth (a.k.a. The Hero's Journey), and that in our culture when someone looks for the Monomyth, they reach for anything labelled "Fantasy."  Nothing wrong with that - I do that myself, and I need that archetypal story same as anyone. 

 

But I also really, really like Dragon Age as a world.  I read the comics and the books and the encyclopedias, because I like it as a world.  And I'm quite happy to step into the shoes of "Joe Ordinary" for a game, and experience Thedas the way 99% of the NPCs do - as a passenger.  It's not the only time they offer this experience.  If you've read The Calling, that's mostly about witnesses as well.  

 

Spoiler

Nothing Duncan, Fiona, and Marric have done by the end of that novel have changed Thedas, with the possible exception of Marric and Fiona conceiving Alistair.

 

If it's just another Fantasy RPG on  the pile, though, I can understand the disappointment.  If you're there for Thedas, though - Thedas as a character in itself - then it's a pretty awesome experience.

 

That, and the combat is fun.  Console player here, so the combat for us was better than Origins

[Elhanan]

You clearly misunderstood the whole point I was making.
Hawke doesn't affect the story, or companions. At all. He/She can't persuade them so they make different decisions. Whether Hawke helps them or not - it mostly doesn't matter. 
Hawke cannot influence the outcome of the story in the slightest. Everything always ends the same. The only difference in ending, is that Hawke can be a Viscount of Kirkwall for w few months/weeks (I don't remember). You can't stop the mage rebellion. You can't prevent most of the mages from dying. You can't prevent Orsino from becoming a Harvester. You cannot avoid fight with Meredith, even if you supported every decision she made through the entire game. You cannot prevent Isabella from running with the Tome of Koslun...The list goes forever.
Hawke is a passive spectator throughout the whole story, and this was not the case in Origins, or Mass Effect, or KOTOR...
 
While I can accept a personal focus with ease, I cannot accept being a spectator in the story. That's not what I play RPGs for. That's what movies are for. Or action games. I had more influence on the outcome of the main story in Bioshock 1&2 than in DA2. 
It doesn't mean, that the story is necessarily bad. I like playing action games (like Bioshock series, Assassin's Creed series, Far Cry (only played 3) or Batman Arkham series. There you are also merely a witness to a story. Does it mean, that the story is bad? Certainly not. But the whole point of RPGs is that you, as a player can actually affect the world and CHANGE things. Change the outcome. That's the whole point of this genre.

Although passive, the personality of Hawke is still affected by choice; see more details here:

http://dragonage.wik...Dialogue_Wheel

I would have also liked more control. but this seems to have been done for DAI.

But where I must disagree is that RPG's are not about affect and change; it is about playing the role in a story. While some may prefer to have more control over the various plots and tales than others, the story is still the main focus, I believe. And while Hawke has lesser control over some major outcomes, the ways in which these are told do indeed vary based on choice.

One cannot stop the rebellion, but the Player does not - and should not- have control over the others involved in creating it. And while I concede that the plot concerning Orsino seems flawed, neither he or Meredith should be controlled by the Player; tis the GM or game that controls them.

While I do accept the idea that there is a difference of opinion over what limits on freedom of choice people would like to have in their games, there are limits. In this cases, DA2 may be more limited than one may like, but it still is a proper RPG.

[Beltan]

While I do accept the idea that there is a difference of opinion over what limits on freedom of choice people would like to have in their games, there are limits. In this cases, DA2 may be more limited than one may like, but it still is a proper RPG.

This is certainly my view. I'm satisfied with the story that the tellers set out to create. Maybe I might have wished for a different ending or for more control, but that wasn't the story. I want to liken a video game to a book - you get one ending and no choice. You're a participant in the story as far as the author wanted you to be and in the tale they wanted to tell. Are video games similar? Yes, they're RPG's in genre, but there still is a story. I personally dislike Skyrim because it is too open. I want a great story and great story beats. I want the rising action and the climax and I want to experience the story as the developer intended. I remember Casey Hudson's comment about MassEffect: he told the story he wanted to tell. That's good enough. 

Maybe games should start coming with a choice index. The higher the index, the more choices and the more open it will be.  Linear stories are not bad; they're exactly what they're intended to be. DA2 is linear; so is DAO. A clear beginning, middle, and end. For me the only thing I truly care about is who lives and dies in my games. I cringe when I get to ME2's suicide mission because I never know how the choice I make determines who lives and dies in that game.

 

Im not in favor of hating a game because the choices were limited. I'm in favor of disliking a game because of the story. I don't play Dead Space because I don't care for the story. I think that should be the merit of any game: the story.

[bazzag]

This is why i never pay attention to reviews. Just because that is one person, or a group of peoples opinions, doesnt make it your opinion. At the end of the day, if i enjoy something and i have fun playing/reading/watching something, then i don't mind. For me DA2 wasn't as good as origins. Having said that, i still had fun playing it, and still enjoy it. The only thing i didn't enjoy back then was the ending, but it looks like it will flow into inquisition quite well so i dont mind so much any more.

[ShadowLordXII]

This is why i never pay attention to reviews. Just because that is one person, or a group of peoples opinions, doesnt make it your opinion. At the end of the day, if i enjoy something and i have fun playing/reading/watching something, then i don't mind. For me DA2 wasn't as good as origins. Having said that, i still had fun playing it, and still enjoy it. The only thing i didn't enjoy back then was the ending, but it looks like it will flow into inquisition quite well so i dont mind so much any more.

 

I'm kind of in your class.

 

I went into the game without paying attention to positive or negative reviews and did enjoy playing it. Even after admitting that Dragon Age 2 has major problems derived from flawed execution, stripped-out RPG elements, forced attempts at drama and a rushed development period, I will still say that I like it and that it is a good game.

 

I will admit that after replaying Origins and importing into DA2, I did notice a clear and undeniable downgrade in quality.

[KaiserShep]

But the whole point of RPGs is that you, as a player can actually affect the world and CHANGE things. Change the outcome. That's the whole point of this genre.

 

I don't really agree that this is the point of an RPG. For myself, what matters the most is being able to control my character's motivations, friendships, morality, etc.. That other characters have their own agency that makes many of them immune to things like coercion is not something I'd really consider a weakness, though I can see why it would be frustrating. It's a bit too close to reality, because people in real life can't simply be talked into going your way. That said, the player does have a great deal of control over the companions, whether it be over some of their lives, or their disposition.

[Madeline McQueen]

Only because of the repeated maps, buggy quests and lack of a title I give the game 9 / 10. It did feel a tiny bit rushed but I still loved it!    

[Cutlass Jack]

I regret listening to the haters way back in the beginning of this game's life; I stopped because people said it was horrible. It wasnt.

 

I'm very happy that I got to experience the game and the DLCs. They were wonderful.

 

Better late than never I always say. The game's only realy fault in my opinion was that it needed another 6-12 months development time. There were some really great things in this game but they needed more time to polish and sell them. Reused areas didn't bother me that much, but they really should have been made much less obvious. Still I play RPGs for the roleplay and character development, and DA2 delivered this in spades.

 

While its true Hawke couldn't make a huge impact in the overall storyline's direction, I had Huge choice in the Hawke that made that journey. I played the game four times (Playing my 5th this week in fact) And each Hawke felt completely different to me than the others. And none of mine felt anything like the ones my Wife made when she played. I'm not sure how, but I'm still finding new dialogue on my current playthrough.

 

I do love this game more than Origins (which I also loved), but I'll be the first to admit that its got flaws too. For example, choosing to side with Mages really should mean you can save the lives of more mages. Instead you actually have to fight and kill more than if you chose Templars. And the end fight boss should have varied based on that choice instead of having to fight both of them. And drop down enemy waves was completely overused.

 

But that didnt really take away from my love of shaping my Hawke's personality and their relationship with the other characters in the story. And I think Bioware got the message loud and clear on what went astray in the base game. Because the DLCs were amazing and missing most of the flaws. I think they show what the game could have been with more development time.

[HTTP 404]

I found Da2 a pretty decent story as well.  What really got to me was the replayability.  I have more varied Da:O stories than Da2.  I encourage you to play through Da2 again, you may find some disappointment in the lack of impact choices make on the main story and the recycled environment. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Da2 and love DA:O.  I can't tell you which one I like better but I can tell you what I like of each.  I enjoy the combat a bit more (even if it is a bit over the top) in Da2.  That is my sticking point to replaying Da2, to experience other builds.  Whereas I enjoy replaying Da:O for the variation of the story outcomes.

 

P.S.  I enjoyed reading the OP, it's nice to read a fresh perspective on Da2.

[Eelectrica]

It's got too many elements that made Origins great stripped.
Where are my choice and consequences? It doesn't matter what choices I make it all ends the same. Not even talking about the ending, side quests choices don't impact anything like dealing with Grace for exanple

Where is my choice to spec persuasion or survival skills etc?
Where is my tactical cam?

They did some good things in Da2 but lost far more from Origins than they added. And that's biggest problem. If the devs were given another 6 months to a year to work on it, a lot of deficiency's could have been fixed and the game reach it's potential I stead of feeling like a shooter in a fantasy setting.

I'm doing a nightmare DA2 run at the moment just to say I've done and the combat is just too much the same. The hardest part is keeping some characters on a short enough leash so the don't run into the middle of a hoard.

Also it feels too gamey, a huge boss for the sake of a boss. In Origins the boss fights feel more natural. If the Javia fiight was done in in DA 2 she would have grown 100 metres in height had 10 waves of minions paratroop in from the cave roof... yeah that makes sense.

I liked the cross class combos but we should have been able to set some things up and trigger them as well like the cone of cold/ stone fist shatter. Warriors could also shatter frozen enemies.

[Willowhugger]

Here's my review.

 

http://unitedfederat...e-2-review.html

[KaiserShep]

Where is my tactical cam?

 

I guess this is more meaningful for folks who play on PC, but if you're only on console, DA2 was actually a step up in terms of tactics insofar that you could actually control where your characters went, whereas this feature didn't exist for Origins on XBox and PS3.

[GreyValyria]

Aside from what was already mentioned here, one of the major disappointments of DA2 for me was the lack of character interaction and only being able to talk with companions when they had a quest. In Origins it felt like there was a lot more to talk about with companions and I really liked the companions from DA2 so I would've liked additional conversations to flesh out even more of each of their personalities.

 

Also for a beginning that throws you right into the action, it took me quite a while to actually get into it. I didn't start connecting with Hawke until much later in the game and even then, it was shallow compared to the connection I felt with my Warden. I felt like as Hawke I lacked a sense of purpose that I had with the Warden. 

 

That being said though, I really did enjoy DA2 once I got past the slow beginning parts. I just much prefer Origins for many of the reasons stated here, especially my preference for that heroic journey of saving the world.

[dekarserverbot]

I can understand some dungeons being reused - but what they did in DA2 is inexcusable. 

 

To what you mentioned, I'd add the fact, that NONE of your choices, apart from whether to take Bethany/Carver with you into the Deep Roads matter. 

Literally NONE.

• Side with Meredith? You must kill Orsino and Meredith. Side with Orsino? You kill both Orsino and Meredith. In exactly the same fights. For very contrived reasons.
• You decide to help Anders? He blows up the Chantry. You don't help him? He blows up the Chantry.
• You gain Arishok's respect? He razes Kirkwall and you have to kill him. Arishok despises you like the rest? Same (except you can't duel him if Isabella doesn't come back).
• You can't kill Petrice after she betrays you.
• Whether you give Merill the Arulin'holm or not it doesn't metter - she seeks the help of the demon in Act III.
• Feynriel is having Nightmares and must be helped in Act II no matter if he is in the Circle or with the Dalish. The quest is identical, and for some reason Feynriel is allowed in the Alienage despite being in the Circle and being in a Fade-induced coma.
• Despite Flemeth saying she half expected her amulet to land in a merchant's pocket, Hawke can do no such thing. There is no option of breaking a promise to her, because the game won't progress if you don't do that quest.
• In the quest "The Act of Mercy", there is no option to kill Grace, despite her being in a company of a Blood Mage and suggesting to kill a templar. Why? Because she is needed for a quest "Best Served Cold" in Act III.

All of that makes you feel like a spectator to the story, and not the actor in it.

 

BRAVO!