226 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Cyberpunk]

I know there have probably been a dozen threads like this. But I just want to pop out and say it again. I think DA2 is a better game than Origins and was actually an improvement on the series. 

[Bod02]

incorrect

[SilvereagleXI]

Though i do disagree with you i would like to say that this is a subjective matter and hence it is entirely up to individua players as to whether or not a game is good. 

[luna1124]

Nope...do not agree....

[HappyApathy553]

I might have agreed with you but the whole repeatedly reused environment really hurts it's appeal to me more than anything else, nothing reeks of rushed development more then that to me.

[Helgagrim]

DA2 had a better combat system. But Origins is far superior when it comes to story and companions. also locations.

[Cyberpunk]

I thought DA2 had better story and as developed characters as DAO. You got to know them the same way you got to know them in DAO. The reused environments did not mean less variety. Altering them between chapters essentially created new places altogether. Plus it fits the story, you are in a city, how big can it get? 

[ORTesc]

The endless waves that bother you at random as you simply walk the streets is enough to make one wish to stop playing in itself. Add to that the reused environments, clonky pc controls, inability to change companion armor, shallow story and the fact that the entire game takes place in a single area... how could you possibly say this game is better than Origins? Honestly, I have no idea what bioware was thinking when they made this.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

[Cyberpunk]

If you are expecting Origins 2, then you would be let down. This is Dragon Age II, it doesn't have to be the same to be better. You actually did have a choice with the characters as well as more options for getting to know them. The combat was way better. And DAO had repetitive combat as well as reusing the same dungeons. 

[ORTesc]

If you are expecting Origins 2, then you would be let down. This is Dragon Age II, it doesn't have to be the same to be better. You actually did have a choice with the characters as well as more options for getting to know them. The combat was way better. And DAO had repetitive combat as well as reusing the same dungeons. 

 

The fact is Origins sold very well, 32 million within a year of relese. Compare that to DA2's 1.2 million during the same time period. In fact, Origins sold more than Inquisition within a year so far. The game was a major success for Bioware. To turn what was so successful on it's head by completely reinventing a game that sold so well is borderline mental illness. Whoever was responsible for Dragon Age 2 should have been (and probably was) fired a long time ago.

[Catche Jagger]

If you are expecting Origins 2, then you would be let down. This is Dragon Age II, it doesn't have to be the same to be better. You actually did have a choice with the characters as well as more options for getting to know them. The combat was way better. And DAO had repetitive combat as well as reusing the same dungeons.

In DAO you don't go back to the same handful of dungeons for every single quest.

Bioware didn't need to do the same better, but they did have to do better. I'm fine with a less generic "save the world" plot, but the whole thing was absurdly disjointed. The companions tend to be hit-or-miss, especially with their need for you to take care of them all the time while they constant put themselves and others in danger through acts of stupidity. The combat system would have been better than the one in Origins, if there wasn't for all of the random enemy spawns.

The issue isn't that DA2 was different, the issue is that the game displays many cut corners most likely to reach some sort of fast approaching, pre set deadline.

[Arppis]

I liked the story and characters!

 

I also liked the smaller scale of DA2, but they kinda botched that up. For that to be success, they should have made the area have more detail, more explorable areas, ect...

 

Could have been great if they had few more years.

[Corwyn]

The fact is Origins sold very well, 32 million within a year of relese. Compare that to DA2's 1.2 million during the same time period. In fact, Origins sold more than Inquisition within a year so far. The game was a major success for Bioware. To turn what was so successful on it's head by completely reinventing a game that sold so well is borderline mental illness. Whoever was responsible for Dragon Age 2 should have been (and probably was) fired a long time ago.

I know three people who bought DAO but didn't buy DA2, each of them skipped DA2 because they didn't like the DAO.  I enjoyed DAO but it got a big boost from people hoping it was going to be fantasy Mass Effect and when it wasn't they left the series.

 

I enjoyed DA2 but I admit it had a lot of squandered potential, I normally give it the edge though just because I can overlook graphics and some gameplay issues if I like the story and the companions and I enjoyed most of DA2's companions better.  The story could have used some polishing in the third act but I actually liked that you weren't saving the world you just a little guy trying to help city that was spiraling out of control. 

[Aren]

The fact is Origins sold very well, 32 million within a year of relese. Compare that to DA2's 1.2 million during the same time period. In fact, Origins sold more than Inquisition within a year so far. The game was a major success for Bioware. To turn what was so successful on it's head by completely reinventing a game that sold so well is borderline mental illness. Whoever was responsible for Dragon Age 2 should have been (and probably was) fired a long time ago.

your data are not accurate Origins sold 32milion for pc  yes but Da2  29 milion, a good result as well

DAII is better  than DAO, consider that the game story is far more intreasting than origins and that the game was developed in less than 2 year. they have spent a less amount of money and time to make the game, this means that Bioware have earned more from DAII.

Kirkwall is just one of the city within the free marches, only one of the many that the developers wanted to include in the game.

[N7 Shadow 90]

I agree, Cyberpunk! DAII had a feel to it that found a place in my heart which DAO did not, albeit I loved that game too.

[Teraxo]

I can't like the reused areas nor the waves of enemies, but i prefer the smaller scale of its story, the companions and the protagonist of DA2. DA2 is my choice over the 3 games.

[Weltall]

Hard for me to pick a favorite. Between the three games, all of them have things I really liked and some things I didn't like. And some just did things better than others.

 

To DA2's credit, I liked the animations of the combat system. Leaping and rolling between targets, my rogue felt like a flying flash of death. The other two games make it appear far less cool. Also, I liked all the companions in DA2 (except Anders). I found myself always switching my characters around to let them all share in the story. In the other two games, I had a few characters I really liked and the others pretty much stayed at home. I also really liked the dialog between my companions in DA2.

 

Also, maybe because it was limited to just a human character, I felt that Hawke was more substancially fleshed out the Warden or the Inquisator. For one thing, he had an easy to remember name. His/her companions refered to him by his name. The other two were refered to by titles. His/her family life was interwoven into the story and not just a side point. Just those little things make me feel that Hawke's personality was more personal and deeper.

 

There are things I like about the other two games, but this thread is about DA2, so I'll leave it at that. Especially with the heavy flood of criticism for the game, I wanted to point out its strong points.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

 

To quote by Catche Jagger

 

Dragon Age 2 generally fails on the story front especially considering that this is a Bioware game. The story is split up into three acts, each with their own generally self-contained conflict. This seems like a cool concept, but in the end, it weakens the experience as a whole because there is no unifying theme or purpose. However, it seems fairly obvious where the overarching focus should be: The Mage/Templar conflict. That is what we are building to, what Cassandra's questioning ends at. And yet, it is probably the most poorly set up part of the game.

 

Looking at the Qunari arc in Act 2, you can see why it's probably the strongest part of the game. The Arishok is introduced back in the first act, his motivations are clear, as is the growing tension between the Qunari and the Kirkwall populace. I understood the stakes where everyone stood and the choices that were placed in front of me seemed reasonable.

 

The Mage/Templar arc of Act 3, however is a bit more muddled. The major players (Meredith and Orsino) are not properly introduced until the very end of the second act. Meredith's backstory and motivations are not made clear unless Hawke sides with the Templars and Orsino's are just never elaborated on.

 

The Mage/Templar conflict also fails to set up strong dynamics that would make the choice of either Templars or Mages come across as more even. Meredith, as an example of an uncompromising templar who will do anything to stop the mages, lacks a proper counterpoint in Orsino, who comes across a somewhat spineless guy who did some very questionable things under the table, but would never actually fight for the mages. The better counterpoint actually lies with Anders, who will stop at nothing to free the mages from the templars (and, just like Meredith, has some sort of outside force affecting his mental state).

 

In an even more annoying turn, we end up having to fight both Meredith and Orsino regardless of what choices you make (with Orsino's sudden turn to blood magic making little to no sense) making the whole thing feel pointless.The whole thing would have benefited from a few rewrites, to ensure a more cohesive story and experience.

 

It always come back to the fact that EA rushed them to get this game out the door when they needed more years to work on it which has become a known fact not allowing to take full advantage of the setting they used. We were all surprised DA2 came out so quickly after DA1 whether a separate team had worked on it or not it was way too soon and it showed. It's not a bad game at all but it could have been a great game if it was developed right. The fact remains Dragon Age 2 is still an incomplete game to this day. DLCs like Legacy showed they could do it given the time. What was, what could have been, and what wasn't.

 

 

I feel that the story of DA:O was that of a movie. The story of DAII was a five season TV show with seasons 2 and 4 missing and even with Legacy and Mark of the Assassin there are huge chunks of the story missing and/or left to the codex.

[ImperialAuthority]

I know there have probably been a dozen threads like this. But I just want to pop out and say it again. I think DA2 is a better game than Origins and was actually an improvement on the series. 

 

I also liked DA2, its much better than origins in my opinion. Fast combat style fits perfect in da2, combat speed was horrible at origins.

Also, my very favorite characters in DA2, Aveline, Isabela.

 

I remember I was raging when romancing with Aveline is impossible..she was awesome, I wished she came back in DAI...