Jump to content

Photo

I like Dragon Age II more than Origins!


  • Please log in to reply
226 replies to this topic

#101
Illegitimus

Illegitimus
  • Members
  • 1,206 posts

Except for the ton of innacuracies in your statement Hawke wasn't "scrapped" he appears in DAI and Inquisition didn't move closer to DAO it moved in the opposite direction, giving players less choice,less agency'less tactics for companions and then take into account that it was a consolefied mess of a PC port marketed by Bioware as "made by PC Gamers for a PC Gamers".

 

As for you comment to Hawke being a "failure" your whole basis for this seems to be based on the fact that Hawke didn't provide the ego massaging wish fulfillment or being a all knowing demigod superhero that can't fail that you wanted.

 

Is it in fact possible for Hawke to succeed?  



#102
Remki

Remki
  • Members
  • 79 posts

Just throwing my hat in for liking DA2 better than Origins.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong, I LOVE Origins, but DA2 is why I even bothered to pick up Origins in the first place. I think that coming into Dragon Age with DA2 as my first game was an advantage in that regard, actually. I didn't have some preconceived notion of what DA2 was "supposed" to be, so I was able to appreciate it for what it was, and I loved it.

 

Backtracking to Origins after wasn't disappointing, per se, but I definitely missed the story quality and character depth that was there in DA2. The biggest complaint I see regarding DA2 was being confined to Kirkwall, but I personally saw that as a story choice (it gives a sense of claustrophobia that I think fits well with the themes of DA2). And tbh while DAO had more settings, they were pretty repetitive when you look at them objectively, so it never really had a qualitatively different feel to me than DA2 did. 

 

To each her own.


  • DisturbedJim83, workforme, SeaBassChen and 1 other like this

#103
FemShem

FemShem
  • Members
  • 460 posts

I loved the relationships!


  • SmilesJA likes this

#104
GoldenGail3

GoldenGail3
  • Members
  • 3,535 posts
Hawke is like the DA version of Shepard. So yeah, I didn't want to play a DA Shepard (I like ME... Though). I wish that the game continued on with Origins, it was a mighty grand game, Origins is.

#105
Crimson Vanguard

Crimson Vanguard
  • Members
  • 6,130 posts

My Honest Opinion:

 

- I like Hawke as a protagonist more than The Warden, probably because he/she is voiced. The Warden just feel like a soulless doll.

 

- Gameplay: Both have their up and down. Origins have a large amount of talents and spells, as well as multiple gadgets like different type of bombs, traps, poisons,... as well as the deep character system. Dragon Age 2 character system is watered down, but the combat feels fast pace and fluid. Especially the Warrior, it feels good using them and they aren't locked into one place when attacking. Also I like the idea of companion having their own unique specialization (which is a shame that they didnt do that for DAI) The worst part of DA2 is the recycled environment which most of the community probably agree.

 

- NPCs: I think Biower did good at this part in both game. I like all companions and their backstories in both games.

 

- Stories: To be honest, DAO's story is one of the most overused cliche (not in a bad way), you are a Gary Stue / Mary Sue off to save the world from doom. While in DA2 you are just a refugee got dragged up into other people bullshits (Dragged into trouble by Varric, stuck between the zealots and Qunari, and the whole Mages vs Templars mess) While many people may complaint about how some of the choices in DA2 don't even matter, but I think it's actually good story telling (in a depressing way). It helps portraying how bad of a hero Hawke is. He/she failed at keeping their family together, and no matter what he/she do, the outcomes will be always the same.


  • cim glowing likes this

#106
AnimalBoy

AnimalBoy
  • Members
  • 582 posts

I've played both and while i enjoy Origins i like 2 even more.

 

Maybe it's just the way i play but the locations in Origins were so big and winding that i sometimes got lost. I liked being able to make my way through part 2 without getting lost. Origins seemed to go on forever while 2 for me, was pretty nontedious to get through.

 

I love my Warden but i love my Hawke even more. I don't know. I liked the whole basis of the Hawke family story whereas in Origins your family is taken out pretty fast. I also liked the companions more. Bethany, Aveline and Merrill are at the top of my companions list. It sounds like i've done nothing but dog on Origins but i do like it, alot. I just like 2 that much more.


  • Cyberpunk likes this

#107
mgagne

mgagne
  • Members
  • 150 posts

It's interesting to come to DA2 after inquisition, so many things are foreshadowed in it.  In fact I replayed Origins first after 3 runs of DA3 then I bought DA2 which I'd never played until now.  And while Origins remains my favorite DA2 isn't as bad as I was led to believe over the years.  Story wise I find it is actually more engaging, perhaps because it is focused in what happens in Kirkwall?

 

I'm not really bothered by the recycled environments, even though it does make the game look cheap.  What I really find super annoying is the gods-damned console interface with modern color coded icons and the *ridiculous* - ri-don-cu-lous - japanese anime combat mechanics, complete with the constant & exagerated screaming, the overblown jumping around and those horrendous WoW-like oversized weapons :rolleyes:  I'm glad they toned that down in DA3 even though they recycled the mage animations.

As for the characters none are as memorable as those in Origins, except maybe Aveline.  And Fenris...  so cute despite the horrendous scrawny appearance BioWare insists on giving to their elves.  My male Hawke began romancing him then switched to Anders because he was so broody - a cross between Akira and some emo teen - urg!



#108
AFA

AFA
  • Members
  • 173 posts

DA2 was by far the best story out of the three games, I really did enjoy the intimate setting, and the rather down-to-earth protagonist. Book-ending things with two events you just had to survive was also nice.

 

DA2 was a deconstruction of pretty much every BW RPG ever, doubt they will ever do so again.


  • Cyberpunk and sonoko like this

#109
ComedicSociopathy

ComedicSociopathy
  • Members
  • 1,951 posts

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. 

 

image.jpg



#110
sjsharp2011

sjsharp2011
  • Members
  • 2,675 posts

image.jpg

I wouldn't exactly call it hereasy it's a matter of opinion some people prefer and feel Origins is the best game some prefer DA2 some may even say DAI is the best now. For me personally the series has got better with each game  Whilst I do think that DA2 is the weakest in terms of overall story for me it has Origins beat in pretty much every other department but again this is my opinion. DAI has the magnitude of Origins in terms of story and trumps both previous games in every department. The only negative I have for DAI is the toolbar and the fact it's more restricting than in the previous games. But to me that's just a minor complaint and something I hope Bioware don't repeat. Aside from that and the lack of good hairstyle options for me DAI pretty much tops the list


  • Cobra's_back likes this

#111
Duelist

Duelist
  • Members
  • 5,271 posts
As someone who prefers melee, rogues in particular, I liked it better in DA2.

Whereas the Warden was pretty much restricted to backstabs for dealing damage, my Hawke had a more diverse, not to mention far better, set of tools at his disposal.
  • Cyberpunk, sjsharp2011 and Donk like this

#112
Addictress

Addictress
  • Members
  • 3,045 posts


Big city does not mean it should have reused environments.... Sorry but i agree with everyone else that Dragon Age 1 is way far superior when it comes to story, companions, locations and Choices that reflect the outcome. Origins allowed you to have human, dwarf or elf, but you couldn't select their last name either.

In DA2, NONE of your choices in the game matter at all no matter what you do. The only thing your choices can change, is which boss you fight first. You are forced to play a human named Hawke. Companions are forced on you as well. Almost everyone in DA2 is bisexual (what are the odds?). Certain monsters look like they are taken from some pokemon movie. Enemies fall from the sky (literally even indoors) to attack you. Enemies explode when you poke them with swords or daggers (yes actually poke them). Its lame on so many levels.


No. I disagree. Better characters. Better story. And important decisions. In DA2. No.
  • Cyberpunk likes this

#113
Fylimar

Fylimar
  • Members
  • 350 posts

If they would have not finished DA2 in that hurried senseless way (e.g. making Meredith and Orsino both raging lunatics at the end for example - that cheapens teh templar/mage conflict), I would agree with the threadstarter. I like the companions better (though I do miss Zevran and Wynne from DAO), I live for example, how Avelines story developes during the years in KIrkwall or how natural it feels, to have Varric as a best buddy, getting drunk with Fenris at his mansions (how much wine was there in the cellar - nine bottle can't be true ... or it was nine very large bottles :lol:).

 

And I'm not so much for the hero, who saves the world, I like down to earth guys and gals, so the politic struggles in Kirkwall suits me more than the 'we have to save the world' plot of DAO.

 

The downside for me is the end - I can live with Anders blowing up the chantry, but why not go all the way and make him the antagonist after that - would have been a bit harsh, if Hawke wasin a romance with him, it still made more sense than Meredith going all lyrium zombie and Orsino becoming a harvester. MThe templar/mage conflict can still occur, but in a more realistic way.

 

And I was a bit sad, that I was forced to play a human. I never play humans in fantasy or scifi settings, if I have other options. And I do love the Dalish a lot in DA, so I would have loved to play a Dalish again (would not have made sense storywise, I know)

 

So I do love both games a lot - they are probably my most played games apart from the Baldurs Gate Series :wub:



#114
GoldenGail3

GoldenGail3
  • Members
  • 3,535 posts

No. I disagree. Better characters. Better story. And important decisions. In DA2. No.


But none of you choices in DA2 actually matter. And better characters? Ha! Insane Abomantion that blows up a chantry, a elven warrior that kills people on a daily bases, a blood Mage obsessed with a elven artifact, a rogue that starts a war all becuase she stole a book form the Qunari. What's better about those characters to likes of Alistair, a nice, dorky male Templar Warrior that you can romance and become Queen Consort with, Leliana, a decent female Rogue that is like Sebastion but less boring, Morrigan, the run away apostate that is intriguing. And at least you don't have to wait until you have 100$ to spend to go save the world, which I love about DAO. And what's better saving the world? In DA2, you don't save the world, you only mess things up with your mebblings as champion. So yeah, I think not.
  • blahblahblah likes this

#115
Addictress

Addictress
  • Members
  • 3,045 posts

But none of you choices in DA2 actually matter. And better characters? Ha! Insane Abomantion that blows up a chantry, a elven warrior that kills people on a daily bases, a blood Mage obsessed with a elven artifact, a rogue that starts a war all becuase she stole a book form the Qunari. What's better about those characters to likes of Alistair, a nice, dorky male Templar Warrior that you can romance and become Queen Consort with, Leliana, a decent female Rogue that is like Sebastion but less boring, Morrigan, the run away apostate that is intriguing. And at least you don't have to wait until you have 100$ to spend to go save the world, which I love about DAO. And what's better saving the world? In DA2, you don't save the world, you only mess things up with your mebblings as champion. So yeah, I think not.

? Notice how you very precisely defined the characters for DA2 but didn't for DAO.

Compare:
"A rogue that's intriguing"
Versus
"A dalish elf obsessed with restoring an elven artifact"

That's what you immediately recall. A clear objective. That's what makes a good character in writing. Any writing. In Breaking Bad, Walt is a cancer-struck highschool teacher who dares to strike gold with meth and prove the world wrong that he's a nice guy hiding in the woodwork.

Okay, can you say something immediately that clear about Leliana? Um...um... No.

And actually I don't even have a problem with the writing in DAO. I think DAO is amazing in every way and overall it ties with DA2 because the RPGness of DAO is better. I just think Leliana and Zevran were kind of simpler, uninteresting characters compared to the companions we got in DA2, that's all. DA2 had certain improvements writing wise. Come on. Ten years of life in the same city? Rising from small-time mercenary work to hero of the city in over TEN YEARS? THAT'S what I call a true novel-like story!!!

But DAO had the best dungeons and ending battle to be sure. And tactics.
  • Cyberpunk and DameGrace like this

#116
GoldenGail3

GoldenGail3
  • Members
  • 3,535 posts

? Notice how you very precisely defined the characters for DA2 but didn't for DAO.
Compare:
"A rogue that's intriguing"
Versus
"A dalish elf obsessed with restoring an elven artifact"
That's what you immediately recall. A clear objective. That's what makes a good character in writing. Any writing. In Breaking Bad, Walt is a cancer-struck highschool teacher who dares to strike gold with meth and prove the world wrong that he's a nice guy hiding in the woodwork.
Okay, can you say something immediately that clear about Leliana? Um...um... No.
And actually I don't even have a problem with the writing in DAO. I think DAO is amazing in every way and overall it ties with DA2 because the RPGness of DAO is better. I just think Leliana and Zevran were kind of simpler, uninteresting characters compared to the companions we got in DA2, that's all. DA2 had certain improvements writing wise. Come on. Ten years of life in the same city? Rising from small-time mercenary work to hero of the city in over TEN YEARS? THAT'S what I call a true novel-like story!!!
But DAO had the best dungeons and ending battle to be sure. And tactics.


Um... No, Hawke was really just very lucky in my oponion. I dislike Hawke, and I have DA2. I much pefer the Warden. I also dislike the Inquistor a little bit too. Too Skrym-y for me, to be honest.

#117
Fylimar

Fylimar
  • Members
  • 350 posts

I guess, it all breaks down to personal opinion. Me, I never got the hype around Morrigan, Leliana and Alistair.  I guess, it helps, that they are the good looking characters in  DAO (I got a bit sick, when  I saw, how many 'Make Wynne young and beautiful' mods are around - as if being old is a crime) ...



#118
Cobra's_back

Cobra's_back
  • Members
  • 3,057 posts

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

That is how i saw it as well. I played DA2 once but origins multiple times. DAO had re-play value.



#119
Cobra's_back

Cobra's_back
  • Members
  • 3,057 posts

I guess, it all breaks down to personal opinion. Me, I never got the hype around Morrigan, Leliana and Alistair.  I guess, it helps, that they are the good looking characters in  DAO (I got a bit sick, when  I saw, how many 'Make Wynne young and beautiful' mods are around - as if being old is a crime) ...

I don't think it is all about romance. Some people don't play for the romance. Playing Hawk was just a downer. At least Snarky Hawke had some great lines. As for companions, I couldn't stand Isabela or Anders not because of their looks but because of what they did in the story.

 

Even if I didn't like the story, it doesn't mean the game wasn't worth playing. The combat was pretty good.



#120
GoldenGail3

GoldenGail3
  • Members
  • 3,535 posts

I don't think it is all about romance. Some people don't play for the romance. Playing Hawk was just a downer. At least Snarky Hawke had some great lines. As for companions, I couldn't stand Isabela or Anders not because of their looks but because of what they did in the story.
 
Even if I didn't like the story, it doesn't mean the game wasn't worth playing. The combat was pretty good.

I don't think it is all about romance. Some people don't play for the romance. Playing Hawk was just a downer. At least Snarky Hawke had some great lines. As for companions, I couldn't stand Isabela or Anders not because of their looks but because of what they did in the story.
 
Even if I didn't like the story, it doesn't mean the game wasn't worth playing. The combat was pretty good.


I felt like I was playing an anime stickfigure with Hawke, to be honest.

#121
sjsharp2011

sjsharp2011
  • Members
  • 2,675 posts

As someone who prefers melee, rogues in particular, I liked it better in DA2.

Whereas the Warden was pretty much restricted to backstabs for dealing damage, my Hawke had a more diverse, not to mention far better, set of tools at his disposal.

 

 

Yeah playing a rogue is quite good fun in DAI too. Haven't played a warrior yet other than through the prologue so far so don't know too much about that. Was thinking I might on my next one though but it depends on what my Warden and Hawke end up being.



#122
Lazy Jer

Lazy Jer
  • Members
  • 656 posts

Eh...I'm about even on either game.  Some stuff I liked more in Origins, other stuff I liked more in DA 2.  



#123
SaruDa

SaruDa
  • Members
  • 20 posts

i liked da2 for the characters(hawke included since they are their own character. snarky hawke is awesome) and relationship between them, the graphic style, and the battle animations.

the reused levels (using the same map for a supposedly different place? really?) and truncated final chapter, i don't like so much.

 

basically i liked dao and da2 each for the things that they have what the other don't.



#124
Nimrod Yanai

Nimrod Yanai
  • Members
  • 10 posts

I agree with you generally.

DA:O is a classic RPG. A big bad evil is coming to save the world, and the inexperienced young warrior must now save it against all odds, bringing different people with their own problems together.

 

DAII was something else- it was personal, it was small scale and it was VERY detailed in the personal lives of the characters - and that was it's point.

 

People seem to mistakenly think (and Bioware unfortunately made some bad advertising choices to encourage that belief) that the plot of DAII is, eventually, Templars vs. Mages, with some minor Kunari plots mixed in the middle.

That is, in fact, just not true.

DAII is the Sims of RPGs - you have a character, she has a family and friends, she's looking for work to gain money, gets into all sorts of messes, etc.

 

What this game has that other games lack is the sense that your friends are real people - I remember how much I enjoyed watching Fenris and Verric talk to Avelin regardless of their relationship with me, or Elves' reactions to Merril when they see her. It made the NPCs feel far more alive than DA:O NPCs (some of which may have had great stories  and quests, but it still felt more like an old person telling you his life story instead of you living it with him).

 

It's true that the choices you made had very little consequences in the game. But you know what? So did DA:O and DA:I. Those games were great at pretending, but eventually there was very little true difference in consequences (though I admit, there was a lot of difference in gameplay and available options).
I always like to give the final battle as an example: what is the difference between having elves or werewolves in the final battle? Different graphics. It's not that elves (being archers) prevented the AD from jumping around by shooting arrows over his head, or that the werewolves somehow reduced the number of enemies you had to fight in melee combat.

Even in the landsmeet, there is very little REAL difference in consequences. The only really big difference is whether or not you take Logain as a companion.

 

Not that DA:O was a bad game, but the main difference is that is was based on world plot, while DAII is more personal and VERY different in its concept, which I think is fantastic.

 

Of course, neither of these games come close to BGII, which seems to have had all the good aspects of BOTH games, but that's neither here not there ;)



#125
GoldenGail3

GoldenGail3
  • Members
  • 3,535 posts

I agree with you generally.
DA:O is a classic RPG. A big bad evil is coming to save the world, and the inexperienced young warrior must now save it against all odds, bringing different people with their own problems together.
 
DAII was something else- it was personal, it was small scale and it was VERY detailed in the personal lives of the characters - and that was it's point.
 
People seem to mistakenly think (and Bioware unfortunately made some bad advertising choices to encourage that belief) that the plot of DAII is, eventually, Templars vs. Mages, with some minor Kunari plots mixed in the middle.
That is, in fact, just not true.
DAII is the Sims of RPGs - you have a character, she has a family and friends, she's looking for work to gain money, gets into all sorts of messes, etc.
 
What this game has that other games lack is the sense that your friends are real people - I remember how much I enjoyed watching Fenris and Verric talk to Avelin regardless of their relationship with me, or Elves' reactions to Merril when they see her. It made the NPCs feel far more alive than DA:O NPCs (some of which may have had great stories  and quests, but it still felt more like an old person telling you his life story instead of you living it with him).
 
It's true that the choices you made had very little consequences in the game. But you know what? So did DA:O and DA:I. Those games were great at pretending, but eventually there was very little true difference in consequences (though I admit, there was a lot of difference in gameplay and available options).
I always like to give the final battle as an example: what is the difference between having elves or werewolves in the final battle? Different graphics. It's not that elves (being archers) prevented the AD from jumping around by shooting arrows over his head, or that the werewolves somehow reduced the number of enemies you had to fight in melee combat.
Even in the landsmeet, there is very little REAL difference in consequences. The only really big difference is whether or not you take Logain as a companion.
 
Not that DA:O was a bad game, but the main difference is that is was based on world plot, while DAII is more personal and VERY different in its concept, which I think is fantastic.
 
Of course, neither of these games come close to BGII, which seems to have had all the good aspects of BOTH games, but that's neither here not there ;)

There was also very little conquensions in DA2. None of your actions bloody matter, but people tend to gloss over that sense they clearly what another DA2. I hate DA2, I hated Hawke. They weren't down to earth, they were lucky bastards that got away form the horrors of Kirkwall without dying in the process. I pefer the Warden, becuase although they'd don't speak, they're far more personal to me. This is also why I happen to like Skryim, too. They're unvoiced, and yet people don't make a big kaboom about the Dragonborn not having a voice besides shouting.

And in the Landsmeet? Remeber drunken Alistair? That's choice for you, I personally pefer DAO becuase I have a very special love for Alistair (which will never dimish. Ever.) And I love how my Queen Cousland went from this blunt, happy go lucky young woman living happily in Highever to a strong, ambious battle hardened woman that was in love with Alistair. Yea, I like having free choices. Btw, nobody awnsers me when I type "your choices in DA2 don't matter what so ever". I wonder why? If I'm wrong, tell me rightly so. But I know I'm right, and that certain people are under the impression that I'm bluntly honest about my oponion about DA2.

I am, becuase DA2 was like a REALLY long DLC, it was like the Awaking of the two other games. I agree with the other person who said this, thank you. And by the way, the Dalish were fine for me, they shot enemies, which is what they were programmed to do. They didn't block me, although I do know they died like dominos if the Darkspawn hit them once. The Werewolves? I don't know, sense I always allied with the Elves. I assume they're very proficient at there job. And so what? Less enemies, the better right?

And btw, I pefer DAO's way of collecting companions. They came to you (like Leliana), or tried to kill you (Zevran), or just some random guy you let of jail (like Sten), or someone who saved your life (like Morrigan), or were with you sense the beginning (like Alistair), overall, I think companions in Origins were more like orindary people trying to what's right, and at the end of the day, you know they'll be at your side as you make relations at camp. I love the warm, personal aura of camp. It mad DAO feel very special to me.