226 respuestas en este tema

[Natureguy85]

Yes, but I find it utterly unbearable in Origins whereas knowing "90% of the game will be the same" in DA2 doesn't put me off. It's just... soooo... teeeedious to get through all those treaty quests.

 

I am with you about Origins but I don't see DA2 as better, especially with the environment reuse.

 

 

I like the origins.. I find various ways to roleplay with them. Little things go a long way. Like my Dalish who killed those hunters in the beginning feels guilty over time. Or the Cousland who got the elf girl killed, just because he didn't see her as anything but a sex object.

 

But Hawke is way better. The whole game is practically an origin story.

 

Yeah, but that's actually part of the problem. The Origin stories were things that happened out of the Warden-to-be's control that launch them into the larger world and adventure. With Hawke, that shift never happens. It would be like if Bilbo never went after the dwarves in The Hobbit.

[Thermopylae]

I quite liked the idea of the locale of Dragon Age 2, which was change in a city over time.

 

I would have preferred greater control over the outcomes of the city, with various functions the player could play within the city. I guess in a way it is a meditation of the role of the individual influencing history versus the inevitability of historical processes. Hawke can influence on an interpersonal level but is powerless against the tide of historical process. 

 

But that is my general fanboy daydream and I think DAI actually does approach that issue, the inquisitor character is someone who perhaps reverses the tide of history, or history in that setting is something malleable by the actors caught up in it. 

 

DA2 had memorable characters, locations and events, and appears I kind of give a damn, so it wasn't that bad, it could have been better but when does that statement end? Its easy to tear something down or apart, without seeing its strengths.  

[straykat]

I am with you about Origins but I don't see DA2 as better, especially with the environment reuse.

 

 

 

Yeah, but that's actually part of the problem. The Origin stories were things that happened out of the Warden-to-be's control that launch them into the larger world and adventure. With Hawke, that shift never happens. It would be like if Bilbo never went after the dwarves in The Hobbit.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. It's phrased strangely.

 

Hawke isn't supposed to be thrust into that kind of adventure, to begin with. That's not a problem. Unless you just crave that formula. There's no overarching mission and the world doesn't need be saved by a catastrophe yet again.

 

Hawke is just an immigrant trying to build a life. The adventure comes merely because of money. That's what annoys Cassandra at first. That it was all because of "Coin". She brewed up a more elaborate tale at first.

 

Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean it needs to some Lord of the Rings ripoff. The story has more in common with Scarface.

[Natureguy85]

I quite liked the idea of the locale of Dragon Age 2, which was change in a city over time.

 

I would have preferred greater control over the outcomes of the city, with various functions the player could play within the city. I guess in a way it is a meditation of the role of the individual influencing history versus the inevitability of historical processes. Hawke can influence on an interpersonal level but is powerless against the tide of historical process. 

 

But that is my general fanboy daydream and I think DAI actually does approach that issue, the inquisitor character is someone who perhaps reverses the tide of history, or history in that setting is something malleable by the actors caught up in it. 

 

DA2 had memorable characters, locations and events, and appears I kind of give a damn, so it wasn't that bad, it could have been better but when does that statement end? Its easy to tear something down or apart, without seeing its strengths.  

 

But the city doesn't really change all that much. Events progress, but they really don't seem to affect the city at all. We see how Templars affect mages and what mages are doing that requires such scrutiny, but I don't recall getting a sense of how that affected the rest of the population. It's possible I just don't remember it if it was there.

 

As far as it's strengths, I see what it tried to do, but it came up short. The biggest problem was the time skips. Not only did it skip what should have been important events in Hawke's life, but it also limited us to small windows into a decade of events and relationships.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean. It's phrased strangely.

 

Hawke isn't supposed to be thrust into that kind of adventure, to begin with. That's not a problem. Unless you just crave that formula. There's no overarching mission and the world doesn't need be saved by a catastrophe yet again.

 

Hawke is just an immigrant trying to build a life. The adventure comes merely because of money. That's what annoys Cassandra at first. That it was all because of "Coin". She brewed up a more elaborate tale at first.

 

Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean it needs to some Lord of the Rings ripoff. The story has more in common with Scarface.

 

I mean that each story starts small. The Origins establish the PC and their home setting. Then some events occur largely outside of the PC's control. After Ostagar, the stakes change, the world expands, and there is a larger goal presented with some freedom in how to pursue that goal.

 

There's nothing wrong with Act 1 being about money. To point at The Hobbit again, that whole journey was about treasure. However, it never followed up on the events of Act 1. I was really interested in that Red Lyrium Idol. It clearly took Bartrand's mind. It's ironic that you were worried about a Lord of the Rings ripoff when I used The Hobbit as an example when right here we have a very clear comparison to The One Ring. But after Hawke gets out of the deep roads, we skip several years. There no follow up on Bartrand or the Idol, other than Varrick mentioning it and one mission. We pass over Hawke's transition into the upper class and move on to other events. After Hawke becomes Champion, we skip another few years, this time past the honeymoon period where Hawke is well respected as Champion. To the game's credit, we've seen events building to this confrontation between Meredith and Orsino. However Hawke is largely unable to shape events. The real actors are Anders and Meredith. One thing Hawke does do is destroy the Templars and Mages cooperating to take down Meredith. While this isn't necessarily a good thing ultimately, it's at least a point at which Hawke's actions have an effect on what happens. Much like Anders killing Elthina, Hawke removes something that could kept things from exploding into a huge problem.

 

I never suggested it had to be a Lord of the Rings ripoff. I was talking about story structure. (Also, that's from The Hobbit.) The point was that the story starts small and expands. If using Tolkein is an obstacle to you understanding the point, I'll use a different frame of reference; it would be like if Luke never left Tatooine or if Indiana Jones stayed at the college.

[Catilina]

ust because it's fantasy doesn't mean it needs to some Lord of the Rings ripoff. The story has more in common with Scarface.

I agree, except the "Scarface" simile. Sorry, i hate that "person", I hate that movie. A little low class angry scumbag whithout some humour and style.  Maybe this is not a popular opinion: I heard: the ppl likes Scarface, but i dont understand.

 

(True, the story manages some similarity. – Uh, i hate soo much!)

[straykat]

But the city doesn't really change all that much. Events progress, but they really don't seem to affect the city at all. We see how Templars affect mages and what mages are doing that requires such scrutiny, but I don't recall getting a sense of how that affected the rest of the population. It's possible I just don't remember it if it was there.

 

As far as it's strengths, I see what it tried to do, but it came up short. The biggest problem was the time skips. Not only did it skip what should have been important events in Hawke's life, but it also limited us to small windows into a decade of events and relationships.

 

 

 

I mean that each story starts small. The Origins establish the PC and their home setting. Then some events occur largely outside of the PC's control. After Ostagar, the stakes change, the world expands, and there is a larger goal presented with some freedom in how to pursue that goal.

 

There's nothing wrong with Act 1 being about money. To point at The Hobbit again, that whole journey was about treasure. However, it never followed up on the events of Act 1. I was really interested in that Red Lyrium Idol. It clearly took Bartrand's mind. It's ironic that you were worried about a Lord of the Rings ripoff when I used The Hobbit as an example when right here we have a very clear comparison to The One Ring. But after Hawke gets out of the deep roads, we skip several years. There no follow up on Bartrand or the Idol, other than Varrick mentioning it and one mission. We pass over Hawke's transition into the upper class and move on to other events. After Hawke becomes Champion, we skip another few years, this time past the honeymoon period where Hawke is well respected as Champion. To the game's credit, we've seen events building to this confrontation between Meredith and Orsino. However Hawke is largely unable to shape events. The real actors are Anders and Meredith. One thing Hawke does do is destroy the Templars and Mages cooperating to take down Meredith. While this isn't necessarily a good thing ultimately, it's at least a point at which Hawke's actions have an effect on what happens. Much like Anders killing Elthina, Hawke removes something that could kept things from exploding into a huge problem.

 

I never suggested it had to be a Lord of the Rings ripoff. I was talking about story structure. (Also, that's from The Hobbit.) The point was that the story starts small and expands. If using Tolkein is an obstacle to you understanding the point, I'll use a different frame of reference; it would be like if Luke never left Tatooine or if Indiana Jones stayed at the college.

 

Fair enough on the One Ring/Hobbit difference

 

I think it did a decent job of following up on those Act 1 events though. It's just slow.. the idol gets like 3 or 4 big points in the story (Bartrand, ghost house, then Meredith). It also follows up on things like Last Sacrifice.. which is like a huge blow to all of your Act 1 efforts of building a life and taking care of family. In addition to losing the sibling. Things start crumbling, even as you rise in status. I like that sort of progression. Same with the Qunari buildup. Everything the Arishok is pissed off about are things you had a chance to stand for in Act 1. Like justice for the elves with Kelder. Arishok takes in those elves for the very reason you might've killed Kelder. They don't get proper justice from Kirkwall's guard and nobility. The crazed elf in Act 2 plays a lot into the frustrations of Merrill and Fenris, about where elves stand today and their lost past.

 

And then you face up against the Arishok, who's trying to do the same thing.. in his own way. But there's a lot of hypocrisy in how they go about it, I think.

[vertigomez]

I am with you about Origins but I don't see DA2 as better, especially with the environment reuse.
 
Yeah, but that's actually part of the problem. The Origin stories were things that happened out of the Warden-to-be's control that launch them into the larger world and adventure. With Hawke, that shift never happens. It would be like if Bilbo never went after the dwarves in The Hobbit.

Eh, that's fine with me though. Hawke was just trying to survive and feed their family. I didn't need moar adventure. Reused environments (like THE CAVE) were a bummer but not enough to put me off the game.

I quite liked the idea of the locale of Dragon Age 2, which was change in a city over time.
 
I would have preferred greater control over the outcomes of the city, with various functions the player could play within the city. I guess in a way it is a meditation of the role of the individual influencing history versus the inevitability of historical processes. Hawke can influence on an interpersonal level but is powerless against the tide of historical process. 
 
But that is my general fanboy daydream and I think DAI actually does approach that issue, the inquisitor character is someone who perhaps reverses the tide of history, or history in that setting is something malleable by the actors caught up in it. 
 
DA2 had memorable characters, locations and events, and appears I kind of give a damn, so it wasn't that bad, it could have been better but when does that statement end? Its easy to tear something down or apart, without seeing its strengths.

I always loved that Hawke was powerless against the tide of history. I would never tell anyone what they can or can't like, but for me that's one of the biggest draws: **** happens, and sometimes there's nothing you can do about it. Hawke's role in events get exaggerated by nearly everyone to the point that Cassandra thinks you're some mustache-twirling mastermind trying to bring down the Chantry... and you can totally play Hawke that way, but she's still got the chain of events wrong.

As Nick Boulton says Hawke wants nothing more than a burger and fries after all this, and I'm with him.

[Natureguy85]

Fair enough on the One Ring/Hobbit difference

 

I think it did a decent job of following up on those Act 1 events though. It's just slow.. the idol gets like 3 or 4 big points in the story (Bartrand, ghost house, then Meredith). It also follows up on things like Last Sacrifice.. which is like a huge blow to all of your Act 1 efforts of building a life and taking care of family. In addition to losing the sibling. Things start crumbling, even as you rise in status. I like that sort of progression. Same with the Qunari buildup. Everything the Arishok is pissed off about are things you had a chance to stand for in Act 1. Like justice for the elves with Kelder. Arishok takes in those elves for the very reason you might've killed Kelder. They don't get proper justice from Kirkwall's guard and nobility. The crazed elf in Act 2 plays a lot into the frustrations of Merrill and Fenris, about where elves stand today and their lost past.

 

And then you face up against the Arishok, who's trying to do the same thing.. in his own way. But there's a lot of hypocrisy in how they go about it, I think.

 

My problem is that you don't rise in status. Sure, people say you do, but where is that evident? And while we are told that Hawke is building a life, we see the family being taken away.

 

As for the idol, I don't think Bartrand in the house was enough payoff. I liked it, especially Varric telling the story like he went in there and kicked ass, but I wanted more.  Investigating the red lyrium and the ancient thaig could have been really cool. I hated that Meredith had the sword. To me, the idea that it was the idol driving her insane came out of nowhere and destroyed the sympathy I had for her as a well intentioned extremist who felt like she was at the end of her rope and didn't know how to confront a real problem. Had the red lyrium not dropped out of the story for so long, this might not have been such an issue.

[Natureguy85]

Eh, that's fine with me though. Hawke was just trying to survive and feed their family. I didn't need moar adventure. Reused environments (like THE CAVE) were a bummer but not enough to put me off the game.


I always loved that Hawke was powerless against the tide of history. I would never tell anyone what they can or can't like, but for me that's one of the biggest draws: **** happens, and sometimes there's nothing you can do about it. Hawke's role in events get exaggerated by nearly everyone to the point that Cassandra thinks you're some mustache-twirling mastermind trying to bring down the Chantry... and you can totally play Hawke that way, but she's still got the chain of events wrong.

As Nick Boulton says Hawke wants nothing more than a burger and fries after all this, and I'm with him.

 

The protagonist being powerless is a perfectly fine way to tell a story, but it's a tough sell in a game because the player is taking control. Who wants to take control of a powerless character?

Also, the problem isn't just that Hawke isn't saving the city; it's that for all the talk about this being a more personal story, Hawke can't even seize control of his/her own life. You get riches but really can't do anything with them other than buy the old family home, which just changes where your home base is. You can't pursue the Viscount job. You can mention it, but Meredith says no and then the epilogue just says Hawke becomes Viscount if you side with the Templars. More telling rather than showing.

[straykat]

My problem is that you don't rise in status. Sure, people say you do, but where is that evident? And while we are told that Hawke is building a life, we see the family being taken away.

 

As for the idol, I don't think Bartrand in the house was enough payoff. I liked it, especially Varric telling the story like he went in there and kicked ass, but I wanted more.  Investigating the red lyrium and the ancient thaig could have been really cool. I hated that Meredith had the sword. To me, the idea that it was the idol driving her insane came out of nowhere and destroyed the sympathy I had for her as a well intentioned extremist who felt like she was at the end of her rope and didn't know how to confront a real problem. Had the red lyrium not dropped out of the story for so long, this might not have been such an issue.

 

Well, I'm not gonna hold up Meredith as great or anything. Fair enough point. She was better before it. It's why I like the Arishok more. And why I still think Loghain is their best villain. They're acting fairly normal.. albeit flawed.

 

As for the status, I suppose it never was the biggest concern for me to begin with. I thought it was cool enough to move to hightown.. and as a mage, it sort of felt like a poor man's Bruce Wayne, running the streets at night. Bonus if you wear Apostate's Mask. It's like superhero garb

[straykat]

The protagonist being powerless is a perfectly fine way to tell a story, but it's a tough sell in a game because the player is taking control. Who wants to take control of a powerless character?

Also, the problem isn't just that Hawke isn't saving the city; it's that for all the talk about this being a more personal story, Hawke can't even seize control of his/her own life. You get riches but really can't do anything with them other than buy the old family home, which just changes where your home base is. You can't pursue the Viscount job. You can mention it, but Meredith says no and then the epilogue just says Hawke becomes Viscount if you side with the Templars. More telling rather than showing.

 

I think they planned more though too. An expansion.. and maybe even more. Not sure. They billed Hawke as the most important person in Thedas at one point.. lol

 

But DA2 served as an intro to various issues. A way to get our feet wet with subjects they'd explore later. Qunari, Mage/Temp war, etc.. It was never meant to hash out everything all at once. But it seems no one had the patience for it and it got canned. And now we've got an even worse story for Hawke, that floats around in limbo. And then people blame the writers even further for that. When it was also EA and fan gripes that brought us to this point. If you read Gaider's blog before he deleted it, he was pretty sad about the whole thing.

[Natureguy85]

I think they planned more though too. An expansion.. and maybe even more. Not sure. They billed Hawke as the most important person in Thedas at one point.. lol

 

But DA2 served as an intro to various issues. A way to get our feet wet with subjects they'd explore later. Qunari, Mage/Temp war, etc.. It was never meant to hash out everything all at once. But it seems no one had the patience for it and it got canned. And now we've got an even worse story for Hawke, that floats around in limbo. And then people blame the writers even further for that. When it was also EA and fan gripes that brought us to this point. If you read Gaider's blog before he deleted it, he was pretty sad about the whole thing.

 

Possibly. Legacy was pretty awesome. Mark of the Assassin was good too.

[Jedi Comedian]

DA2 would be my fav dragon age game if it was as polished as it should

[Scarlett]

I'm currently playing DA2 (end of Act2) and I have to agree, I like this one more than Origins.

 

I know it can be weird, I've read here and there how much Origins is supposed to be better but I have more pleasure to play DA2.

It's not perfect, you're not really free to leave the city and have a real world map. Also the city lack of people, textures and some places are re-used too often. The romances are a bit weird too, since you can have a LI with everybody and break hearts just too easily (not my way to play). And for the story, it's a bit weird to skip years...

 

But... I've learnt to like this city and even the characters.... I've started a romance with Fenris, without a real motivation at first, I just liked his design and finally I found him interesting and very tortured. It's not simple nor always happy to be with him but I don't mind, I do like what happen. I also like the fact the menu is far more simple. honestly I just can't stand DAO menu. I like Hawke is talking (mute character stress me... I know it's weird), also the dialogues wheel is pretty clear with the symbols. You can't miss something, I love it.

The design of the NPC have also improved I mean, Flemeth ! and the qunaris (Flemeth on DAO, really, what a  mess).

And last thing : I found DAO to be really too dark and bloody sometimes, too much for my personal tastes. DA2 doesn't really have that extreme bloody side and I feel far better when I play it.

 

I'm just happy to not be the only one on the boat.

 

I'm curious to see DAI~

[Rxdiaz]

When I read these statements about people liking DA2 more than DAO or Inquisition I wonder what the heck game were they playing. DA2 was horrible. I guess it's just the handful of DA2 faithful that are still posting here.

[Catilina]

When I read these statements about people liking DA2 more than DAO or Inquisition I wonder what the heck game were they playing. DA2 was horrible. I guess it's just the handful of DA2 faithful that are still posting here.

They also paid us for it!

[Rxdiaz]

They also paid us for it!

That I can actually believe...

[GoldenGail3]

By making DAI....

[Artona]

When I read these statements about people liking DA2 more than DAO or Inquisition I wonder what the heck game were they playing. DA2 was horrible. I guess it's just the handful of DA2 faithful that are still posting here.

"Oh noes, someone likes something I don't like! B-but, that's impossible, right?!".

[Rxdiaz]

It's not about people liking something I don't. It's about defending it with nonsense. DA2's "story" (if you can call it that) is 3 separate quests duct taped together. Saying it has less filler than DAO or Inquisition when the entire first act is just filler (make enough money) is silly. You can love it, hell I love some games that others don't. If you love the characters great. I don't but that's fine. If you love the combat that's fine too. Again I don't but that's a valid opinion. But the story is disjointed and illogical and Kirkwall is lifeless and boring. Running around the same city all game is like running around the same maze in pacman. It is much more a story driven hack and slash game than I true Bioware type RPG. I guess that's my biggest issue. It's a game with 1 cave, 1 house, 1 whatever, endlessly recycled. Waves of parachuting baddies and a disjointed story. As a hack and slash game it's ok (though the recycling still would suck) but if you want a story driven RPG this isn't what you're looking for. Just my 2 cents.

[Krzysztof Sawczuk L-ca]

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. 

 

You're right. They could release more DLC.

[Artona]

 But the story is disjointed and illogical and Kirkwall is lifeless and boring. Running around the same city all game is like running around the same maze in pacman. It is much more a story driven hack and slash game than I true Bioware type RPG. I guess that's my biggest issue. It's a game with 1 cave, 1 house, 1 whatever, endlessly recycled.

 

It's just your opinion. Don't try to make it "ok, you can like that game because of some things, but other are simply bad". For an instance, I prefer Kirkwall than basically every single location in DAO, because they are so painfully cliche. Elvish forest? Check. Underground tunnels where dwarves struggle against orcs... sorry, against Darkspawn? Check. Tower of Mages with final battle at the top? Check. Generic human capitol with no single identifying treat? Check, check, check. But I won't say " you can like DAO for that and that, but locations are uninteresting!" - you are free to like that . 

And "story driven hack and slash game" describes almost every cRPG out there. Both in DAO and DAI violence is your only mean to progress (with one exception of ball) and improve your character. I see it as a global problem of cRPGs - that you simply can't play as a diplomat or stealth guy. 

As for the story, I prefer DAII over DAO however flawed it may be, because plot of DAO seems like an attempt to put as many typical tropes as possible. There is nothing fresh or interesting in that story. We are a hero who's going to defeat army of demonic orcs and slash a dragon, period. Entire game. In DAII at least I don't have to save the world . 

[Lezio]

Personally, the Origins/Awakening/Witch Hunt trio beats both 2 and Inquisition by a great margin.

I really do enjoy Dragon Age 2 but compared to Origins it just doesn't hold up for me, the reasons for that are 1) it was rushed to hell and 2) the 3rd Act is just stupid and rubbish and stupid (and this last point i consider a fact, not reeally a personal opinion)

 

Also, i found Origins' formula of character roleplay just about perfect. That game(and its expansions) gave enough room to make each character feel mine but not enough  not make them feel disconnected from the world.

 

Basically The Warden, IMHO, feels like just another character of the game except he is a character of my own making. When i start to play the game i just feel like watching/reading a movie/book which always changes depending on the character that I've added to it. At one point or another it just feels like My Warden litterally starts to be a breathing, living person of the awesome universe of the Dragon Age, and the awesome thing, and also the thing that makes me care about him more than any other character in BW games, is that, again, he is my character

 

Basically Origins feels like writing a story in the Dragon Age with in it a character of my own making, while Dragon Age 2 is more about me watching this (really awesome) woman's life unfold while steering her in one direction or another. My Warden is My Warden while Hawke is Hawke, i care about both of them but only one of them is actually my character

[Catilina]

It's not about people liking something I don't. It's about defending it with nonsense. DA2's "story" (if you can call it that) is 3 separate quests duct taped together. Saying it has less filler than DAO or Inquisition when the entire first act is just filler (make enough money) is silly. You can love it, hell I love some games that others don't. If you love the characters great. I don't but that's fine. If you love the combat that's fine too. Again I don't but that's a valid opinion. But the story is disjointed and illogical and Kirkwall is lifeless and boring. Running around the same city all game is like running around the same maze in pacman. It is much more a story driven hack and slash game than I true Bioware type RPG. I guess that's my biggest issue. It's a game with 1 cave, 1 house, 1 whatever, endlessly recycled. Waves of parachuting baddies and a disjointed story. As a hack and slash game it's ok (though the recycling still would suck) but if you want a story driven RPG this isn't what you're looking for. Just my 2 cents.

 

If you are really interested, why do we love this game, you read what we wrote here, and / or give the game a second chance, és play again from a different viewpoint. If not, then i dont understand you: you're going to convince us that we should not be such idiots? Or?   (No offense, only a humble question.)

[Natureguy85]

It's just your opinion. Don't try to make it "ok, you can like that game because of some things, but other are simply bad". For an instance, I prefer Kirkwall than basically every single location in DAO, because they are so painfully cliche. Elvish forest? Check. Underground tunnels where dwarves struggle against orcs... sorry, against Darkspawn? Check. Tower of Mages with final battle at the top? Check. Generic human capitol with no single identifying treat? Check, check, check. But I won't say " you can like DAO for that and that, but locations are uninteresting!" - you are free to like that . 

And "story driven hack and slash game" describes almost every cRPG out there. Both in DAO and DAI violence is your only mean to progress (with one exception of ball) and improve your character. I see it as a global problem of cRPGs - that you simply can't play as a diplomat or stealth guy. 

As for the story, I prefer DAII over DAO however flawed it may be, because plot of DAO seems like an attempt to put as many typical tropes as possible. There is nothing fresh or interesting in that story. We are a hero who's going to defeat army of demonic orcs and slash a dragon, period. Entire game. In DAII at least I don't have to save the world . 

 

It depends on what we're talking about. DAO's story was classic, and you call it cliche. You're tired of that stuff, I'm not. Similarly, I didn't like DA2's cartoony combat and felt it went too far in attempting to speed up DAO's admittedly slow combat. Stuff like that is going to be personal preference.

 

However, even if you didn't like the motifs used, Origin's environments were better constructed. Even if you thought it was cliche, Origin's story was better written. I'd argue the characters are far superior as well.

You're right that you didn't have to save the world in DA2. The problem is that you don't do much of anything. Hawke is too passive a character and is mostly reacting to everything rather than ever taking control of his/her own life.