The thing with DAI is that it kinda leaves you with an empty feeling... Sure, I loved the scenery, the voice acting, the graphics but it's like it tried to appease everyone and it suffers because of this.
Bioware still has it though... SWTOR is still one of the best things I've played from them.
Also, one of main reasons I play rpgs is the story and in DAI's case it was by far the weakest story out of 2 predecesor games.
So to summarise this thread; It's not the done thing to enjoy one game whilst enjoying another game. You either have to like one or the other.
Gamers are are funny bunch. There's no middle ground to be had anywhere with many gamers. I mean, you can't enjoy the Mass Effect series if you enjoy the TES series and vice versa. You can't enjoy DA:I if you really enjoyed DA:O. It's just not the done thing. I'm a freak, I accept it. I like both games on their own merit. Now, that's not to say each game doesn't have their respective issues, they do (Aye, believe it or not DA:O does have negitives too) . I still stand my my opinion that DA2 was poor. DA2 is going through what many presequels do, they're always put on a higher pedestal because they're not the current title and more often than not, it's not cool to say you prefer the current offering.
Here's the really freakish part, I love TES games, however, I also enjoy BioWare games and the Witcher series.
I might be wrong, but after I saw a few comments in dozens of threads in this section, it's raising the question if people just miss Hawke and not the game, cause quite frankly, the game was really rushed and bad,
I actually love this game and didn't like DA2.
My 2 cents. To my mind the biggest problem w/ DA2 was that it was rushed. I like Hawke and her story quite a bit and I'm glad they tried to do a more personal story, but it didn't quite live up to its fullest potential. DAI by contrast is loaded, looks great, you can really see the love, but both the main story and the Inquisitor's story lack so much. (Unless you play as a female elf mage and romance Solas). The villain is horribly weak and would have gladly given up a few zones and collection quests for more story on the Inquisitor. 80% of the game is go stop bad guy and fetch some stuff ... or not.
All that said, I still prefer DAI, because it's fun to play. DA2 became a chore.
I personally like both games, but there's no denying that Inquisition is objectively the better game.
More replay value; more content; more customization; better combat system; and a better paced and consistent story that focused on telling a story rather than trying to contrive and force drama down our throats.
Also, BW took their time with Inquisition unlike with DAII where they rushed the game out the door to try and cash-in on Origin's popularity.
I feel that a lot of people who "hated" DA2 only felt that way because everyone else did. I know I claimed to hate it, and Hawke, though I think I was just following the tide. Now I love Hawke and I love DA2. My friend wants to know if he can skip DA2 and just go from Origins to Inquisition, and I keep insisting he play DA2. It's a great game, but because some aspects are different, a lot of people don't like it as much. A lot of people feel "I can't pick my race, so this game sucks" or "I barely get to leave Kirkwall, so this game sucks". In reality, I think it's good that at least one of our "main heroes" has a more firm basis/foundation/background.
Overall DA:I is a better game but lacks personality.
DA 2 had problems but the characters and personal story in my opinion were better, it just felt that there was more content in therm of main story and characters. There were quest there that made me cry and care about the characters, in DA:I this did not happened at all.
While Dragon Age 2 is not a flawless game, it featured several aspects that I enjoyed more than its predecessor and successor. First, I loved the smaller scale direction Bioware went regarding the story. Instead of focusing on some grand, save the world plot, Dragon Age 2 opted to go for a more personal approach. Dragon Age 2 was a story about an individual trying to forge a life for his or her family after the Blight, and the storm he/she ultimately got swept up in, and at least for me, it was an approach that resonated.
The second reason I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 is because of the focus it placed on the protagonist's companions. Not only were several of the companions key players at different points of the main storyline, but each companion had a story arc of his or her own that spanned across the entire game. While Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Inquisition also had story arcs for each of their companions, the stories seemed to be limited to a single quest or two. Furthermore, I loved how each of the companions reacted towards each other in DA 2. For example, if you bring Isabela on Aveline's The Long Road quest, you get to experience dialogue that provides a depth into the relationship between the two companions. In contrast, companion quests in DA:O and DA:I didn't really seem to change much no matter which companions you brought along on a companion's quest. This sort of emphasis on companions is what I sorely missed in DA:I.
But most of all, I loved how Bioware wasn't afraid to experiment with new directions with DA 2. From the changes in gameplay, dialogue, and story, they set out to try different approaches, when they could have easily just gave more of the same. I've seen criticism in the past that suggested that Bioware attempted to cash-in on the success of DA:O, but the way I see it, they took a tremendous risk with the directions they tried. Of course, the changes proved to be too much for many people, but I appreciated it as someone who is a bit more open to trying different experiences.
I don't feel comfortable saying which game is better, as I've enjoyed each of the Dragon Age games, but there are aspects of Dragon Age 2 that I truly enjoyed. Wherever Bioware decides to take the series in the next game, I do hope that Bioware brings back a bit more emphasis on companions, as well as another try at a more personal storyline. Perhaps with a little more development time than what Dragon Age 2 had, I see a possibility for something great.
While Dragon Age 2 is not a flawless game, it featured several aspects that I enjoyed more than its predecessor and successor. First, I loved the smaller scale direction Bioware went regarding the story. Instead of focusing on some grand, save the world plot, Dragon Age 2 opted to go for a more personal approach. Dragon Age 2 was a story about an individual trying to forge a life for his or her family after the Blight, and the storm he/she ultimately got swept up in, and at least for me, it was an approach that resonated.
The second reason I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 is because of the focus it placed on the protagonist's companions. Not only were several of the companions key players at different points of the main storyline, but each companion had a story arc of his or her own that spanned across the entire game. While Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Inquisition also had story arcs for each of their companions, the stories seemed to be limited to a single quest or two. Furthermore, I loved how each of the companions reacted towards each other in DA 2. For example, if you bring Isabela on Aveline's The Long Road quest, you get to experience dialogue that provides a depth into the relationship between the two companions. In contrast, companion quests in DA:O and DA:I didn't really seem to change much no matter which companions you brought along on a companion's quest. This sort of emphasis on companions is what I sorely missed in DA:I.
But most of all, I loved how Bioware wasn't afraid to experiment with new directions with DA 2. From the changes in gameplay, dialogue, and story, they set out to try different approaches, when they could have easily just gave more of the same. I've seen criticism in the past that suggested that Bioware attempted to cash-in on the success of DA:O, but the way I see it, they took a tremendous risk with the directions they tried. Of course, the changes proved to be too much for many people, but I appreciated it as someone who is a bit more open to trying different experiences.
I don't feel comfortable saying which game is better, as I've enjoyed each of the Dragon Age games, but there are aspects of Dragon Age 2 that I truly enjoyed. Wherever Bioware decides to take the series in the next game, I do hope that Bioware brings back a bit more emphasis on companions, as well as another try at a more personal storyline. Perhaps with a little more development time than what Dragon Age 2 had, I see a possibility for something great.
A change should not praised just because it is a change. It should be valued based on whether it improved the experience; makes sense; or/and was inevitable and handled well. It's not that people don't like change, it's that several changes made by DA2 didn't meet any of the above three criteria.
The stripping down of RPG and Gameplay elements are especially inexcusible; The story has a lot of good ideas and an interesting perspective rarely explored, but flawed execution of several of these ideas causes them to fall-flat which results in what should be intriguing story-telling appearing to be nothing more than an attempt at forced drama. The biggest examples being the Fate of the Hawke Siblings and being forced to choose between crazy templars or crazy mages. Mainly because Hawke has no agency even though the reasons for his lack of agency make no sense.
That said, the gameplay's still fun despite how much was stripped out; Hawke's a neat character; the Party and Support Cast are mostly strong; Kirkwall was a good environment; and while the story has execution problems, it does have strong moments and arcs such as the Rival/Friendship concept; the Qunari Conflict; and the companion's personal stories.
So to summarise this thread; It's not the done thing to enjoy one game whilst enjoying another game. You either have to like one or the other.
Gamers are are funny bunch. There's no middle ground to be had anywhere with many gamers. I mean, you can't enjoy the Mass Effect series if you enjoy the TES series and vice versa. You can't enjoy DA:I if you really enjoyed DA:O. It's just not the done thing. I'm a freak, I accept it. I like both games on their own merit. Now, that's not to say each game doesn't have their respective issues, they do (Aye, believe it or not DA:O does have negitives too) . I still stand my my opinion that DA2 was poor. DA2 is going through what many presequels do, they're always put on a higher pedestal because they're not the current title and more often than not, it's not cool to say you prefer the current offering.
Here's the really freakish part, I love TES games, however, I also enjoy BioWare games and the Witcher series.
Yeah sometimes a particular fanbase can turn people off from a game. I know I did not try out the witcher series for a long time because I couldn't stand some of their fans. It's funny I love the TES games but every once in a while you will see a Bethesda fanboy come in here and claim that DA or ME are too linear and needs to be more free flowing and open like a Bethesda game. What they forget is that TES while good at world building and player freedom sucks at creative a tight compelling narrative. Which is the tradeoff and to be fair Bethesda isn't trying to create a compelling story driven game they focus more on giving the player options to do whatever the hell they want and create whatever type of character they want but narrative suffers because of it. Which is funny because Witcher is the exact opposite. Witcher fans will defend having a set in stone protaginist where there are no options concerning loadout and no customization of geralt outside of picking different armors and getting a haircut. Yet both extremes come in here and tell bioware what to do. Now that I think about it I am suprised a holy war hasn't broken out between the TES fans and Witcher fans. Because they are both opposite extremes, DA and ME tend to be more in the middle, they offer more customization and playstyle options than the witcher but they aren't as open and free flowing as TES.
As I've been playing DAI, I've come to realize that I liked the friendship/rivalry system more than the new approval system. Not that it can't learn from the new system, but everything is cut and dry. In DA2, you could gain their respect WITHOUT agreeing to everything they did. Isabela and Merrill actually came out better if you pursued rivalries with them. They had to face their flaws, and see where they could do better. Anders saw what kind of monster he had become. Fenris even had a slight change of heart. Only Aveline and Varric seemed to come out better with friendship...and Bethany. MAYBE Carver. Sebastian? Well...that one didn't work so well (thought you were my friend, but no, you HAD to try annexing Kirkwall over a grudge).
In DAI...no respect unless you agree with them. Sera flips out if you don't agree with her. Viv is the same. Agree, or else. Step backwards, as far as I see it. Sure, hiding the values was a good idea (though some figured out how to game it anyway), but the either or system just doesn't cut it for me. Maybe its because these characters aren't as open minded (less open minded than Fenris and his all-mages-are-evil stance...think about it). Cullen has changed since his horrific experiences...through out the game, Sera and Viv never grow beyond who they started as. You can't even get a basic 'agree to disagree' from them. Little disappointing. Not a deal breaker, but a thought.
Da2 was in Dragon age spirit and had that certain flame, but DAI is to much like a MMO and the spirit of dragon age has diminished
This.
Inquisition could have been so much better if they hadn't made the whole damn game MMO quest.
As I've been playing DAI, I've come to realize that I liked the friendship/rivalry system more than the new approval system. Not that it can't learn from the new system, but everything is cut and dry. In DA2, you could gain their respect WITHOUT agreeing to everything they did. Isabela and Merrill actually came out better if you pursued rivalries with them. They had to face their flaws, and see where they could do better. Anders saw what kind of monster he had become. Fenris even had a slight change of heart. Only Aveline and Varric seemed to come out better with friendship...and Bethany. MAYBE Carver. Sebastian? Well...that one didn't work so well (thought you were my friend, but no, you HAD to try annexing Kirkwall over a grudge).
In DAI...no respect unless you agree with them. Sera flips out if you don't agree with her. Viv is the same. Agree, or else. Step backwards, as far as I see it. Sure, hiding the values was a good idea (though some figured out how to game it anyway), but the either or system just doesn't cut it for me. Maybe its because these characters aren't as open minded (less open minded than Fenris and his all-mages-are-evil stance...think about it). Cullen has changed since his horrific experiences...through out the game, Sera and Viv never grow beyond who they started as. You can't even get a basic 'agree to disagree' from them. Little disappointing. Not a deal breaker, but a thought.
The thing with approval system in DA2 and DAI is that them disapproval means different things. In DA2, it represent an ideological conflict, while in DAI it represent a personal conflict. While I vastly prefer the system in DA2, I do understand that both systems have their merits and flaws and allow for different kinds of characters. So for example characters like Iron Bull or Blackwall really wouldn't have worked in DA2 system, while characters like Fenris or Isabela would have been almost impossible in the DAI system. I do genuinly hope that they continue to work on this, as I do keep on hoping there is some middle ground to be found as all of them are great characters.
However, with Viv and Sera, to me they really felt like characters built for the DA2 system as their interactions were truly built around their idealogues and approaches to life. So to have that and basically only really having conversations with them if you blindly agree with those views felt really weird and, in my opinion, is one of the central reasons why they are such controversial characters. I know that Sera was originally planned to be a party member in DA2, so I wonder if it carries over from there, but the design of Viv was really weird. And to me, it really ended up hurting up both characters, as they both would have really grown in to new heights if that opportunity to truly debate them was there.
DAI is the better game overall, but what it lacks was character interaction and choices. DAO and DAI each had lots of side quest where you'd choose to do something or not such as: murder knife, lie, intimidate, and the choice of personality + what the interjection of party members.
DAI doesn't have too much of that. Sure, it's there, but it occurs so rarely. You have beautiful and massive zones you can explore, but ultimately is almost pointless. The side quests there are all forgettable, whereas DAO/2 sidequests each have a story. It's easy to over level, so many areas end up being a cakewalk. In fact, the xp you gain from underleveled zone are so minuscule that there's really no reason to bother clearing that area except for completion.
I feel like there's not much major decisions to make in game, too: There's mage or templars, the ruler of Orlais is tricky since you need to find the right evidence + other steps and Well of Sorrows.
Yeah sometimes a particular fanbase can turn people off from a game. I know I did not try out the witcher series for a long time because I couldn't stand some of their fans. It's funny I love the TES games but every once in a while you will see a Bethesda fanboy come in here and claim that DA or ME are too linear and needs to be more free flowing and open like a Bethesda game. What they forget is that TES while good at world building and player freedom sucks at creative a tight compelling narrative. Which is the tradeoff and to be fair Bethesda isn't trying to create a compelling story driven game they focus more on giving the player options to do whatever the hell they want and create whatever type of character they want but narrative suffers because of it. Which is funny because Witcher is the exact opposite. Witcher fans will defend having a set in stone protaginist where there are no options concerning loadout and no customization of geralt outside of picking different armors and getting a haircut. Yet both extremes come in here and tell bioware what to do. Now that I think about it I am suprised a holy war hasn't broken out between the TES fans and Witcher fans. Because they are both opposite extremes, DA and ME tend to be more in the middle, they offer more customization and playstyle options than the witcher but they aren't as open and free flowing as TES.
I can't believe I'm defending DA2 but at least DA2 has:
1) Choices that can lead to companions death or leaving you. One of the big appeals to me about Dragon Age was that companions reacted to your choices and would commit actions if they grew to dislike you too much. In DAI, there is no risk besides Cole/Blackwall leaving.
2) Side quests actually have choices. Even if they mean nothing in the long run, at least it lets us feel like we're changing who lives or who dies.
3) I actually feel friendship/rivalry would have worked better for DAI. There are very few people who actually try to get companion to disapprove of them when playing the DA games. At least rivalry lets you disagree and continue building your relationship with a character .With disapproval, companions just talk to you less.
Other than that, DAI trumps DA2 in my eyes in every way.
At least, when you opened the DA2 special edition, it didn't break in your hands..
/inquisitorseditionworsequalitythancheapstores.
DA2>DAI
#teamwitcher3
I will root for the other guys
#teamwitcher3
Funny enough I think The Witcher 3 was a combination of DA:I semi-open world with a really personal quest a la DA 2 with a heavy emotional side. Something that DA:I was supposed to be.
I was expecting more main story epicness from TW 3 and more emotional attachment from character from DA:I, it is the opposite in this case.
I like Dragon Age ][ enough to replay it, but I can't and won't call it a better game than Origins or Inquisition.
I can't believe I'm defending DA2 but at least DA2 has:
1) Choices that can lead to companions death or leaving you. One of the big appeals to me about Dragon Age was that companions reacted to your choices and would commit actions if they grew to dislike you too much. In DAI, there is no risk besides Cole/Blackwall leaving.
2) Side quests actually have choices. Even if they mean nothing in the long run, at least it lets us feel like we're changing who lives or who dies.
3) I actually feel friendship/rivalry would have worked better for DAI. There are very few people who actually try to get companion to disapprove of them when playing the DA games. At least rivalry lets you disagree and continue building your relationship with a character .With disapproval, companions just talk to you less.
Other than that, DAI trumps DA2 in my eyes in every way.
I can agree on 1 and 3.
I had a lot of fun with DA2's combat and played it multiple times with all the various classes. Force magic mage was my favorite one and had blast throwing enemies around like rag dolls. Content wise I really liked Act 2 due the dealings with the Arishok.
I recently tried to start a second character for DA:I but stopped when I was back to closing rifts and clearing camp sites. I find the combat too fast/frantic and the satisfaction of setting up cross-class combos ala DA2 is clunky with that awkward battle camera and poor party AI. The deep tactics customization is a shadow of its former self. It is a good game, and Bioware went above and beyond after the heavy criticism of DA2 and the ME3 ending. The problem is that I don't really care for all the filler content.
I liked DA2 better than DA:I, for sure. In my view, DA2 is a solid game with one major flaw; DA:I is an average (at best) game with one major strength.
I thought DA:I had beautiful scenery but that's about where it stopped for me. I played it through once. I tried to play a second time but when I realized nothing much was going to be different I gave up. The only decision in the game that had any real interest for me was whether to save Iron Bull's men. Even that didn't really go anywhere except for changing the character's picture. Really, that's the impact? The game felt like a half-finished MMO to me: filled with unexciting combat and boring fetch quests.
By contrast, I played DA2 at least a dozen times, if not more. I enjoyed trying different classes and different skills. I enjoyed the story and characters much more in DA2. I enjoyed the combat and tactics more in DA2. I enjoyed the companions more in DA2. Even Anders, who I didn't exactly like, was interesting (though the inevitability of his story line was somewhat frustrating). I felt that the primary weak spot of DA2 was the reuse of landscapes. Aside from that, it gave me a solid and enjoyable gaming experience.
So, which do I prefer: (1) story, character, combat and tactics; or (2) pretty backgrounds? It's not really much of a contest for me. The fact that I can't even stomach a second playthrough of DA:I says it all.
For those of you who wish to add that this is all subjective and just my opinion: yes, yes it is... but that's the point of this thread.
I don't know how to read the fact that so many people uturn on a game when a sequel comes out.
Time can make you see things differently, but if this happens everytime then that just makes these opinions straight-up nonesense.
Fortunately I don't think that's quite the case, as the people thinking DA2 is better is clearly a very small minority.
Well yes,now only the DA fans will care which is better. And their number are small these day.
Retour en haut