521 réponses à ce sujet

[Cavemandiary]

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.

This pretty much sums it up for me as well.

 

It is a shame about DA2, because if it had received the same development time as the 1st and 3rd game in the series, as well as a wider area to explore and a toned down combat system, DA2 could have had a reception similar to ME2.

 

Good vs evil is a concept that seems to be at the core of 99% of all RPG´s. DA2 tried to stray away from that paradigm, while exploring things like ambition, politics and moral, and got punished for it.

 

It was too much change, all at once. It still remains one of the best games in my book, and I loved it, even when it came out, as one of the few i think.

 

I´m interested in finding out where Bioware plans to take the DA universe next. I do hope that they return to the more personalized stories like you do, with an emplasis on a strong main quest.

[Majestic Jazz]

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.

Your rationale makes no sense. You say the IQ and DAI main story is lacking, the villian is weak, and finally you say 80% of DAI is fetch quest and yet DA2 is the game that is the "chore" to play?

I dont get it. You basically say that DAI has a boring story, boring main character, and boring quest/missions but it is DA2 that is the chore.

[Chiramu]

In DA2 my keyboard and mouse worked properly.

[Lethaya]

I would take a guess and say JaimieCOTC might simply prefer the gameplay and locations in DA:I over those in DA2? For them, it's the game that's more fun to play. Everyone has different priorities when it comes to what they like in their games. *shrugs*

[Torgette]

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.

 

Honestly the bolded are the only parts I really liked about DA2. Yes they aimed for a morally ambiguous higher conflict but in the end it didn't really achieve that - instead it just ramped up the crazy to 11 with all parties, it was the rpg equivalent of jerry and tom. Even the side characters felt over-the-top, you can't just have an inexperienced mage they have to be dumb enough to do blood magic, you can't just have a rebel mage they have to be a terrorist, etc. it never ends. The only thing the game lacked was a big Xtreme in the title.

[dsl08002]

If you count away jaws of hakkon release on 360, i have played more DAO and DA2

[Aren]

I personally like both games, but there's no denying that Inquisition is objectively the better game.

 

More replay value;  better combat system;

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Yup! I played through DA2 at least a dozen times...

 

 

... DA:I, I have played through it twice, got tired and stopped half-way through my third.

[Amaldur1]

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.

 

 

So, to summarize this thread... the question was whether there were actually people who like DA2 more than DA:I. This question invites comparison between the two titles and the ultimate choice of a favorite. Also, there have been many people in this thread who've said they loved both. Your criticism is off base and your conclusion about gamers being "funny" makes no sense in context.

[Vader20]

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.

 

My biggest problem with DA2 was that it was kinda a slap in the face. The story was very well written and if u compare it with DAI's story it is a masterpiece, BUT the fact that we had only ONE location, ie. Kirkwall kinda ruined everything.

 

After DAO I people probably expected a similar world map where they will visit locations and the recycled areas of Kirkwall become quickly boring. It was my biggest issue with the game.

 

For DAI they kinda listened to what the fans wanted and they made a massive world... So big that it gives you the impression that they didn't have time to fill it with proper content.

[Cobra's_back]

My biggest problem with DA2 was that it was kinda a slap in the face. The story was very well written and if u compare it with DAI's story it is a masterpiece, BUT the fact that we had only ONE location, ie. Kirkwall kinda ruined everything.

 

After DAO I people probably expected a similar world map where they will visit locations and the recycled areas of Kirkwall become quickly boring. It was my biggest issue with the game.

 

For DAI they kinda listened to what the fans wanted and they made a massive world... So big that it gives you the impression that they didn't have time to fill it with proper content.

 

 

Good point. I do remember all the complaints of small world DA2.

 

I would also suggest that some people maybe having trouble with the DAI big world. I love open world but it helps to buy a guide so that you know which quest to skip.

 

The thing about big world is that it can be a chord if you don't know which quest actually has a more desirable impact.

 

As for the story, big world can dilute any story. That being said I really like the DAI story more. More lore is always good for me. 

[KC_Prototype]

DA2 was a good game but with major flaws and I can't see a true DA fan who would prefer it to DAI. Absolutely crazy talk!

[KC_Prototype]

But it does....

[Gothfather]

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 prefer some things about DA2 over DA:I even though I think DA2 was a bad game and DA:I is a good game. For one I think the characterization and voice acting for DA2 was better. I think you had far more freedom in giving your character personality in DA2 than in DA:I. Just because DA2 failed in many aspects as a game doesn't mean it did nothing right. Hawke has made such a huge impression on many player even though DA2 was by far the most inferior game of the series because the one thing many people feel they did right with DA2 was characterization. Varric is one of the most popular DA characters again because they did characterization well in DA2. For all they did wrong in DA2 they did a lot right with their characters. Look at Anders you do not get such a polarizing, divisive character with bad characterization. 

 

So yeah I think DA2 did some things right and if i was going to pick the best things in the series from all three games for DA4, I'd add some things from DA2. And I think it is perfectly reasonable for gamers to make mention of the good from DA2 even if the game as a whole is pretty bad.

[Heimerdinger]

DA2 was rushed and unpolished. But, compared to DAI you still got:

 

- proper companion AI Tactics

- as many ability slots on quick bar as your screen fits.

- proper PC controls (basic stuff like right click on ground to move or go to loot)

- proper healing system (enemies dropping potions and a real heal spell)

- better spell/talent trees

- blood magic

- most dialogue cutscenes are cinematic, up close.

- complete scumbag protagonist was possible. (read: more freedom to roleplay)

- friendship/rivalry system (never understood why it was dropped, this was a step forward from DAO)

 

So yeah, DA2 did some things better than DAI despite DAI being a more polished product overall.

[LinksOcarina]

So the next time a Dragon Age game comes out, are we going to say "Well that game has problems, but at least Dragon Age Inquisition did this right" and so forth?

 

I am seeing that a lot now from folks who were pretty adamant on bashing Dragon Age 2 maybe 3-4 years ago. It is quite comical in some cases, and also highlights a problem with how we perceive things when they are released. 

[Ariella]

So the next time a Dragon Age game comes out, are we going to say "Well that game has problems, but at least Dragon Age Inquisition did this right" and so forth?

 

I am seeing that a lot now from folks who were pretty adamant on bashing Dragon Age 2 maybe 3-4 years ago. It is quite comical in some cases, and also highlights a problem with how we perceive things when they are released. 

 

So you noticed that too? It's like when ME 2 was released, there were huge complaints about the end mission screen, the lack of choice in inventory, the new store set ups etc... And now it's held as the height of the series.

[LinksOcarina]

So you noticed that too? It's like when ME 2 was released, there were huge complaints about the end mission screen, the lack of choice in inventory, the new store set ups etc... And now it's held as the height of the series.

 

It happens all the time. People make presumptions with information presented to them, start saying "i would do this now" and when they get it, it get's criticized in some other form. The internet is a cycle like that. 

 

Long way of looking at it is to think about it in sequence. Not saying that those people are wrong, hell, I still maintain Dragon Age II is the best game in the series so far, but I am saying that the change in perspective does put this stuff in tighter focus on what we like, don't like, and want to see.

[Amaldur1]

So the next time a Dragon Age game comes out, are we going to say "Well that game has problems, but at least Dragon Age Inquisition did this right" and so forth?

 

I am seeing that a lot now from folks who were pretty adamant on bashing Dragon Age 2 maybe 3-4 years ago. It is quite comical in some cases, and also highlights a problem with how we perceive things when they are released. 

 

It's possible. It depends on whether DA4 is better or worse than DA:I. As this thread shows, there are some people (myself included) who think that DA2, although disappointing after DA:O, did a number of things better than DA:I. If DA4 takes place on a small island somewhere there is a good chance that a bunch of us who didn't like DA:I will be looking back and saying, "well, at least DA:I created a significant world and that was better than DA4. There is no hypocrisy in saying that DA2 is better than DA:I, even if you didn't love DA2.

[LinksOcarina]

It's possible. It depends on whether DA4 is better or worse than DA:I. As this thread shows, there are some people (myself included) who think that DA2, although disappointing after DA:O, did a number of things better than DA:I. If DA4 takes place on a small island somewhere there is a good chance that a bunch of us who didn't like DA:I will be looking back and saying, "well, at least DA:I created a significant world and that was better than DA4. There is no hypocrisy in saying that DA2 is better than DA:I, even if you didn't love DA2.

 

None really intended. I have been saying it for four years, really, and as much as I like Inquisition and Origins, 2 stands out a lot really.

 

I just find it funny how the mob mentality overtakes any discussion of nuance in the end, even with quantifying statements made. It's a strange trend I see in gaming and gaming critcism when it comes to both fans and journalists.

[Ariella]

It happens all the time. People make presumptions with information presented to them, start saying "i would do this now" and when they get it, it get's criticized in some other form. The internet is a cycle like that. 

 

Long way of looking at it is to think about it in sequence. Not saying that those people are wrong, hell, I still maintain Dragon Age II is the best game in the series so far, but I am saying that the change in perspective does put this stuff in tighter focus on what we like, don't like, and want to see.

 

Oh, I agree. It's just nice to know I'm not the only one seeing it.

 

And not only is it a cycle, the net amplifies it since people who would come to BSN and see the voracious complaints and then think "how can so many people be wrong"?

 

For the record DA 2 and DAI are tied for me. I love replaying both games, but DAO has become a trial. The Origins were nice, but there are times I wish I had a dungeon be gone for them because they'd start to drag. I never felt that way about DA2 or DAI, 

[Torgette]

None really intended. I have been saying it for four years, really, and as much as I like Inquisition and Origins, 2 stands out a lot really.

 

I just find it funny how the mob mentality overtakes any discussion of nuance in the end, even with quantifying statements made. It's a strange trend I see in gaming and gaming critcism when it comes to both fans and journalists.

 

It's a lot more fun to complain, is about sums it all up.

[Hiemoth]

It happens all the time. People make presumptions with information presented to them, start saying "i would do this now" and when they get it, it get's criticized in some other form. The internet is a cycle like that. 

 

Long way of looking at it is to think about it in sequence. Not saying that those people are wrong, hell, I still maintain Dragon Age II is the best game in the series so far, but I am saying that the change in perspective does put this stuff in tighter focus on what we like, don't like, and want to see.

 

I agree with this so much while also being someone who consider DA2 to be the best game in the series as well. I was recently thinking over another discussion how our perspectives on games are really based on three things: What is in the game, what we expected to be in the game and what we wanted in the game. The first thing is somewhat immutable, but the second and third change so subjective, yet often also color how the first part is viewed. That makes discussion on the actual features extremely difficult, for example with DA2 the constant insistence that system had been streamlined or simplified from DAO while it was actually a much more complicated system.

 

To me, what made discussing DA2 so difficult before was that the reaction was so toxic and there was very little interest to actual examine DA2 component-wise and see what it succeeded and failed at. All of the game was horrible and garbage, which led to these really weird and factually incorrect statements on what the game did which somehow became the required truth for the game discussion. Not surprisingly something very similar happened with DA2. Thus I was kind of happy to see these discussions after DAI where it was possible to actually honestly discuss the game without a horde of posters descending in to the thread to make it clear that nobody in their right mind should like DA2.

[Ariella]

I agree with this so much while also being someone who consider DA2 to be the best game in the series as well. I was recently thinking over another discussion how our perspectives on games are really based on three things: What is in the game, what we expected to be in the game and what we wanted in the game. The first thing is somewhat immutable, but the second and third change so subjective, yet often also color how the first part is viewed. That makes discussion on the actual features extremely difficult, for example with DA2 the constant insistence that system had been streamlined or simplified from DAO while it was actually a much more complicated system.

 

 

Hiemoth,

 

I remember David Gaider saying something similar. Though IIRC he put it that the people who were so toxic about the game built a game in their heads which wasn't the game they got.

 

I'm paraphrasing a bit, and I'll try and find the quote if you want but God I'd rather not go swimming in the Legacy BSN for it.