226 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

DA:I looks exactly like DA:O. Just polished with a "pretty brush." 

 

Sure if you leave out all the fine detail, vibrant colors, proper lighting, weather patterns, and dynamic textures, then place a brown filter on everything you've got DAO.

[Lebanese Dude]

That's not exactly true. Yeah you can put something like grey warden armor on them that looks completely different but you can also put full armor on them or the coat looking armor which are different looks as well.

 

What I meant to say was that each character has a different unique style for the same piece of gear except for faction equipment. 

 

You're not wrong

[Andrew Lucas]

I think that DA2 I just too much bad to be considered bad. Badenjoyable.

[Jestina]

Well, I could actually do combat in DA2. Combat in DA:I is a big mess on the pc. The tactics screen is a joke...and you can't set AI companion tactics anyways. Without any tactics you pretty much end up having to solo tank everything(my poor rogue) and spam powers like crazy. Can't heal cause my companions chugged down all the potions, and the healing/support mage is nowhere to be found. Combat is still way ridiculous fast and anime...which would be tolerable if we could actually set AI tactics and had a tactical view that worked.

I spend a lot of time with one character running around trying to drop aggro so she can go back and rez her idiotic companions.

[catabuca]

I would say the games are of equal quality for the most part.

 

DA2 was too much stuffed into too little. DA:I is too little spread across too much.

 

Now, whether either of those games are "Bad" is up for debate. I like both games quite a bit, despite whatever flaws may exist.

 

This is pretty much my feeling too.

 

I love DAO. I loved DA2. And I love DAI. But I recognise flaws in all of them, and I think it's a positive thing to keep yourself open to recognising the good and bad in things you love.

 

But yes, DA2 had a tight experience which is good for pacing, but didn't have enough scope in terms of environments to discover or things to do. In contrast, DAI has a very loose experience which is very bad for pacing (and therefore detrimental to storytelling), but has a lot of very beautiful environments to discover.

 

It's clear BW put a heck of a lot of hard work into DAI, and a lot of it is very successful. For me though, they veered too far off in the opposite direction from DA2 - overcompensated, really. For a game franchise that focuses so strongly on character and storytelling, not being able to maintain a certain pace to that hurts it.

 

That said, I enjoy all the games and will play DAI multiple times, just as I did the previous installments. I keep hoping they continue to improve on the formula in subsequent games.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I think that DA2 I just too much bad to be considered bad. Badenjoyable.

Whatever it's other faults, at least DA2 had combat with an ounce of depth to it, not the shallow smoke and mirrors show of Inquisition.

[Tsunami Chef]

Whatever it's other faults, at least DA2 had combat with an ounce of depth to it, not the shallow smoke and mirrors show of Inquisition.

Can you elaborate? I didn't find the DA2 combat in depth at all. More fun than inquisition, but not becasue of any tactical or strategic depth. It was just more fun to mash the abilities together in DA2. I don't think I ever touched the DA2 tactics for more than 2 seconds (if there even was any?) and i beat it on hard multiple times (never wanted to do nightmare).

 

Also smoke and mirrors show...can you simmer down the seriousness level.

[Degs29]

No.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

I think they're both great games.....

[wright1978]

DA2 was a flawed enjoyable game as is DAI.

[Han Master]

Despite its reusable scenes the main story to side quest ratio was better in DA2.

[edeheusch]

The answer to the question depend a lot upon the platform you are playing the game on (in addition to the taste of the player).

 

The game seems rather good on the new gen consoles and even on PC that mimic the console gameplay (by playing with a console input device).  

 

On PC, the bad UI and controls make the game much less enjoyable and, depending on the importance you put on control, can make it worse than DA2.

 

From what I have read the game suffer from a lot op problem on the old gen console (perhaps the game should never have been released on them).   

[papercut_ninja]

How many times have you been involved in combat in DA:I and silently thought to yourself: "if only 618 thugs would materialize out of thin air right now and drop down on me, it would make this battle so much more interesting"?

[VahnXIII]

That's it

DAI win at more maps variety, graphics, maybe characters, content but as DRAGON AGE there are lot of things better made in DA2..

 

No.

[SNascimento]

Dragon Age Inquisition is the best Dragon Age game, and the one that's set a foundation worth building upon. 

[Cyonan]

Well, I could actually do combat in DA2. Combat in DA:I is a big mess on the pc. The tactics screen is a joke...and you can't set AI companion tactics anyways. Without any tactics you pretty much end up having to solo tank everything(my poor rogue) and spam powers like crazy. Can't heal cause my companions chugged down all the potions, and the healing/support mage is nowhere to be found. Combat is still way ridiculous fast and anime...which would be tolerable if we could actually set AI tactics and had a tactical view that worked.

I spend a lot of time with one character running around trying to drop aggro so she can go back and rez her idiotic companions.

 

Of the few things you can do in the behaviours/tactics menus in Inquisition, telling your companions when to stop chugging potions is actually one of them.

 

It also sounds like you're never taking control of your party members.

 

While I agree that Inquisition needs more depth in the tactics menu, one of the problems I always had with the old system is that you could almost make the game play itself if not for the fact that you're forced to control one character.

[catabuca]

Yep. I'm playing on hard as an archer. I miss being able to set tactics, and I regret that the option isn't there for people who value that a great deal. Personally I prefer to micromanage and go on and control my companions myself (although I haven't found that I need to very often, perhaps only a handful of times during the hardest fights to reposition mages who want to run up and hug demons or to ensure dispel gets fired off at the right time, etc), and I make heavy use of the pause button. I rarely have a problem. The only time I encountered what I consider a real close shave was fighting the first dragon in the Hinterlands - we used all our potions and only one of us was alive with a sliver of health by the time the dragon went down. I lose Bull on occasion, but he's a madman with a death wish, so I forgive him.

 

I'm playing on PC with mouse&keyboard, btw. I'll be rolling either mage or 2H next (I've controlled both via my party members during my 185 hour (so far) run as tempest archer).

 

Edit: I will say that my biggest problem with combat is that it doesn't require enough strategy and frankly even on hard all I ever really need to do is stay alive longer than whatever I'm fighting. None of my mages have anything like ice mine to try to control the battlefield, it's just not necessary. Just stay on your toes and move people out of harm's way, keep on top of potion usage, and identify who needs to go down first, and you're golden. I expect it's harder on nightmare.

[dlux]

Dragon Age Inquisition is the best Dragon Age game, and the one that's set a foundation worth building upon. 

 

 

[dlux]

DA2 was a flawed enjoyable game as is DAI.

Both games are drastically flawed.

 

DA2 is much better because the combat was at least decent, although the ecounter design sucked, and it wasn't full of so much darn boring filler. DA:I is simply unplayble IMO.

[grimgim]

That's it

DAI win at more maps variety, graphics, maybe characters, content but as DRAGON AGE there are lot of things better made in DA2..

 

So you are saying that DA:I correct the flaws that DA2 had but the later game still manages to do better? What? The multiplayer?

 

Both games are drastically flawed.

 

DA2 is much better because the combat was at least decent, although the ecounter design sucked, and it wasn't full of so much darn boring filler. DA:I is simply unplayble IMO.

 

Yes, the game practically forces you to do every side quest to progress... Oh wait, no it doesn't!

 

I get that you don't like the game but unplayable? Got to know on how to use those hyperboles better, chief.

[PearsAndCherries]

That's your opinion. DA:I kept me entertained longer than DA:2 has so far. Both games are fun, though. 

[robertthebard]

Both games are drastically flawed.
 
DA2 is much better because the combat was at least decent, although the ecounter design sucked, and it wasn't full of so much darn boring filler. DA:I is simply unplayble IMO.

Did you check with MetaCritic to make sure you were allowed to make this claim? Because according to the reviews you posted in that other thread, you're probably not going to be paid for this post.

Source

http://abload.de/img/2upuy2.png

In fact, it seems that both ME 3 and DA I outperformed DA 2. Maybe it's time you get on to your Metacritic fan site and start generating more negative reviews for both?

[Alexius]

That's it

DAI win at more maps variety, graphics, maybe characters, content but as DRAGON AGE there are lot of things better made in DA2..

 

That's it?

That's the whole basis for your thread?

 

At the very least you could expand on what "as Dragon Age" means to you.

 

See, it's alright to post what you think of the game, but could you please present it in an appropriate way?

So perhaps other people can discuss. These are, after all, forums.

[luism]

For all of its flaws da2 delivered more immersion for me than da i. Da I for me is a true SPMMO 0 immersion moments of fun when you find some ok loot. Plenty of grinding no relevant choices for your character.