270 réponses à ce sujet

[Birdieboink]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Dragon Age = more immersive, better character development, better plot

Mass Effect 2 = Better visuals

Half of the time developing DA was making the engine, actually. I think if DA had better animation and graphics it would be as good, as well as giving the PC more personality (no, NOT VOICE OVER) with more facial animations or focus on them in conversations.

I really felt that if the Warden had had their own voice, the game could have been immersive. As it was, with an archaic combat system and a Warden who never spoke (Shepard at least speaks during ME and ME2) during dialog scenes, Dragon Age felt like an older game that someone had decided "hey, let's go release this!" With a top-down combat perspective in addition, I really don't see how anyone could view Dragon Age as immersive. Maybe that's just me. Also, considering that some of the places you traveled to actually took more time to load than to explore, it really felt like there was a lot of wasted potential; I wish they'd just used Unreal 3 as an engine.

Mass Effect had a far superior plot (full of twists and turns, where most of the sidequests actually worked towards fleshing out the universe) than Dragon Age, but maybe that's just me. There was never anything unexpected going on in Dragon Age, and the world itself hardly felt original or inspired. Also, Mass Effect's combat and art design are far, far greater than Dragon Age, though this might have something to do with DA utilizing what seemed to me to be a rather poor graphics engine.

[Wissenschaft]

archaic combat system? How is a 3rd person shoot any better?

As for the main character not having a voice, your playing as your own made up character. The main character is you in dragon age. On the other hand, mass effect seems more like a shooter with some RPG elements tacked on. Even more so with mass effect 2. Very nice story but not much roleplaying. A lot of people that enjoy dragon age do so because they come up with whole stories for their characters and try to roleplay that particular character. You can't quite do that with Mass Effect which is more like an interactive movie.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 01 février 2010 - 07:45 .

[TheLion36]

I actually think it was better that the main character did not speak, the reason for this is that I now could pretend I was the main character during playthrough, however when he starts speaking during dialogs his voice will differ from mine and pull me out of the story...



Its hard for me to decide which game (ME2 / DAO) is better since I've never played Mass Effect / Mass Effect 2, however as far as I understand it from bits of information I hear ME2 is more focussed on the combat/shooting and less on the conversations which I thought was the main thing in DAO. So if my understanding is correct they are both very different games that are hard to compare.



Personally I think Dragon Age Origins was the best game I've played in years, haven't felt this great about a game since Neverwinter Nights.

[Shamagar]

David Gaider wrote...

It's difficult to compare a game that's made with a new engine with one that is not -- Baldur's Gate 2 was made in much less time than the first, for instance, because it had an already-existing engine. It's a sweet spot to be in for a developer. You know what your engine is capable of and can simply tweak it and improve on it, devoting your time to adding content which you can see immediately in-game. Mass Effect 2 is the first game since Baldur's Gate 2 when we've been in that position, in fact.

Glad you enjoyed ME2, at any rate -- there are stylistic differences between the two games that may make people enjoy one game over the other regardless, and hopefully if a full sequel develops for Dragon Age we'll be in a similar boat. Which will be nice. Dragon Age has received a really excellent reception, both critically and from the fans, and it's always a pleasure to take that kind of foundation and build on it.

If you don't make a DA sequel I will hunt you down, David Gaider!!!!!!!

[Lucy Glitter]

Shamagar wrote...
If you don't make a DA sequel I will hunt you down, David Gaider!!!!!!!

He's getting to be quite notorious.

[TheLion36]

Shamagar wrote...
If you don't make a DA sequel I will hunt you down, David Gaider!!!!!!!

They better!  We need more info on the Morrigan story! 

[Pinkleaf]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Shamagar wrote...
If you don't make a DA sequel I will hunt you down, David Gaider!!!!!!!

He's getting to be quite notorious.

He also has to write a 3rd novel before next Christmas.  Poor David, so much to do and so little time.

[RangerSG]

TheLion36 wrote...

I actually think it was better that the main character did not speak, the reason for this is that I now could pretend I was the main character during playthrough, however when he starts speaking during dialogs his voice will differ from mine and pull me out of the story...

Its hard for me to decide which game (ME2 / DAO) is better since I've never played Mass Effect / Mass Effect 2, however as far as I understand it from bits of information I hear ME2 is more focussed on the combat/shooting and less on the conversations which I thought was the main thing in DAO. So if my understanding is correct they are both very different games that are hard to compare.

Personally I think Dragon Age Origins was the best game I've played in years, haven't felt this great about a game since Neverwinter Nights.

I have to agree. I don't want a Main Character's dialogue voiced. It limits the number of choices. It limits the amount of freedom a player has. And it starts the player down that inevitable path of destroying your view of the PC. It's the same kind of misfortune that happens whenever someone sees a character on-screen that one loved in a book. For every time the character is well-represented, there are 9 times the book's fan-base scream, "That is not who (character name) really is."

I'm not going to have the lines I chose voiced the way I imagine them as often as not. So why do I want someone else re-imagining how I view the PC? Especially when you have 6 different voice-sets for each race's gender. Is the personality that gets chosen for the PC the one I would've wanted? 

So no. It works for a hybrid game like ME, that's closer to a shooter than a traditional RPG. It does not work for traditional RPGs. End of story.

[LolaRuns]

Agreed, imo there are benefits to not having the main character voiced.



What does ****** me off are things like certain Final Fantasy games where the main character has a voice in the cut scenes but lots of dialog is not voiced. IMO that just seems lazy. And this way you also can't argue immersiveness. A voice carries a lot of personality, So the only way it would work for a game like DAO would be if you had several voice options with different moods (the way you can pick your voice now) which in turn would mean having to do at least 10 to 20 different vocalizations of the entire game (different moods, for both male and female).

[Stakis]

Birdieboink wrote...
I really felt that if the Warden had had their own voice, the game could have been immersive. As it was, with an archaic combat system and a Warden who never spoke (Shepard at least speaks during ME and ME2) during dialog scenes, Dragon Age felt like an older game that someone had decided "hey, let's go release this!" With a top-down combat perspective in addition, I really don't see how anyone could view Dragon Age as immersive. Maybe that's just me. Also, considering that some of the places you traveled to actually took more time to load than to explore, it really felt like there was a lot of wasted potential; I wish they'd just used Unreal 3 as an engine.

Give me a break man, the guy who plays shepard sounds like his dieing 90 % of the time, regardless of whats happening he sounds always the same, its like his making a favor to bioware instead of a professional work.

Both games please different ppl, i prefer DA , but i dont feel its better than ME, its just my personal choice.

[Erakleitos]

The only thing that ME2 misses is party banters, and approval rating... and more free interaction with your companions. I give ME2 9/10 while DA:O is 9.5/10

[shanerobot]

SleeplessInSigil wrote...

Fallout 3 steamrolls all. 

This.

[TheLion36]

I found FallOut 3 rather boring and repetitive, but to all its own I would say

[Sabriana]

TheLion36 wrote...

I found FallOut 3 rather boring and repetitive, but to all its own I would say

True enough, so did I. It does depend on individual taste, but FO 3 did not impress me. Played it once, and it's now sitting on my shelf. It impressed me so little that I never even had any kind of urge to buy the add-ons.

Perhaps it's because I really liked FO/FO2, perhaps because it reminded me too much of Oblivion, or a combination of many factors. I don't know, but while it was fun to run a round in the wastes of the DC area and shoot stuff, it made no lasting impression on me.

[archonsod]

DA:O and ME 2 really represent two different takes on the RPG. The main improvements I thought ME 2 carried over it's predecessor essentially boil down to time saving - no huge central hubs where you're forced to run back and forth over and over again, minimal backtracking all round in fact. It's pretty much a distilled RPG, you have distinct talky bits which are clearly separated from the shooty bits. For a fast paced action game (I'm using action here in the same sense of an action movie) it works because it minimises the slow bits which would otherwise jar the pacing.

Dragon Age on the other hand is a different beast. It's a game as much about exploration as it is about the action. If you were to trim it down in the same way as ME:2 you'd be left with a sub-par diablo style game of strings of meaningless fights followed by exposition. Combat in DA is a secondary consideration at best, with exploration and actual role play as centre stage.

Dragon Age is the Lord of the Rings trilogy to Mass Effect's Die Hard. They're both good games/movies, but they're also totally different in style and intent. It wouldn't be the same if Frodo had a machine gun, or if Nakatomi Plaza was invaded by Uruk Hai (although both might make cool movies in their own right now I come to think about it.)

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Off topic: I'm still boycotting Mass Effect due to DRM.

[Andat]

AsheraII wrote...

ME2 is slightly more geared towards tactical solutions of fights than ME was. Slightly more opportunity to use your special abilities etc. The targetting has been made more intuitive as well, the heavy swaying while in sniper mode has been toned down a little bit for example.

There's still not too much to talk about with your team, DA:O really has more depth in that department. But there are some nice details everywhere. One of the (non-squad) NPC's is a smoker, for example. And they've really paid attention to things like how he holds his cigarette, how he rolls it between his fingers and how he discards the ashcone. And there's a lot of details like that all over the place (though I don't think the female toilets look really comfy).

I was thinking more about the ability to give orders to your team.  DA:O is the superior in pure terms of saying "Fred, go over there" and expecting it to be done, but it's a strained comparison because it's based on a more traditional RPG / RTS-like control scheme. 

ME1 was more RPG-combined-with-tactical-shooter, so I'm thinking it borrows squad controls more from games like Republic Commando or Hidden And Dangerous than DA:O's Bauldur's Gate-style scheme, but I never felt it was doing the job well within that tactical shooter element.  One example was how I'd set up Ashley as a sniper.  I wanted to have her stay back and cover me as I cleared the area ahead, but as I crossed the open ground, she ran up to rejoin me, and was suddenly in the midst of a close combat firefight - needless to say, she died. 

I don't remember there being a "hold" mode like there is in DA:O.  It just seemed like these people were there for the extra firepower, rather than to set up tactical situations like fire zones and that kind of thing.

For a game that apes tactical squad shooters, I want some decent tactical squad controls.  The best I've seen so far are Republic Commando for the 1-button context sensitive ease of it, H&D (1 or 2) for the depth and variety of actions your fellas could carry out, and Brothers in Arms for the well-organised teams and (again) the ease of use.  None of these games were perfect, but they all did the job better than ME1.

[Valmy]

Stronghold II wrote...

My question is why? 

Well I love Mass Effect 2 but let me be honest.  I dropped everything and went back to DA when RtO came out because to me it is simply a better game.  I prefer the wider open areas and I like really having to work at my companions rather than just do one quest and I think the main quests in ME2 are simply too short.

But I love both games.  I have a hard time coming to the conclusion ME2 is vastly superior I think it just may be a matter of personal taste.  Anyway I only wish the posts on the ME2 board were as positive as yours.  If I see one more 'OMG Mass Effect 2 is the BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT EVAH!' thread....

[Valmy]

Andat wrote...

I was thinking more about the ability to give orders to your team.  DA:O is the superior in pure terms of saying "Fred, go over there" and expecting it to be done, but it's a strained comparison because it's based on a more traditional RPG / RTS-like control scheme. 

ME1 was more RPG-combined-with-tactical-shooter, so I'm thinking it borrows squad controls more from games like Republic Commando or Hidden And Dangerous than DA:O's Bauldur's Gate-style scheme, but I never felt it was doing the job well within that tactical shooter element.  One example was how I'd set up Ashley as a sniper.  I wanted to have her stay back and cover me as I cleared the area ahead, but as I crossed the open ground, she ran up to rejoin me, and was suddenly in the midst of a close combat firefight - needless to say, she died. 

I don't remember there being a "hold" mode like there is in DA:O.  It just seemed like these people were there for the extra firepower, rather than to set up tactical situations like fire zones and that kind of thing.

For a game that apes tactical squad shooters, I want some decent tactical squad controls.  The best I've seen so far are Republic Commando for the 1-button context sensitive ease of it, H&D (1 or 2) for the depth and variety of actions your fellas could carry out, and Brothers in Arms for the well-organised teams and (again) the ease of use.  None of these games were perfect, but they all did the job better than ME1.

Yeah being able to control my party members directly and control the battle field is one of the main reasons I find the DA combat alot more compelling.  In ME and ME2 I pretty much just let my companions do their own thing because trying to really get them to go where I want is simply too big of a hassle and doesn't really seem to work well.  Of course I just may not be doing it right.  I tend to just find some good cover and blow the heck out of everybody, which is sorta fun but not really the same.

[Shallina]

ME2 is way superior to DAO, when DAO had everything to be far greater than ME2.

Same skeleton for male and female in DAO start the game with a graphic deasaster. And it goes on.... All those limitation and cheaps tricks so the game can run on a XBOX or a PS3 destroyed it.

ME2 graphic aren't as rich as those of DAO. So they didn't have to do all those "tricks". Wich give a better general feelling. But in DAO at each scenery I can see 5 "cheap" trick so the poor XBOX/PS3 doesn't melt. That really ruined it.

Modifié par Shallina, 01 février 2010 - 02:25 .

[Valmy]

Shallina wrote...

ME2 is way superior to DAO, when DAO had everything to be far greater than ME2.

How could DAO have been superior to ME2?  Make a bow and arrow shooter?  Or is this simply a graphics thing?  I mean the companion dialog in DAO is much more extensive, the quests alot bigger and I could go on and on.

I mean ME2 is great but way superior?

[Creature 1]

Shallina wrote...

ME2 is way superior to DAO, when DAO had everything to be far greater than ME2.

ME2 does not have Zevran.  Therefore, ME2 is inferior in every way. 

[EJ42]

Birdieboink wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Dragon Age = more immersive, better character development, better plot

Mass Effect 2 = Better visuals

Half of the time developing DA was making the engine, actually. I think if DA had better animation and graphics it would be as good, as well as giving the PC more personality (no, NOT VOICE OVER) with more facial animations or focus on them in conversations.

I really felt that if the Warden had had their own voice, the game could have been immersive. As it was, with an archaic combat system and a Warden who never spoke (Shepard at least speaks during ME and ME2) during dialog scenes, Dragon Age felt like an older game that someone had decided "hey, let's go release this!" With a top-down combat perspective in addition, I really don't see how anyone could view Dragon Age as immersive. Maybe that's just me. Also, considering that some of the places you traveled to actually took more time to load than to explore, it really felt like there was a lot of wasted potential; I wish they'd just used Unreal 3 as an engine.

Mass Effect had a far superior plot (full of twists and turns, where most of the sidequests actually worked towards fleshing out the universe) than Dragon Age, but maybe that's just me. There was never anything unexpected going on in Dragon Age, and the world itself hardly felt original or inspired. Also, Mass Effect's combat and art design are far, far greater than Dragon Age, though this might have something to do with DA utilizing what seemed to me to be a rather poor graphics engine.

People who complain about the PC not having a voice fall into the same category as ones who whine about graphics.  You have NO imagination!

The PC is YOU, not some other "person" you interact with.  When you click on the various conversation options, then you can feel free to speak the lines yourself.  That is the PC's voice.  If that doesn't do it for you, then imagine what the voice should sound like as if you are reading a book.

You do read, don't you?

No?

(Comic books/graphic novels do not count)

[Shallina]

Cheap graphic tricks everywhere is DAO. Cheap tricks in many area so the game could run on completly outdated system. They break the "feeling" of the game. MAny thing has been squeezed beceause it was to much for XBOX/PS3 (graphics and processor ressource). And it screams on the screen.



ME2 didn't have to do all those tricks, the environement are more basic, a metal wall with good texture. Can't really compare to DAO small town.



DAO was too ambitious for XBOX/PS3. The worst of it ? They probably downgraded their original work so it could run on those 2 console.

[Shadowwot]

I love both games but I prefer DAO so far (have not finished ME2 yet - I started playing it and decided to re-play ME1 again). I consider Morrigan to be one of the greatest NPC's in any RPG I've ever played and I just loved all of the cool stories in the game and morally gray quests in the game (I thought the werewolves and Dalish elf story was one of the best).



I consider both to be amazing games and I think it's silly that people are trashing either one when both are exceptional just different.