Dragon Age 2 is superior to the first despite what everyone says
- Thread starter taiwwa
- Start date
That does sound pretty cool. Not only does it make the player consider resource usage(in this case, mana/heat build up), but you can create genuine story implications through gameplay. It often feels like many times in the Dragon Age series, your gameplay choices conflict with the storyline(like becoming a blood mage), and its never acknowledged.Kahunaburger said:
Dragon Age's combat also suffers from the MMO syndrome when it comes to tactics. Fighters utilize taunt/aggro to gather the enemies attention rather than the game requiring you to tactically position your characters. This then allows you to have morrigan to sit next to a group of enemies and spam cone of cold all day. The spells are one-dimensional and boring, with trees often having the same progression for all elements. Even with team damage, proper placement of AOEs usually solves most encounters, which was made even WORSE in the sequel by them removing the penalties for using them.
Its like they developed the game with the trappings of what made the combat great in Baldur's gate(Real time with pause), without understanding the core of the experience. BG2 had you face a diverse range of enemies and balanced groups that would often require to you change your tactics based off what you're facing. Like, "better get my fighters away so the mind flayers don't rape their low intelligence score", or "Oh god a mage fight! I have to get through those magic shields before he explodes my entire party. Oh man, he summoned a huge demon. Have to move my fighters to keep him busy." Instead we fight waves of boring bandits, and darkspawn who barely change their tactics. Lets not even get started about the banal boss fights compared to things like Dragons, and Liches....
IIRC, in the KOTOR series, if you used dark side powers in combat, did that tilt you more towards the dark side? Or was it something like you could only access dark side abilities if you were dark side, or something like that.
But yeah, in DA2 there seems to be two games going on that aren't really related to each other. There is combat. And then there is the story. Nothing you do during combat affects the story. The only thing at stake during combat is whether or not you will have to reload and replay the last ten minutes of gameplay. As such, I just put it on easy to get it over with because the story was more interesting than the combat. There really wasn't any consideration in combat IMO. It was just kill every red dot on the screen.
But yeah, in DA2 there seems to be two games going on that aren't really related to each other. There is combat. And then there is the story. Nothing you do during combat affects the story. The only thing at stake during combat is whether or not you will have to reload and replay the last ten minutes of gameplay. As such, I just put it on easy to get it over with because the story was more interesting than the combat. There really wasn't any consideration in combat IMO. It was just kill every red dot on the screen.
Only if you played it on an easy difficulty (Hard or less) or found an overpowered party configuration. The force multiplier on Nightmare causes even basic attacks to stunlock dps characters and friendly fire makes most of the high power damage option require more than mashing as even single target spells could hit your allies if you weren't careful with them. Besides, you could literally solo DA:O on Nightmare so I don't understand how it was any less of a button-masher than Dragon Age 2. An Arcane Warrior+Bloodmage could win the auto-loss fight that took place near the end of the game and skip the prison segment entirely.anthony87 said:
To be fair I'm referring exclusively to the PC versions and different combinations of characters and abilities dramatically alters the game balance. Such as Avaline making your party invulnerable to damage, where as Fenris was a terrible tank and using him as one made the game fairly difficult to beat. I should reiterate that only Nightmare actually qualified as a game the rest was a terrible joke that's bad at being Dynasty Warriors.
I'd submit that the lack of tactical elements is a shortcoming in both games, particularly DA2. It's not like they work well as ARPGs.poiumty said:
The games were made with the intention of introducing tactical gameplay reminiscent of its forebears even though they failed. Dragon Age 2 tried to accommodate too many different styles and suffered for it. Fast paced action and strategy with micro/macro tactics don't mix.poiumty said:
Really? A DA2 thread? Not sure if milking it for post counts, or if genuine, but either way...
DA2 misstepped a few times, but compared to DA:O, where the missteps were smaller, less noticeable, and less frequent, it's taken as some kind of horror. Most of the characters aren't as well developed as in the original, the choices made throughout felt less open and more scripted, and the locations just fell flat altogether.
Consider Shale, Oghren, and Morrigan. Their counterparts? A whiny prat with a singular desire to decide either church or family. A whiny elf with a singular desire to destroy all mages, because he was wronged by one. A ditzy elf with a singular desire to learn the old ways, even if it means betraying her clan.
Art and combat, sure. The story, however, acts as a prelude to the Mage-Templar war that is coming in the next installment(s). The first act sets up the third act, while the second and third act set up two entirely different games. When the Qunari return, there will be blood. This is a fact. They want to set that up, fine, I'm cool with that, it'll take awhile for them to get to Par Vollen, start up the war drums, and get back into it. But spending two thirds of your game setting up a big climax, only to get a single scene that itself acts as exposition for something greater is a bit cheap.
DA2 was good, make no mistake, but compared to the self-contained narrative and dynamic characters of the first, it falls short.
DA2 misstepped a few times, but compared to DA:O, where the missteps were smaller, less noticeable, and less frequent, it's taken as some kind of horror. Most of the characters aren't as well developed as in the original, the choices made throughout felt less open and more scripted, and the locations just fell flat altogether.
Consider Shale, Oghren, and Morrigan. Their counterparts? A whiny prat with a singular desire to decide either church or family. A whiny elf with a singular desire to destroy all mages, because he was wronged by one. A ditzy elf with a singular desire to learn the old ways, even if it means betraying her clan.
Art and combat, sure. The story, however, acts as a prelude to the Mage-Templar war that is coming in the next installment(s). The first act sets up the third act, while the second and third act set up two entirely different games. When the Qunari return, there will be blood. This is a fact. They want to set that up, fine, I'm cool with that, it'll take awhile for them to get to Par Vollen, start up the war drums, and get back into it. But spending two thirds of your game setting up a big climax, only to get a single scene that itself acts as exposition for something greater is a bit cheap.
DA2 was good, make no mistake, but compared to the self-contained narrative and dynamic characters of the first, it falls short.
I strongly disagree with the OP. DA2 had a lot going for it, but a ton of corners were cut, including the story.
Origins had a rich detailed world, and an engaging story that made you feel for the characters and the ultimate fate of Fereldin. But DA2 was a shallow string of loosely interconnected subplots given out by largely forgettable characters. The level design was near non existent, with constantly repeated sets (this argument has been used ad infinitum, but its a glaring issue, and unforgivable). The game experienced framerate issues of consoles, and the graphics are sub par across the board.
I'll give DA2 some credit: the combat was upgraded to be more fast paced, and the animations and effects are rather great. But, the game never seems challenging, with most conflicts requiring minimal input to survive, where as Origins was strategic, and required micromanagement.
DA2 is not superior. DA2 was made to profitize on the success of its predecessor.
Origins had a rich detailed world, and an engaging story that made you feel for the characters and the ultimate fate of Fereldin. But DA2 was a shallow string of loosely interconnected subplots given out by largely forgettable characters. The level design was near non existent, with constantly repeated sets (this argument has been used ad infinitum, but its a glaring issue, and unforgivable). The game experienced framerate issues of consoles, and the graphics are sub par across the board.
I'll give DA2 some credit: the combat was upgraded to be more fast paced, and the animations and effects are rather great. But, the game never seems challenging, with most conflicts requiring minimal input to survive, where as Origins was strategic, and required micromanagement.
DA2 is not superior. DA2 was made to profitize on the success of its predecessor.
The first one was dire. The second one was undeniably better. It improved on it in every way except for maybe originality, but you can't blame them for that.
But that's not to say I like Dragon Age 2 in any way. I played through it purely to say I've played through it. I hated pretty much every second of it. It was a pretty bad game. Had some fucking annoying bugs too.
But that's not to say I like Dragon Age 2 in any way. I played through it purely to say I've played through it. I hated pretty much every second of it. It was a pretty bad game. Had some fucking annoying bugs too.
I don't think DA2 should get the vitriolic hatred that it did, in fact I think I actually defended it at some point. But to be honest, the DA series has been fun enough I suppose, but really nothing spectacular to begin with. And, seriously people, are we really dragging a year old title back out just to get another Bioware thread going?
What kind of strange creature spends hours of their recreational time dong something they absolutely hate every second of? Please don't tell us if you also hammer nails through your genitalia for shits and giggles, just so you can tell your friends at the bar.Robert Ewing said:
Not that DA2 is as bad as doing the latter, but I really don't understand why you'd do it. I don't enjoy a game, I don't play it... time is a valuable commodity.