People who comment on the Guardian's music articles, apparently. But hey, at least you can't say he didn't give the game a fair chance.GoaThief said:
Dragon Age 2 is superior to the first despite what everyone says
- Thread starter taiwwa
- Start date
Uhh. No. POTENTIAL for better plot and story? Yeah. The way it was executed though... no.taiwwa said:
You seriously have to be kidding. IDK, maybe DA:O looked really crap on consoles, but if I compare the two, 2 looks like S*** whilst one looks reasonable. And the darkspawn in 2 look retarded. And the way undead walk in 2 looks retarded. And the deep roads in 2 look retarded at times, not bad at others. The only thing I think was done better was the Qunari, to an extent. If they all looked more like the Arishok than they do, then I'd be very happy.
I'm sorry, but I never saw infinite flurry there, nor a number of other abilities I had used. And the combat was... temperamental. At times it worked similar to DA:O combat, but faster, and other times you had to mash a button to get anything to happen - shit design if ever I saw it. Not to mention that the battles themselves are often poorly thought out or poorly executed - or both. I can't tell you the number of times where I walked into a room and had enemies continuously spawn in a manner like this:
-One general and one 'Lieutenant' [High Health, Heavy hitting, knockback on hit] spawn
-5 seconds later 4 more lieutenants spawn
-10 seconds later 4 more lieutenants spawn
-10 seconds later 4 more lieutenants and another general spawn
-10 seconds later 4 normal enemies spawn
-10 seconds later 4 lieutenants and 2 generals spawn
Now, ignoring the fact that they spawn in - which is crap in its own regard - there is one massive problem with this: All the lieutenants that spawn in have reasonably high health, reasonably high damage and a knockback or microstun on every attack, meaning that whoever they were engaging could do nothing at all if more than one were attacking them at a time. And, if you'll notice, there were at least 4 every ten seconds with a general who had high health, buffing abilities, high damage and other abilities as well. That is just... bad. Instead of using rush cheese tactics to make a fight challenging, do things more like what ME3 has done, where every enemy has a specific weakness and strength, and you mix them up in different configurations for a challenge instead. But don't spawn things in either.
The spawning things in also really bugged me. DA:O only rarely spawned things in, making every encounter feel planned and designed for you, rather than a rush job where things just keep getting dumped behind you as the devs CBF putting enemies in strategic positions and making them use them.
1. The dialogue is the whole freaking point of a Bioware game. Hell, its what many people wanted more of in two as there really wasn't enough of it. DA:O levels of dialogue with DA2 styled companion interrupts would have been awesome. Sadly, there wasn't quite that much dialogue, though I found that somewhat forgivable considering there wasn't much of anything else.
2. The combat was old school RPG combat - tactical combat - that people were looking for. Not to mention, if your warrior only took out 1/10th of a darkspawns health from a heavy blow - you're doing something wrong. I was one hitting them with my freaking rogue - not the DPS class they are in 2, but more of a lockpicking and trap disarming class. Sten was just cleaving through them. And the Golems. And the Dragons. And the abominations. And the Assassins. And everything basically. Go Sten.
3. Yeah, the darkspawn were generic. So what really. Mages and Templars are generic, communist enemies are overused. Elves and Dwarves are overused too, as are rogues and warriors, and pretty much everything in fantasy these days. The Darkspawn were just one more thing, that got somewhat more interesting in Awakening.
The Qunari conflict was good up until the end, when it became crap. There was no opportunity for anything but kill the communist Qunari. And then it turned out that the whole thing had been planned for a while, and a lot of the 'subtlety' went out the window for me. A less rushed end would have been nice, with a chance to stop the conflict instead of have it happen, but no. Bioware wanted you to have some big fight, so that's what you did.
Mages v Templars was boring from the start, then just became crap at the end. I am kicking templar ass with Bethany, Varric, Anders, Merril and Aveline, yet Orsino thinks its hopeless and somehow turns himself into a harvestor. WTF. I liked it better when the Harvestors were some experiment from that Dwarven Thaig, not something any mage could turn themselves into. Let alone the fact that we were kicking templar ass. After the first damn wave or so he turned on us. WTF. Meredith was a bit more interesting in how that turned out, but that fight, like so many others, just turned into a spam fest as all those statues started fighting everyone.
Not all of the same abilities are still there, and that isn't what made it deep in the first place. What made it deep was a lot of what you hated about it: It was slower and required more careful planning than DA2 combat. DA2 consists of; go in, alpha strike, spam attack, win. In DA:O, I had to actually worry about the placement of my warriors, rogues and mages for some fights, I was worrying more about which abilities I was going to use, where I was going to go, and how I was going to position everyone rather than spamming a button. You cited lots of waiting in DA:O combat. That was only if you didn't spend that time planning.
Saod it before, say it again: the DA2 art sucked. It looks even more dated than Origins, and I'm using the HD texture patch. Qunari are somewhat improved to be a little less generic, but other things, like the Darkspawn, have become absolute crap in 2. In 1, they looked somewhat scary. In 2, they look like comedy undead costumes.
1. Geeking. GTFO now.
2. No, they are not 'geeking' over menus and stats, they are 'geeking' over control that they had that has been taken away from them, and the more tactical side of the gameplay that became lesser in DA2.
3. You cite the point is the story telling experience, but you complain about the dialogue in DA:O. Uhh... Wha?
Now, there are some things DA2 did better than Origins. The party member contribution to dialogue being one of them (Where you could have Varric make up BS about who you were to intimidate people into believing you or W/E). There are also a ton of things it did wrong. Combat IMO, art and graphics IMO, level design, ect. Which you prefer is up to your opinion, but I find Origins far better than 2.
Whether I like the game or not, that game will go down in history as one of those games that redefined something or other. I just like to say I played it.GoaThief said:
Same as I've played through Duke Nukem forever, so I can say I've played the worst game ever.
And Dwarf Fortress, the most perplexing game ever.
I see it as a rite of passage or something. Also, no genitalia mutilation here, I prize my piece far too much.
Bioware is weird in how they do sequels. Does anyone not remember KOTOR 2 and the weird rush job that it was?
If they had been lazy, they wouldn't have revamped the art and combat systems.
btw, if you're just tuning in, the two-handed warrior is by far the best class to play in this game. I tried the mage and the rogue. Not as good.
If they had been lazy, they wouldn't have revamped the art and combat systems.
btw, if you're just tuning in, the two-handed warrior is by far the best class to play in this game. I tried the mage and the rogue. Not as good.
to quote someone wiser than myself, I'll just say this: "Yeah, Well, that's just, like, your opinion man".taiwwa said:
don't make generalizations like this. For one, games are personal experiences, and not everyone will look for the same things you look for in games, and for two, simply claiming something that is so subject to personal opinion and preference as superior despite all other opinions is downright stupid.
a single person can not make that generalization. I suggest you think about how incredibly egotistical this post sounds.
Also, I disagree with your points on the story AND the combat. The combat in the original was more interesting and tactical. The second played like an action game, which was a step down in my opinion, but then again, that's just my opinion.
KOTOR 2 was essentially a campaign pack though, wasn't it? The engine was largely the same as I remember.Verzin said:
It's weird but for me KOTOR 1 was a magical experience, KOTOR 2 had an intriguing story. The dragon age games are more advanced, but they seem to lack the same magic of the KOTOR series.
Lastly, um, thoughts on the DLC? I've heard good things about DA2 DLC. People say that it redeems the game.
You don't have preconceptions of how a game should play before you play it? What about things such as genres, and styles companies are known for? You certainly don't approach a game made by Bioware, or RPG with the same expectations you would Infinity ward or a FPS. Any time developer decides to make a game with the intention living up to a standard(successor to Baldur's gate), I will hold them to that. Dragon Age Origins failed to live up to the standard set by its predecessors, but it was an honest effort.poiumty said:
Bioware was never clear about what they were trying to make with Dragon Age 2, other than the fact they were trying to branch out to different audiences. I remember seeing a gameplay video where they walked through the same combat scenario with an "action path" and the "pause/strategy path". The created the idea that the game would simultaneously be able to support both types of play, despite that being near impossible. It is noble to try to appeal to different audiences at the same time, but more often than not, it only creates confusion for those who thinking about buying the game. Bioware has made good games in the past, but the name alone was not enough for me to purchase the game when I don't know what I'm getting into.
Bioware attempted to appeal to me with the promise there would be gameplay reminiscent of Baldur's gate/Dragon Age 1, and that was clearly not the case. I'm not going to buy a game with the chance that it MIGHT be fun because I don't have the time/money to waste.
I tend to research my products before I try to purchase them, especially they require a significant amount of money(60 bones is a lot money). I'd rather not purchase a game clearly meant for someone else, despite the developers earnest intentions that it WILL appeal to me. Hence, why they didn't get my money.poiumty said:
If they wanted to make hack and slash/pseudo-RPGs and conversation/romance simulator games that is fine, they should at least be honest.
The thing about the whole stat RPG thing is that it's kind of a relic from when the most advanced video game was pong. If you think about it, games like Modern Warfare are actually RPG's. They have weapon stats and hit points. Meanwhile, the concept of stats doesn't exist in real life sports for instance.
While it's nice being able to build up your party, since you're kind of competing against yourself in this SP game, it is kind of silly. Like, at any time I can just lower the difficulty to easy and so messing with stats doesn't matter.
While it's nice being able to build up your party, since you're kind of competing against yourself in this SP game, it is kind of silly. Like, at any time I can just lower the difficulty to easy and so messing with stats doesn't matter.
