Dragon Age 2 is superior to the first despite what everyone says
- Thread starter taiwwa
- Start date
I guess the gamers who liked DA2 more than DAO, simply played it on a console.
DAO was half-decent with some nice stuff, but I would have hated it too without a topdown view or the RTS controls. Doing all that with a controller and dumbed down game rules (like no friendly fire) ruins a game like that further. Even small things like inventory management for the whole party becomes a bigger chore without a mouse.
The doesn't mean DA2 should've got dumbed down for the xbox crowd. One button combat is a really poor camoflage for what basicly amounts to an auto-attack without the convenience of auto.
I guess DA2's mindless repetition when you're relaxing on a couch, may be less bad than a total clusterfuck of DAO on a 360, but it's still better to play neither.
Bioware made the mistake of copying the ME model for DA without noting the differences between those two series.
When you take a shooter with RPG elements(ME1) and remove some RPG elements and focus more on the action you can still wind up with a better game (ME2 arguably). That's because there's nothing wrong with making a shooter perse.
Take instead a pure RPG(DAO) and remove RPG elements and add a little more action, you end up with a game(DA2) that is neither a functional action game, nor a decent tactical RPG: pure shit.
Ways to fix the next DA: either shore up the weakest parts of DAO: encounter design and loot progression, or a total departure from the party-based RPG with an action game at the core and RPG elements on the side.
DAO was half-decent with some nice stuff, but I would have hated it too without a topdown view or the RTS controls. Doing all that with a controller and dumbed down game rules (like no friendly fire) ruins a game like that further. Even small things like inventory management for the whole party becomes a bigger chore without a mouse.
The doesn't mean DA2 should've got dumbed down for the xbox crowd. One button combat is a really poor camoflage for what basicly amounts to an auto-attack without the convenience of auto.
I guess DA2's mindless repetition when you're relaxing on a couch, may be less bad than a total clusterfuck of DAO on a 360, but it's still better to play neither.
Bioware made the mistake of copying the ME model for DA without noting the differences between those two series.
When you take a shooter with RPG elements(ME1) and remove some RPG elements and focus more on the action you can still wind up with a better game (ME2 arguably). That's because there's nothing wrong with making a shooter perse.
Take instead a pure RPG(DAO) and remove RPG elements and add a little more action, you end up with a game(DA2) that is neither a functional action game, nor a decent tactical RPG: pure shit.
Ways to fix the next DA: either shore up the weakest parts of DAO: encounter design and loot progression, or a total departure from the party-based RPG with an action game at the core and RPG elements on the side.
Whenever I see someone say "I think X no matter what anyone says", I assume they are an idiot or plugging their ears and shouting loudly-... so yeah, an idiot.DoPo said:
OP: considering that over the entire internet, DA2 scores less than DA:O, and that my older brother who loved DA:O, told me to not even try DA2, I am going to assume that you are an opinionated fanboy of DA2. Especially since you are still on your first play through. I don't judge games against other games in the franchise until at least my 2nd play through is complete. It is hard to find problems in a game if you've only played it once.
you must be trolling.
DA2 had like 3 dungeons, and each was reused infinitely. The combat was lame, more akin to Dynasty Warriors, and had only one set of attack animations for each class.
Quite inexcusable in a AAA release, add to that the glitches and a forgettable story, and you get the only game Ive ever truly regretted buying.
DA2 had like 3 dungeons, and each was reused infinitely. The combat was lame, more akin to Dynasty Warriors, and had only one set of attack animations for each class.
Quite inexcusable in a AAA release, add to that the glitches and a forgettable story, and you get the only game Ive ever truly regretted buying.
Soviet Heavy said:
In case you haven't already seen it, the thread lives on [http://gigglesquee.blogspot.com/] in blogspot form. It's not quite the same without comments by other forumites, but it's still hilarious.80Maxwell08 said:
I found Dragon age 2 too not live up to Dragon age origins. the Combat was boring, the story was pretty boring, one city and i don't like playing as humans. Origins was fun with its combat on harders difficulties but if you left it on the lowest setting then you would find a tap a thon.
when i read you're op, i didn't actually know you were serious or you were just being sarcastic.
when i read you're op, i didn't actually know you were serious or you were just being sarcastic.
I generally play games for gameplay, and DA2 had very little in that respect. The combat was the worst part. DA:O did manage to have a minor tactical aspect, that DA2 completely failed to deliver. I just felt hopelessly out of control as my party was permanently stunlocked, or running around like headless chicken. The longer cooldowns in DA2 also meant that most of the time there was little to do, while DA:O established some amount of ressource management with stamina and mana.taiwwa said:
DA:O had some exploration going for it, while DA2 was merely a matter of following the arrow in completely linear environments.
In the fluff department DA:O was well polished with pretty icons and item descriptions for almost everything, while DA2 demoted all items to passive stat increases.
In terms of the story and dialogue DA:O actually cared for it's characters while DA2 turned them into herp derp jokes. I just ended up selecting random choices in the dialogue wheel in DA2 because Hawke would just say weird out of context stuff anyway. In DA:O I could actually choose what my Warden would say.
An RPG is all about trying to make an illusion of a world by putting attention and detail into the little things. DA:O did excellent in that respect and DA2 seemed like it just couldn't be bothered.
Wait, I see what's happened here.
You said you've almost beat the game. There's your problem.
Finish it and then come back and tell us how sensible and fulfilling the end was.
Slight spoiler: It's not.
To be fair I agree on a few counts. Honestly, I find pretty much all RPG combat pretty boring so DA2 was marginally better in this respect because A) It's a billion times easier and B) It moves faster meaning less time spent in it.
Aesthetically I didn't find much different from the original
While some dialogue aspects were better I think the clusterfuck that was pretty much the entire third act ruined the story for me. Not that it was all that good anyway.
You said you've almost beat the game. There's your problem.
Finish it and then come back and tell us how sensible and fulfilling the end was.
Slight spoiler: It's not.
To be fair I agree on a few counts. Honestly, I find pretty much all RPG combat pretty boring so DA2 was marginally better in this respect because A) It's a billion times easier and B) It moves faster meaning less time spent in it.
Aesthetically I didn't find much different from the original
While some dialogue aspects were better I think the clusterfuck that was pretty much the entire third act ruined the story for me. Not that it was all that good anyway.
This is my sentiment, DA2 would have been a perfectly serviceable game, although way below expected Bioware quality. The ending drove me into a rage, just about all arguments about the current ME3 ending problem were already present in DA2, the lack of choices mattering, disregarding of conventions set by the previous game, you name it.Reet72 said:
Well, that's two massive endgame failures in a row as far as I'm concerned, I know better than to invest in any of their properties now, nothing good comes of it.
I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with both Dragon Age games, as they both have fantastic and terrible aspects to them.
I prefer DA2's art style and more action-y combat, but didn't like how battles were often deprived of strategy and ended up really badly balanced. I preferred the ability trees of DA2, but I preferred how DAO handled class skills (such as lockpicking) and equipment.
Preferred how DA2 handled romances, but dislike how the faction choices for the main story went straight to hell in Act 3. Also, the time skips between acts were handled very poorly. DA2's story felt more engaging, but also less complete than DAO's.
I prefer DA2's art style and more action-y combat, but didn't like how battles were often deprived of strategy and ended up really badly balanced. I preferred the ability trees of DA2, but I preferred how DAO handled class skills (such as lockpicking) and equipment.
Preferred how DA2 handled romances, but dislike how the faction choices for the main story went straight to hell in Act 3. Also, the time skips between acts were handled very poorly. DA2's story felt more engaging, but also less complete than DAO's.
Wow, you just about said verbatim exactly what I was going to say here. No, I mean it. I was formulating my response with "the first one bored me to tears, so I never-" and then I saw someone had already started it off just like that...lolIwata said:
Could someone who thinks DA2 is better please explain to me how ignoring the choices from the first game, having shitty combat, reusing the same dungeons over and over again, locking you in the one place that doesn't change at all over a decade or so and giving you virtually no choice at all beyond the selections of the dialogue wheel makes a game superior?
Because DA:O doesn't make them gigglesquee? Haha I have no idea. I think that sometimes people confuse characters/plots that come off like they were designed by a committee of tropers with good characters/plots.anthony87 said:
I consider DA:O to be the more memorable experience because of a fantastic storyline and more interesting characters as well as villains.
DA2 is by far the better 'game' though. Gameplay and combat are far superior. The characters are still interesting and solid. The Act 2 build up and conclusion are amazing and the game completely deserved it's high critical reviews at time of release.
I put gameplay and fun factor over story though. Those who value story more probably wouldn't favor DA2.
DA2 is by far the better 'game' though. Gameplay and combat are far superior. The characters are still interesting and solid. The Act 2 build up and conclusion are amazing and the game completely deserved it's high critical reviews at time of release.
I put gameplay and fun factor over story though. Those who value story more probably wouldn't favor DA2.
My feelings on this game are incontrovertibly superior to others.
The funny thing is, I get this as much (if not more) from the comments than from the original post.
The funny thing is, I get this as much (if not more) from the comments than from the original post.
Based on what I've read, I'm either an idiot or obviously lying for saying that I actually do prefer DA2 to Origins.
The problem for me seems to be Bioware wanted to make DA2 much more accessible to people who didn't play Origins (Much like they did with ME1 to ME2)
DA2 was the first game I'd played since the ME series that I actually played to the end, multiple times. My views however could be skewed because I played 2 before 1, but anyway, I'm going to weigh in.
Yes, DA2 had a more enclosed, repetitive world to run around in. Yes, ultimately your choices in 2 boil down to "do you want to protect the interest of a special interest group that you or one of your family members are a member of OR do you want to protect the entity responsible for protecting the greater populous?"
There isn't a whole lot of leniency. To me though, DA2 is greater than the sum of its parts. I had a blast playing 2. I've played it multiple times, multiple classes, multiple morality paths, and multiple party combinations.
Origins is great. It truly is a fantastic RPG experience. But if I had to walk into my room right now and pick a game that I had more fun with, I'm picking up DA2.
I have NEVER understood the immense hatred for DA2. Never.
The problem for me seems to be Bioware wanted to make DA2 much more accessible to people who didn't play Origins (Much like they did with ME1 to ME2)
DA2 was the first game I'd played since the ME series that I actually played to the end, multiple times. My views however could be skewed because I played 2 before 1, but anyway, I'm going to weigh in.
Yes, DA2 had a more enclosed, repetitive world to run around in. Yes, ultimately your choices in 2 boil down to "do you want to protect the interest of a special interest group that you or one of your family members are a member of OR do you want to protect the entity responsible for protecting the greater populous?"
There isn't a whole lot of leniency. To me though, DA2 is greater than the sum of its parts. I had a blast playing 2. I've played it multiple times, multiple classes, multiple morality paths, and multiple party combinations.
Origins is great. It truly is a fantastic RPG experience. But if I had to walk into my room right now and pick a game that I had more fun with, I'm picking up DA2.
I have NEVER understood the immense hatred for DA2. Never.