No it wasn't it was mostly negative and flat until the end when he said he wasn't finishing but he was enjoying it despite itself.SickBritKid said:
Zero Punctuation: Dragon Age II
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Watch the review again. The only real negative thing he said about the first game was how everyone talks while splattered in gore. That was about the ONLY point he made again it. The rest were more praising it's use of great dialogue, characterization, and all that.Kaanyr Vhok said:
I watched it before the last post. I think u need to watch it again. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1096-Dragon-Age-OriginsSickBritKid said:
It was cheery by his standards but nothing on a Painkiller level.
I admit the first game was pretty good. But, I have to say that I am disappointed, like Yahtzee with DA:2 for the simple reason that the game play is not fun. The whole point of an RPG battle system is for tactics, killing dudes, and looking awesome while doing so. There is no targeting system at all, and the whole 'target the enemy that your looking at' is sort of FPS thing that does not work in this game, you really should turn 'auto-attack' on just to avoid RSI. Give Resonance of Fate anytime, the plot and dialogue weren't well written but it had the decency of being fun to play. That's the thing he goes for, whether the game is fun or not.
I did. Yahtzee liked the game. He thought it was a good game.Kaanyr Vhok said:
He DID NOT like Dragon Age II, apparently.
Man, the wooden hair thing was such a huge irritation for me in ME/ME2. They have such nicely-done skin textures on the face, and then it hits this rigid line of hair which looks completely unnatural. Wtf is up with that? Did they run out of budget after doing all the skin and facial features but just before they got to the hair?
I don't think he has one in every video, but he definitely likes to do that. The example that stands out the most for me was his whole cats thing in the Just Cause 2 review. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1632-Just-Cause-2]Linkassassin360 said:
So...
Dragon Age Origins: It's really a problem that you play the same game with multiple races and backstories...
Dragon Age II: It's really a problem that you play the same game with a single race and backstory available.
That sound you're hearing are the developers smacking their heads against a wall realizing that the only way to please some people is... well, impossible.
Dragon Age Origins: It's really a problem that you play the same game with multiple races and backstories...
Dragon Age II: It's really a problem that you play the same game with a single race and backstory available.
That sound you're hearing are the developers smacking their heads against a wall realizing that the only way to please some people is... well, impossible.
(Be warned: There will be DAO and DAII spoilers in this post!)
Yes, sorry, you are right, they are (were) creatures of godly power, previously worshipped as gods, and what else makes a god than beleief.
However, they are pure evil, don't really talk or show much sign of intelligence (though they said to posess terrible intellect) or consciousness for that matter: they just exist to carry out vengence, nothing more, even if the lore says otherwise, I saw no signs of that intellect. It's not like the darkspawn needed much strategy, nor did they seem to employ any. They were not stupid, but that's it.
A god in my book is a creature at least conscious and possibly intelligent as well. If it's only a conscious being, as in a natural god (like many of those worshipped in the far east) then it is always in balance with the world. There is the question of which world (for a creature in balance with another world then where it actually is probably would try and rearrange things, much to the misfortune of the world's denizens). If it's intellient as well, then it probably has more on it's mind than destruction. The Maker, for example has both consciosness and intellect, shamelessly "copying" the God of Christianity (for the most part). He has goals, ideas, philosophy and gets rather pissed off when something doesn't go according to plan: much like a human (not as much as the Greek gods, but a bit more than his Christian "original").
The Archdemon doesn't fall into either category, it's a vessel of destruction and (fairly pointless) vengence. They might have intelligence but they seem to have no consciousness and that doesn't make a god, it doesen't even make a living thing (and thus it's not even a demigod). It's a machine, a magical spell, really close to a "simple" force: predictable and boring, although terrible indeed.
And that's why they didn't feel like gods to me, even if technically they are. I wanted the Maker in the story, or at least his avatar or emissary or angel or whatever. There was no sign whatsoever that he actually existed and while that's okay IRL or even in a sci-fi, it's not okay in an epic fantasy story. All you have in the game are legends and dogma and some ambiguous clues.
DA2 found a much better scope for a dark fantasy setting. If it's all about realism, then seeing world history in the making (and influencing it a bit) is the most "epic" you can get. Is that too little? You influenced the whole world to some extent, but more importantly saw an event that will have an impact on the whole world of the game. I for one, can't wait to see what the consequences will be and how that will play a (hopefully major) part in DAIII or an expansion pack.
Yes, sorry, you are right, they are (were) creatures of godly power, previously worshipped as gods, and what else makes a god than beleief.
However, they are pure evil, don't really talk or show much sign of intelligence (though they said to posess terrible intellect) or consciousness for that matter: they just exist to carry out vengence, nothing more, even if the lore says otherwise, I saw no signs of that intellect. It's not like the darkspawn needed much strategy, nor did they seem to employ any. They were not stupid, but that's it.
A god in my book is a creature at least conscious and possibly intelligent as well. If it's only a conscious being, as in a natural god (like many of those worshipped in the far east) then it is always in balance with the world. There is the question of which world (for a creature in balance with another world then where it actually is probably would try and rearrange things, much to the misfortune of the world's denizens). If it's intellient as well, then it probably has more on it's mind than destruction. The Maker, for example has both consciosness and intellect, shamelessly "copying" the God of Christianity (for the most part). He has goals, ideas, philosophy and gets rather pissed off when something doesn't go according to plan: much like a human (not as much as the Greek gods, but a bit more than his Christian "original").
The Archdemon doesn't fall into either category, it's a vessel of destruction and (fairly pointless) vengence. They might have intelligence but they seem to have no consciousness and that doesn't make a god, it doesen't even make a living thing (and thus it's not even a demigod). It's a machine, a magical spell, really close to a "simple" force: predictable and boring, although terrible indeed.
And that's why they didn't feel like gods to me, even if technically they are. I wanted the Maker in the story, or at least his avatar or emissary or angel or whatever. There was no sign whatsoever that he actually existed and while that's okay IRL or even in a sci-fi, it's not okay in an epic fantasy story. All you have in the game are legends and dogma and some ambiguous clues.
DA2 found a much better scope for a dark fantasy setting. If it's all about realism, then seeing world history in the making (and influencing it a bit) is the most "epic" you can get. Is that too little? You influenced the whole world to some extent, but more importantly saw an event that will have an impact on the whole world of the game. I for one, can't wait to see what the consequences will be and how that will play a (hopefully major) part in DAIII or an expansion pack.
And that we can blame on EA, who pushed Bioware to release DA2 before it could be completed and polished to a mirror sheen like they did DA:O.cisjeay said:
And that we can blame on EA, who pushed Bioware to release DA2 before it could be completed and polished to a mirror sheen like they did DA:O.cisjeay said:
I said I played for about 15 hours. Really I checked I played for 25 and the game was a piece of shit. DA:O was a certified piece of human shit and DA 2 is a dumbed down piece of human shit. DA:O had the worse encounters since maybe Pools of Darkness. It was like playing a sidescroller. Ok the first 10 hours were cool but then its the same wave of level scaled unbalanced AI that all fights the same. There was like one puzzle. The side quest were worthless.cisjeay said: