Dragon Age : Origins and Dragon Age II

[Neonit]

[
I've noticed that the most common way to attack DA2 is to compare it to DA:O.

Nonsense. People usually criticise DA2 by pointing out all the faults of DA2. It's not hard, it was a rushed game so their is a fuck tonne of them.

Comparisons to DA:O are there but that's usually after pointing out how shit DA2 was. Praise for DA2 on the other hand is most often limited to "I couldn't really get into DA:O. DA:O was too slow. DA:O does X for worse than DA2 does."

Why the hate? Because for all the cries of "I want something new and innovative!" Most people want the same thing over and over again.

They just need something to complain about.

That's some pretty fucking hardcore fanboyism. People didn't complain about DA2 because it was a rushed, cheap cash in that bastardised itself to "appeal to the COD crowd" (Bioware's words), rather because they just want to complain.

Legit.

See, at the start of your post i thought - you make some reasonable claims, and i kinda see your point, even though i do not agree with it.
Then you called my argument "fucking hardcore fanboyism" which pretty much killed all of your credibility. Also you should get to know me, i am neither a fan of bioware nor DA. Im not a fan of anything.

Yes, a lot of people had legitimate complaints, BUT MOST OF THEM were simply the case "This game is different that DA:O was, therefore i hate it".

And dont you even dare saying that a lot of people didnt attack DA2 based on the expectations, that rose from playing DA:O, because that would be just silly.

 

[norashepard]

I do agree with OP, I thought DA2 was miles better than DA:O, but usually for reasons everyone else hated?

Like, of course there were reused environments the thing took place in one location, but over a long period of time, something innovative and interesting that few other games bother trying.

And people give the characters bad raps because they're all so "generic" but that really only tells me that they weren't paying attention. Everyone thinks Isabela was just a generic hot chick foisted upon the player so that men would have something to look at, but she was leaps and bounds beyond the usual 'pretty face' in terms of characterization, and displayed a sentiment that a lot of people in the real world don't share: Women can have all the sex they want, dress how they want, and still be respectable and intelligent. Anders (especially because of his rework) shows the realities of traumatic events (and if you must be in-universe, the effects of the Grey Warden's joining), which again is something most games won't touch with a 99 1/2 foot pole. Fenris can be an abuser, Merrill reminds us that looks aren't everything, Varric is god, and Aveline, well, is Aveline.

Not to mention the story had a point beyond "kill the evil thing." It was an allegorical tale, in places, mirroring society's current attitudes towards gay/lesbian/bi and especially transgender people. Mages didn't choose to be who they are, and everyone think's they're trying to hurt normal people. LGBT+ people didn't choose it, but a lot of people believe that gays are trying to destroy their way of life.

Gameplay wise: Combat was smoother, and much more versatile, the waves of enemies thing wasn't detrimental in my opinon (and also present in DAO), Classes felt distinct, and there was actual in game repercussions to Hawke's relationships.

Also some people hated Hawke's voice, but I actually really liked it and it helped me connect better to the character, and made the dialogue much more affecting than DAO's silent sass.

DAO was just another generic fantasy crawl and really the only interesting things in it for me were the less generic characters (Shale, Sten, Bodhan/Sandal) and the varied origins, which really didn't matter as much as people claim they did. DAII, while maybe not the brightest shiniest thing ever, tried new things, and created something new and exciting.

Of course it really is to each their own, so that's just my feelings on the matter.

 

[Neonit]

See, at the start of your post i thought - you make some reasonable claims, and i kinda see your point, even though i do not agree with it.

Then you called my argument "fucking hardcore fanboyism" which pretty much killed all of your credibility.

That was in repsonse to your exceedingly arrogant claim that majority of the complaints directed at DA2 were merely because the game was different to DA:O.

Such a claim is presumptuous bullshit.

Ahh, i dont claim that majority of complaints are because of difference in those two games. Like i said, there are real issues there.
What i do however claim is that a lot of people rage because its different that previous title.

There is a slight difference between those two stances.

 

[Neonit]

Ahh, i dont claim that majority of complaints are because of difference in those two games. Like i said, there are real issues there.
What i do however claim is that a lot of people rage because its different that previous title.

There is a slight difference between those two stances.

Indeed there is. But that is not what you said.

Yes, a lot of people had legitimate complaints, BUT MOST OF THEM were simply the case "This game is different that DA:O was, therefore i hate it".

You are not saying "a lot" you are saying "most". In capital letters no less.

Ok, let me say it again then. There are a lot of legit complaints there. Most people however hate the game because it is different that what they expected, and what they did expect was DA:O v2.

They feel that "their game" has been

bastardised

 

[putowtin]

DA: Origin Vs DA II


Your Team
DA: Origin
Group of interesting characters each with their own back story

DA II
A couple of interesting team members who lose time to boring/ annoying characters

The World
DA: Origin
Different environments make you feel like you are travelling around an entire country

DA II
Reused environments with no outstanding features

The End Fight
DA: Origin
After Hours of preparation you face the Darkspawn and the Archdemon in an epic battle.

DA II
I'm the champion of Kirkwall I'm ready for the ultimate fight... fight over... WTF was that?!?!

I just want to say I like DA II, (I've just finished another run-through) I think my disappointment comes from the realisation that the game could have been so much more with the smallest of changes

 

[kickyourass]

For me it's not so much hatred as disappointment, there are places where it's very good, most of the voice acting is great, the animation is leagues better then in Origins, and the lead character actually speaks. There's a lot of good in here but the whole things feels really badly rushed, nearly every single environment is identical and weren't even that interesting to begin with, there's a complete lack of flavor text (I'm probably the only one this bothered so you can ignore this), there's still a really bothersome disconnect like in the first game where you can play as a Blood Mage and no one seems to notice (A much bigger deal here when you consider the story). And overall it just feels like huge chunks of the game had to be cut out to meet an unreasonable deadline, I mean it takes place over 10 years, first they skip a year right at the beginning, then they skip ahead 3 years, and then jump to the very end, that's crazy. The story is supposed to be how this semi-random nobody fought and clawed their way to being one of the most important people in Thedas history, but we miss huge portions of that fight. I understand that they couldn't have us play ALL of those 10 years but there HAD to have been something interesting happening in the 5-6 years between acts 2 and 3 maybe we could actually witness the city slowly go more and more to hell instead of just being told about it.

The biggest hit, at least for me is that you can't talk to your party like in the first one, in Origins you could strike up a conversation with a party member basically anywhere unless you were currently being stabbed. In DA:2 the conversations can only happen in their 'home' and only at certain times in the storyline, which is a shame because I love several of these characters and want to spend great portions of game time listening to them.

It's still a really good game, but not nearly as good as DA:O, and not nearly as good as it should have been.

 

[Frozengale]

and the villains in both games were damm boring. I mean in DA1 its just...the bad boogey man and in DA2 its just some crazy woman whose motives are never really fleshed out. I miss Irenicus and Master Li.

I can't for the life of me understand why people see the Darkspawn as the main antagonist of DA:O. They were nothing more than a backdrop/plot device to create the true conflict between the protaganist and the actual antagonist; Loghain. Who quite frankly I'd argue is one of the best (if not THE best) antagonist Bioware has ever created.

People don't think Loghain is the main antagonist because his reasoning and motivation are never fully fleshed out in the game. Yeah I know the expanded universe novels make it more clear and if you have him join you you can get a bit more background on it all, but the occupation by Orlais is something that is never really given any real structure. I was vaguely aware of it throughout the game but more often then not Loghain's motivation and reasoning just seemed to baffle me and he came off as a crazy idiot.

I think he could have been great if they explored him more in the game, but as it is he is a crap antagonist with no real depth.

I do agree with OP, I thought DA2 was miles better than DA:O, but usually for reasons everyone else hated?

And people give the characters bad raps because they're all so "generic" but that really only tells me that they weren't paying attention.

Or you know, they were paying attention and just didn't find the characters to be all that well written or engaging.

The only characters I liked were Aveline and the Arishok. Varic is okay but horribly overrated and everyone had their one basic personality quirk/gimmick/problem and just repeated that over and over again ad nauseum.

Which is so much different then DA:O characters? They share the same horrible problems of being one note characters. The reason I liked DA2 characters better was the dialogue tended to be more believable and you actually got to see characters go through some interesting story arcs. Varric's story arc was probably the best in the game and Merrill's is actually quite tragic. In DA:O you get arcs like "Sten lost his sword" and "Alistar wants to meet his sister". The only reason I ended up liking DA:O characters was because you could talk to them more even if the dialogue wasn't as good. But that's not a point for it because I have to slog through so much pointless back and forth dialogue to learn about these characters where in DA2 it does a much better job at showing me who they are. In fact the only reason Lelianna became my favorite character was because I took the time to play her DLC which actually sets up an interesting story arc with character development.

 

[Frozengale]

The biggest hit, at least for me is that you can't talk to your party like in the first one, in Origins you could strike up a conversation with a party member basically anywhere unless you were currently being stabbed. In DA:2 the conversations can only happen in their 'home' and only at certain times in the storyline, which is a shame because I really, REALLY liked these characters.

Yeah I agree with you on this. I did miss being able to talk to people at any time about all sorts of things. The one bright side to it I think is the character interactions and how they change throughout the 10 years. One of my favorite bits of flavor dialogue between the characters is when Merrill tries to return a ball of twine to Varric.

 

[kickyourass]

The biggest hit, at least for me is that you can't talk to your party like in the first one, in Origins you could strike up a conversation with a party member basically anywhere unless you were currently being stabbed. In DA:2 the conversations can only happen in their 'home' and only at certain times in the storyline, which is a shame because I really, REALLY liked these characters.

Yeah I agree with you on this. I did miss being able to talk to people at any time about all sorts of things. The one bright side to it I think is the character interactions and how they change throughout the 10 years. One of my favorite bits of flavor dialogue between the characters is when Merrill tries to return a ball of twine to Varric.

That was always one of my favorite parts from either game, and it did feel like their relationships were changing a bit over time, I'd have just like to have seen more of it. Though I'll be honest that particular moment really made my day when I first heard it, I always brought those two along because of how sweet they were together.

 

[RJ 17]

Honestly I think most people were just wanting to be Grey Warden fighting Dark Spawn again . But considering that you ended the frickin' Blight and as such dark spawn are no longer a horde, but rather scattered, disorganized groups, I really don't see how there was any way to keep fighting that fight.

I have heard this before but only from those who like DA2 who are trying to suggest reasons why others may not.

Truth be told I don't think you'll find many (if any) who like DA:O for the Grey Wardening.

I remember a lot of people complaining about that, actually, when the issue was first raised when the game came out. Perhaps not specifically pissed off that they weren't playing the Grey Wardens, but more speciically that they weren't playing THE Grey Warden. I think a lot of people were kinda expecting that if your Warder survived DA:O that DA2 would be a continuation of his/her story. They were expecting Dragon Age to be Mass Effect but in a fantasy setting. And when it didn't turn out that way, they were pissed off.

But I will admit, of the issues I brought up, the lack of The Warden was probably the least of people's problems. The big complaints were 1: Disjointed story that makes no sense (absolute BS, if you ask me, as I mentioned I explained in a topic long ago how the story makes perfect sense) and 2: Copy-Paste Dungeons (a perfectly valid and glaring complaint about the game).

 

[Willinium]

I myself created a thread quite like this and by the end of both the thread and the game the things that were wrong with it were: A downgrade in graphics, a short game with plot-holes the size of Tampa , Florida, forced conflict with the mages and templars, no chance to talk down the leaders of the factions ala landsmeet, and that the game itself while quite good feels like a rushed beta.

On the good side though there is: Great voice-acting, The emotional turmoil that Gamlen and Hawke share when Leandra dies with proper reactions from both of them, Fun combat (rogue and mage ), fun companions(mostly), the Qunari arc was one of the best, and the companions quests and interactions.

So all in all a good game with a few faults.

 

[Raikas]

and the villains in both games were damm boring. I mean in DA1 its just...the bad boogey man and in DA2 its just some crazy woman whose motives are never really fleshed out. I miss Irenicus and Master Li.

I can't for the life of me understand why people see the Darkspawn as the main antagonist of DA:O. They were nothing more than a backdrop/plot device to create the true conflict between the protaganist and the actual antagonist; Loghain. Who quite frankly I'd argue is one of the best (if not THE best) antagonist Bioware has ever created.

I think it's because a decent percentage of people went in expecting the darkspawn to be the villains and skipped the dialogue with the politics. And that's not an insult to them - I think it's one of those things that's easy to miss if you're not one of the people who either reads the codex as new things get added or who read the tie-in books. I mean, there's a dragon on the cover and in the name, and the dragon is the final boss, so it's not a stretch to assume that the dragon is the main antagonist.



Somewhat relatedly, I think I liked DA2 more than a lot of people did because I look at it as being more about the futility of fate than anything else. Sure, I was annoyed by the fact that there were those recycled environments and that the combat was suddenly so much easier to get through, but I loved that it was basically the story of terrible things happening to this one guy and his friends. That the choices in the game basically amounted to Horrible Thing A vs. Horrible Thing B. didn't bother me at all - and I was pleased that it ended without some big joyous triumph.

 

[Adamantium93]

I tend to be much kinder to DA2 than most people.

DA:O was my favorite game when it came out. So I want everyone to realize that I played and enjoyed DA:O.

But I found DA2 to be better in many ways with only a few failures that prevented it from being a good game.

Pros:
-Interesting characters. Granted, many of them are based on your average trope, but all have something that brings them past it (except Fenris). I didn't find any of the characters to be as flat and stereotypical as everybody says. I definitely preferred them to DA:O's cast who, while fun, are all very generic (A giant, stoic, and fierce warrior who secretly has a heart of gold? An heir to the throne who never wanted to be a leader? A dark, seductive woman who hates everything around her? Yeah, I've NEVER seen those before).

-The ability system. Spending points in trees to give me better degrees of specialization, picking and choosing what I think will make my character be how I want him, is much better than the very linear, very limited DA:O style.

-Better combat. Wait, hear me out. Attacks in DA2 felt like they had weight to them. Sure, combat was a bit more stylized. But compare it to DA:O where I beat the game by clicking on an enemy to start attacking, then hit abilities as they came off cooldown, casting a heal from Wynn or chugging a potion when needed. In DA2 I found myself moving around and using abilities to disable enemies to hamper their killing potential, prioritizing the most dangerous threats, and swapping to my team members to use their abilities. Was the combat perfect? No, it could have been better. But it wasn't awful.

-The Story. Yeah, I liked the DA2 story better. It had its own share of problems which I'll get into in the Con section but I liked the premise: creating a narrative that follows characters over many years to show how they and their surroundings change and emphasize their effects on the world. It could have been implemented better of course, but I liked it. It was risky and it didn't exactly pay off, but I'd like to see them (or another company) take this idea and do it better.

-Talking Protagonist. I connected much more with Hawke than with the Warden, because its hard to connect with a mute, expressionless statue.

-I liked the new visual style. But I play X-Box so it seemed like an upgrade to me.

-Freer party composition. I want to see this improved in DA3 but I never felt forced to take specific party memebers with me unless I was going up against the largest bosses. In DA:O, I had a set party of Alistair, Wynn, and Leliana that I never deviated from because I would lose either my healer, my tank, or my lock-picker. Although I did have an "A-Team" for DA2, I didn't feel the need to have them on hand at all times and that let me appreciate the other party members.

Cons:
-Lackluster ending.

-No inventory system for our companions

-Reused areas. One thousand times this! Exploration dies mid way through the first Act.

-That extra group of enemies they always spawn when you think you're done.

-Poor pacing of the story, lack of stakes for most of the narrative. As anyone who's ever written something for consumption by anyone other than their mum will tell you, stakes is one of the most important aspects of a story. If there isn't some important goal for the main characters and if there isn't anything in their way of said goal, the story starts to flounder. DA2 often fell into this trap of having no goal, or creating a small goal and giving only paltry obstructions to it. The best parts of the game were when the stakes were high and the obstacles large. Sadly, there was too much piddling about in the middle.

So in all, I liked DA2. I did like DA:O overall but that was more because the locations were fresh and the fights weren't padded (fun really starts to drain when tedium is introduced). I feel like if DA2 had more locations, better fight composition, and a tighter narrative, it would have been vastly superior to DA:O.

 

[citrusfr00t]

I've said this before but I shall say it again:

I refuse to play DA2 for one reason and one reason only.

You can't play as a dwarf.

Why? Why I ask, would you remove such a big part of character customization? I mean in all honesty everyone, EVERYONE loves dwarves, removing my ability to play as one is ludacris.

 

[sumanoskae]

Explaining everything wrong with DA:II would take a long fucking time, and I don't really think it's bad, by most standards I'd say it's actually pretty good, it just doesn't hold a candle to Origins.

So instead of that, I'll use the Phantom Menace test.

I want you to describe, say, Anders' personality. You can't refer to his physical appearance or vocation, you have to talk about what makes him tick.

Edit: In the interest of full disclsure, The Arishock might be my favorite DA character period, and I will admit the CONCEPT of DAII is much more interesting than DA:O