It does the sequel-bait thing. I was mad too. Heaven forbid you make a game with a proper ending.m72_ar said:
Poll: DA:O... why is this better than DA2 again?
- Thread starter MetallicaRulez0
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fair enough. I found the combat to be more fast paced than origins and it was easier to execute tactics because of the capability to queue up an ability for each character while paused which wasn't there in origins. I never used the zoomed out view in origins but i know a lot of people are quite distressed that its not there in DA2. I can understand the tactical value of the zoomed out view in origins as it would have made life a bit simpler being able to see all of the enemies instead of being clusterfucked in third person mode with so many enemies on screen that the area above the enemy's heads resembled a red checkerboard made ou of life bars. I do have to agree about the "finisher moves" though because in origins they came up very regularly and were a nice touch but in DA2 they all dissapeared. And yes the combat in these games are not enough to judge it on since, for one, it is a bioware rpg and bioware rpgs are always about the story on dialogue, although it seems they're having a bit of an issue with the former at the moment, and two, the gameplay in dragon age, while enjoyable for some, isn't really what your there for anyway.tzimize said:
If you ever played tried hard or nightmare in both games then you will make note of the fact that the combat in origins is while not without its faults a lot more responsive towards strategic thinking.
Let me give you a scenario applicable towards both games:
A pack of mobs will come; there is a rogue and two mage mobs, easily seen from a distance. Your party will usually have two hard disables and a set of focus fire aoe barrage abilities.
In origins the battle goes like this. Crushing prison one mage, stonefist, fireball, entropic cloud (etc) on the second as they are on their way towards you and then have Alistair or Sten pick up the rogue with a heavy blow / shield bash, taunt and then have your guys start laying down the law.
in Dragon age 2 however once you are almost done with the same scenario suddenly out of nowhere another wave will spawn, this wave usually includes at least one "elite mob" two more assassins with more hp than Aveline and 4-5 more generic trash and all those abilities you used earlier will still be on cool down.
While i am not against this sort of combat the fact that it happens all the time means you will spend a lot of time kiting those first guys into a choke that is further away so you can negate this new wave of "reinforcements" and this makes the reinforcements mechanic both tedious and stupid.
Origins combat actually ends up being faster than DA2 because of large elite mob hp pools and this reinforcement mechanic. The former is also perceived as more strategic and it will feel like less of a grind. There are also the boss fights, Loghain, and the Archdemon may both be joke bosses BUT at least they are not 15 ? 20 minute long joke bosses.
Let me give you a scenario applicable towards both games:
A pack of mobs will come; there is a rogue and two mage mobs, easily seen from a distance. Your party will usually have two hard disables and a set of focus fire aoe barrage abilities.
In origins the battle goes like this. Crushing prison one mage, stonefist, fireball, entropic cloud (etc) on the second as they are on their way towards you and then have Alistair or Sten pick up the rogue with a heavy blow / shield bash, taunt and then have your guys start laying down the law.
in Dragon age 2 however once you are almost done with the same scenario suddenly out of nowhere another wave will spawn, this wave usually includes at least one "elite mob" two more assassins with more hp than Aveline and 4-5 more generic trash and all those abilities you used earlier will still be on cool down.
While i am not against this sort of combat the fact that it happens all the time means you will spend a lot of time kiting those first guys into a choke that is further away so you can negate this new wave of "reinforcements" and this makes the reinforcements mechanic both tedious and stupid.
Origins combat actually ends up being faster than DA2 because of large elite mob hp pools and this reinforcement mechanic. The former is also perceived as more strategic and it will feel like less of a grind. There are also the boss fights, Loghain, and the Archdemon may both be joke bosses BUT at least they are not 15 ? 20 minute long joke bosses.
there are perhaps 2 or 3 challenging fights in all of DA2 and they all occur near the end of the game -- the high dragon, the lone blood mage surrounded by a dozen or so shades and a pride demon and (maybe) the Orsino and Meredith fights. although for the latter i would argue it was only because the they were so long -- and Orsino was a complete rehash of the final fight in the final DLC for Origins (can anyone else say cheap knockoff?!). that's about it.MetallicaRulez0 said:
and the combat alone is not what ruined DA2. it was that, plus the removal of nearly every RPG element, a complete lack of a cohesive narrative and uninspired and shallow NPC party members that combined to reduce DA2 to a mere shadow of what DA:O was.
side note: how come enchanted weapons show no effect of the enchant? that is basic RPG stuff and it just isn't there. and that is a shame.
Origins. If only because I'm sick of the wave fights that you have to fight against in 2. The combat itself is fine, and in some cases better. However it's completely overshadowed by the annoyance that every waved fight brings. I'm all for having some wave fights, like bosses which are important, etc. But every fight? That just means you're spending ages killing the same enemys over and over for 5mins, especially considering the reused assets.
Yes, I do approve of the Combat in DAII. It's far more fun than the combat in DA:O. The thing is, the combat in DAII is also much easier. It's not super easy by any means, and it can still be very difficult on Night-mare, but I didn't have a single problem with ANY fights in DAII on Normal except for the big fight at the end of Act II - that was the only one that actually caused me any issues.
I can see why a lot of people would not like the combat in DAII, because it's more about making you feel like a super-hero than about tactical combat. And for anyone stuck at any point in DAII - Cone of cold, Cone of cold, Cone of cold your problems away. Just.... cone of cold. By far, the most useful spell in the game. You heard it here - Cone of Cold.
As for the story - I liked DAII's story. It wasn't as good as DA:O's oh lord no, but on its own it's pretty damn good. Dragon Age II felt like two-steps forward.... and two-steps backward. Improved combat and graphics.... weaker story and far, far, far smaller world.
I can see why a lot of people would not like the combat in DAII, because it's more about making you feel like a super-hero than about tactical combat. And for anyone stuck at any point in DAII - Cone of cold, Cone of cold, Cone of cold your problems away. Just.... cone of cold. By far, the most useful spell in the game. You heard it here - Cone of Cold.
As for the story - I liked DAII's story. It wasn't as good as DA:O's oh lord no, but on its own it's pretty damn good. Dragon Age II felt like two-steps forward.... and two-steps backward. Improved combat and graphics.... weaker story and far, far, far smaller world.
Well fuck, it's not like we have enough DA2 threads, right?
Anyway, I thought the "waves" and re-used locales/monsters (seriously, why are there so many goddamned shades in Kirkwall?!) were the weakest aspect of the game. That alone drags the gameplay down a bit.
On the other hand, they finally nerfed mages. And the darkspawn were boring as all hell in Origins, so I'm still going with DA2.
Off-topic: Plot and characters are better in DA2. Yes, I am serious.
Obviously, spoilers:
Anyway, I thought the "waves" and re-used locales/monsters (seriously, why are there so many goddamned shades in Kirkwall?!) were the weakest aspect of the game. That alone drags the gameplay down a bit.
On the other hand, they finally nerfed mages. And the darkspawn were boring as all hell in Origins, so I'm still going with DA2.
Off-topic: Plot and characters are better in DA2. Yes, I am serious.
I've seen people post a lot about the ending being rushed, but having played through it I didn't think it was bad at all.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Obviously, spoilers:
I helped the mages and the world erupted into civil war. Based on people's descriptions I was worried it would end with something stupid like a Qunari fleet arriving at Kirkwall or Hawke getting possessed, but nope. Hawke won and ran off with her elf girlfriend.
It could have used an epilogue (the game tries to justify it by Varric not knowing where everyone went, but it doesn't quite work) and it has an obvious sequel hook, but other than that what's wrong with it?
It could have used an epilogue (the game tries to justify it by Varric not knowing where everyone went, but it doesn't quite work) and it has an obvious sequel hook, but other than that what's wrong with it?
Gameplay does absoloutely (probably mispelled there) not come before story, at least not to a high degree. If the story of a singleplayer game is bad you will play it once maaaaybe twice and forget about in 2 years or just remember it as "that game with bad story".MetallicaRulez0 said:
Story decides mostly of how we rememeber a game. What I remember from DA:O is the story and not so much the gameplay (until I try to remember it, I don't have amnesia).
I even defied the captcha to write this.
You're missing the point.
The point is people who liked the combat in the first game liked the combat how it was. It was almost kind of like an RTS, you had to pause every second sometimes or spend ages doing all these tactics. Which is great, if you like that sort of thing. Sometimes I liked that. It made for some interesting fights.
The combat in the second games is of a faster pace, but it is essentially the same really, I don't see where this massive difference is. It felt more like a blank canvas, I suppose. If you wanted to micro-manage out of your arse then you could do that, but I wouldn't call it hacky. I didn't play it hacky but then I played an archer so I guess it's a different experience.
It's just another case of a lot of gamers confusing something they don't like with THE WORST THING EVAR. Don't get me wrong, there are people who are saying what they don't like about it and underlning it and that's fine. But there's also a lot of people out there who just don't like change.
Either way, if you liked it, why should you give a shit if other people didn't? For the record though, I liked it. If you want me to compare it to Origins then I'd say I prefered it but mostly due to the questing system and characters. There could've been a bit more exploring, more locations etc. But I think they've laid a solid groundwork for the 3rd game.
The point is people who liked the combat in the first game liked the combat how it was. It was almost kind of like an RTS, you had to pause every second sometimes or spend ages doing all these tactics. Which is great, if you like that sort of thing. Sometimes I liked that. It made for some interesting fights.
The combat in the second games is of a faster pace, but it is essentially the same really, I don't see where this massive difference is. It felt more like a blank canvas, I suppose. If you wanted to micro-manage out of your arse then you could do that, but I wouldn't call it hacky. I didn't play it hacky but then I played an archer so I guess it's a different experience.
It's just another case of a lot of gamers confusing something they don't like with THE WORST THING EVAR. Don't get me wrong, there are people who are saying what they don't like about it and underlning it and that's fine. But there's also a lot of people out there who just don't like change.
Either way, if you liked it, why should you give a shit if other people didn't? For the record though, I liked it. If you want me to compare it to Origins then I'd say I prefered it but mostly due to the questing system and characters. There could've been a bit more exploring, more locations etc. But I think they've laid a solid groundwork for the 3rd game.
I personally think both have their negatives and their plusses.
Dragon Age: Origins
[ul]
[li]Better character development - you really get to know all of your party members well. You can stop and talk to them at any time to get to know them more. In DA2 - you pretty much get their quests, and that's it. There are a few interactions between party members and the Mabari, but mostly, you are limited to getting to know these people through the romance or through quests. There was just so much more to getting to know the characters in DA:O[/li]
[li]Better "Epic" Plot - DA:O has that traditional driving plot to save the world. Because Bioware decided to make DA2 take place concurrently the the events of DA:O - your quest in DA2 takes a long time to develop. DA2 is sidequest city. The first act in particular is a bit of a trudge to get through. It picks up, and I think does reward you in the end, but it just doesn't have that driving urgency that DA:O did.[/li]
[li]For people interested in male relationships, better romance choices - DA:O has Alistair if you want a morally upstanding character and Zevran if you want the slutty naughty character. DA2 has Broody McBroodster and spoiler:
This is obviously a personal thing, but I found both of the characters to be singularly unappealing. Anders was better in Act 2, but in Act 1, he is insufferable, and well, by the end, see the spoiler.[/li]
[/ul]
Dragon Age 2
[ul]
[li]Better Battle System - Seriously, battling in DA:O was a chore at best. I understand it was better on the PC, but it was awful on the console. You target dead bodies when in the heat of battle constantly. Need I say more? Fine, it wasn't very fun to watch either. As the OP said, it just looked clumsy. In DA2, it looks fluid and exciting. I actually enjoyed being a mage and found myself using *gasp* support spells! Though they borked the Spirit Healer - but that class was also kind of screwed in DA:O since you couldn't set a companion to fucking revive fallen comrades.[/li]
[li]Cleaner Inventory - It was better, but it still has some issue to clean up. Why the hell do I pick up junk? Why can't you just make it coin? Do I really have to pick up torn trousers for the flavor of the game to be good? But I will say, not having to constantly check every piece of armor for every party member was nice. I do think this needs more tweaking. For instance, if I play through as a mage, I really should only get mage appropriate armor drops. That would be nice.[/li]
[li]Better Graphics - Yes, much better. Too bad I had to look at the same graphics over and over again because of lack of variation, but really, I blame that on the rush to publish. EA, give Bioware more time for DA3, please.[/li]
[li]Better romances for those interested in females - In DA:O, you get the ***** or the prude. In DA2, you get the little clumsly sweet waif, or the slutty, busty bad girl, who actually doesn't have all that bad an attitude in general. The female romance choices in DA2 are just better.[/li]
Anyway, those were my feelings on the games. I enjoyed both, but both had their issues as well.
[/ul]
Dragon Age: Origins
[ul]
[li]Better character development - you really get to know all of your party members well. You can stop and talk to them at any time to get to know them more. In DA2 - you pretty much get their quests, and that's it. There are a few interactions between party members and the Mabari, but mostly, you are limited to getting to know these people through the romance or through quests. There was just so much more to getting to know the characters in DA:O[/li]
[li]Better "Epic" Plot - DA:O has that traditional driving plot to save the world. Because Bioware decided to make DA2 take place concurrently the the events of DA:O - your quest in DA2 takes a long time to develop. DA2 is sidequest city. The first act in particular is a bit of a trudge to get through. It picks up, and I think does reward you in the end, but it just doesn't have that driving urgency that DA:O did.[/li]
[li]For people interested in male relationships, better romance choices - DA:O has Alistair if you want a morally upstanding character and Zevran if you want the slutty naughty character. DA2 has Broody McBroodster and spoiler:
The Unabomber. Seriously Bioware, wtf?
[/ul]
Dragon Age 2
[ul]
[li]Better Battle System - Seriously, battling in DA:O was a chore at best. I understand it was better on the PC, but it was awful on the console. You target dead bodies when in the heat of battle constantly. Need I say more? Fine, it wasn't very fun to watch either. As the OP said, it just looked clumsy. In DA2, it looks fluid and exciting. I actually enjoyed being a mage and found myself using *gasp* support spells! Though they borked the Spirit Healer - but that class was also kind of screwed in DA:O since you couldn't set a companion to fucking revive fallen comrades.[/li]
[li]Cleaner Inventory - It was better, but it still has some issue to clean up. Why the hell do I pick up junk? Why can't you just make it coin? Do I really have to pick up torn trousers for the flavor of the game to be good? But I will say, not having to constantly check every piece of armor for every party member was nice. I do think this needs more tweaking. For instance, if I play through as a mage, I really should only get mage appropriate armor drops. That would be nice.[/li]
[li]Better Graphics - Yes, much better. Too bad I had to look at the same graphics over and over again because of lack of variation, but really, I blame that on the rush to publish. EA, give Bioware more time for DA3, please.[/li]
[li]Better romances for those interested in females - In DA:O, you get the ***** or the prude. In DA2, you get the little clumsly sweet waif, or the slutty, busty bad girl, who actually doesn't have all that bad an attitude in general. The female romance choices in DA2 are just better.[/li]
Anyway, those were my feelings on the games. I enjoyed both, but both had their issues as well.
[/ul]
I have some issues with DA2, to be sure. It was like every time I started to enjoy it, it insisted on kicking me in the balls with bugged quest lines (Merrills in particular) and hilariously goofy combat animations.
I would like to give an example as to why I found the combat rather annoying:
If that isn't silly and downright outlandish I don't know what is.
Oh, and they forgot to end the bloody thing.
I would like to give an example as to why I found the combat rather annoying:
Oh, and they forgot to end the bloody thing.
I miss being able to converse with my companions whenever I felt like it in Origins.
Though I do enjoy the new dialogue wheel. I always pick the "Snarky" response. =P
And in terms of combat? Depends on class. I preferred the way the rogues were in Origins: Mainly for their stealing ability and the Ranger skill tree (Yeah, summoning a Mabari? Bleh. Summoning a big effing bear? YES!)
Mages, however, are a lot more fun in DA2, and I find it easier to manage your mana in there as well.
Though I do enjoy the new dialogue wheel. I always pick the "Snarky" response. =P
And in terms of combat? Depends on class. I preferred the way the rogues were in Origins: Mainly for their stealing ability and the Ranger skill tree (Yeah, summoning a Mabari? Bleh. Summoning a big effing bear? YES!)
Mages, however, are a lot more fun in DA2, and I find it easier to manage your mana in there as well.
The combat in DA2 was just mashing one button, if they are going to go for more of an action rpg that's fine just make me hit more than one lousy button. Just get rind of cool downs and make combos that you upgrade.
It makes me sad that bioware did such a good job mixing rpg and shooter but is doing such a bad job mixing action with rpg.
It makes me sad that bioware did such a good job mixing rpg and shooter but is doing such a bad job mixing action with rpg.
What the...Mr.K. said:
The story in GoW is poor? How? Just because it's weaved into the gameplay and not written down or told in a more interactive way does not mean it's poor. Just because they didn't give you the option to take your own approach does not mean the characters are dull and the story has no depth.
Of course God of War had more hack-and-slash parts, but a lot of them are key parts in the storyline. In Dragon Age most bosses are meaningless for the rest of the story until some of the late-game bosses.