Poll: Is there any hope Dragon Age?
- Thread starter Nicholas Woodruff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I fell for Alistair in DAO. Hard. Really liked all my other DAO companions. But for DA2 There wasn't anything that compelled me to fall for either male option. And I barely cared for Merril and Isabella. The combat was great, the story good, and the environment compelling. But it wasn't as good because I didn't care enough about my companions.
DA2 had so many positive aspects, namely the interesting characters and extremely fun combat system, but the copy pasting of area after area was so horrific that it actually ruined the game for me. It became so dull and repetitive that even the awesome aspects couldn't save it. I still have it, hoping to give it a second play through and another shot but I'm not sure there's much point
I think what went wrong most in DA2 was the gameplay. Too many trash encounters, too random difficulty, too many side quests, and for gods sake, whose idea was it to remove auto attack?
The story was random as well, Act 1 was side quest extravaganza and a decent main mission in the deep roads (I still wish we could have found out more about that thaig). Act 2 was kinda meh, all plot twists were predictable and nothing really stood out. Act 3, however, was bloody fantastic, some things actually had me shocked, but it ended too fast, in fact, the whole game could have just started at Act 3.
Anyways, I'm anxious to see DA3 and the conclusion of the conflict that just started in DA2.
However if they do want to fix it, gameplay needs a complete new revamp and they need more focus on the story missions and less focus on side quests.
Also, in my opinion it would be great if the game finally went continent-wide, i.e., not just limited to one country per game, but being able to travel to locations in each one of the countries. I'm dying to see the Tevinter Imperium or the Qun'ari lands but so far we didn't have the opportunity.
The story was random as well, Act 1 was side quest extravaganza and a decent main mission in the deep roads (I still wish we could have found out more about that thaig). Act 2 was kinda meh, all plot twists were predictable and nothing really stood out. Act 3, however, was bloody fantastic, some things actually had me shocked, but it ended too fast, in fact, the whole game could have just started at Act 3.
Anyways, I'm anxious to see DA3 and the conclusion of the conflict that just started in DA2.
However if they do want to fix it, gameplay needs a complete new revamp and they need more focus on the story missions and less focus on side quests.
Also, in my opinion it would be great if the game finally went continent-wide, i.e., not just limited to one country per game, but being able to travel to locations in each one of the countries. I'm dying to see the Tevinter Imperium or the Qun'ari lands but so far we didn't have the opportunity.
Odd. My main solution to the "in-depth" combat of Dragon Age 1 was the same as Dragon Age 2:
Play a Sword and Shield Warrior. Have health potions. Ignore team mates. Never die.
Hell. A few of the abilities from Dragon Age: Origins were essentially duplicates of themselves with twice the cooldown of the Dragon Age 2 single ability equivalent.
The DA2 combat was no more or less strategic than the DA:O combat. Look at the individual abilities for each of the specialization trees. They're more or less the same in DA2 as Origins. With the exception of the things that were added.
As for DA:O having an original story? HAH. Big evil. Gather forces by wading through diplomatic crap. Fight big evil's army. Save the day (with potentially sacrifice oneself ending).
The problem is that it isn't Dragon Age: Origins: Part 2, which is what people wanted, so they're going to try and find whatever excuse they can to bash it for things that might actually matter.
Neither one is a fantastic game. They're both fairly fun if you get over the fact that they're different games.
Personally, I found the combat of Dragon Age 2 to be more enjoyable than Dragon Age: Origins, while I enjoyed the size and scope of Origins better than the solitary city in Dragon Age 2.
Play a Sword and Shield Warrior. Have health potions. Ignore team mates. Never die.
Hell. A few of the abilities from Dragon Age: Origins were essentially duplicates of themselves with twice the cooldown of the Dragon Age 2 single ability equivalent.
The DA2 combat was no more or less strategic than the DA:O combat. Look at the individual abilities for each of the specialization trees. They're more or less the same in DA2 as Origins. With the exception of the things that were added.
As for DA:O having an original story? HAH. Big evil. Gather forces by wading through diplomatic crap. Fight big evil's army. Save the day (with potentially sacrifice oneself ending).
The problem is that it isn't Dragon Age: Origins: Part 2, which is what people wanted, so they're going to try and find whatever excuse they can to bash it for things that might actually matter.
Neither one is a fantastic game. They're both fairly fun if you get over the fact that they're different games.
Personally, I found the combat of Dragon Age 2 to be more enjoyable than Dragon Age: Origins, while I enjoyed the size and scope of Origins better than the solitary city in Dragon Age 2.
Hm, that's a sign that my memory is going then.Kahunaburger said:
Ouch. Though it wasn't all like that.
Haha, I think this is kind of right. The combat isn't as tactical as people think it is - it's basically standard tank and spank [http://www.wowwiki.com/Tank_and_spank] with crowd control from the mages on more or less any difficulty setting. I thought Witcher 1/2, Devil Survivor (really any SMT game), and Spirit Engine 2 are all better examples of RPGs that require actual tactics. Sh*t, I've used more complex strategies in the very non-tactical Mass Effect 2 with cover-based shooting, squad commands, and Vanguard charge.Lenvoran said:
I loved DA2. It was nowhere near as deep as DA:O, and it was pretty obviously not finished, but it still was a fantastic game.
DA3 will be better, though. BioWare hasn't gotten this far by being dumbasses.
DA3 will be better, though. BioWare hasn't gotten this far by being dumbasses.
DA2's combat was alright, maybe less strategic and more button mashy, but I've seen worse.The slap in the face of dragon age 2 was that the series was supposed to be the "spiritual successor" to baldur's gate, one of the greatest games ever. Instead of offering more depth and a better story in the sequel, they made a worse game in nearly every regard. The story was paced terribly, and as yahtzee said, the only time you felt like an epic quest was about to begin was at the very end for the sequel. The sense of scale is pathetic, and they copy pasted dungeons to save time. But then it all comes back to the reason dragon age 2 was made, it was made for lots and lots of money. It was rushed for money, and EA wants to charge dlc for it because it wants money. Unless Bioware completely changes the game, scraps every character and plotline from dragon age 2, I wont buy a sequel.
I found the second entry into the franchise to be an enjoyable one, though the less said about the last act the better...
I feel they've lost their direction a little though. What most people liked about the first was the depth at which you could customise your character. Having these elements stripped away, remaining in the same city for the entire game and having little to no choices in the final act dragged it down imo.
They can still salvage it though. Despite the flaws, I thought it played well and enjoyed it regardless and don't feel it deserves the amount of hate it's getting.
I feel they've lost their direction a little though. What most people liked about the first was the depth at which you could customise your character. Having these elements stripped away, remaining in the same city for the entire game and having little to no choices in the final act dragged it down imo.
They can still salvage it though. Despite the flaws, I thought it played well and enjoyed it regardless and don't feel it deserves the amount of hate it's getting.
No, it did deserve all of it. A game company shouldn't be able to get away with calling its game the "Baldur's Gate" spiritual successor, then telling all its original fans to fuck off for a larger audience.WillN7 said:
If the trend continues we may be looking at Mass Effect 3: Post-Modern Warfare.