EPT(I will still buy DA2 when its 50% off). Like always teamliquid users know what's hot and what's not.
Dragon Age 2 - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
HeIios
Sweden2523 Posts
(I will still buy DA2 when its 50% off). Like always teamliquid users know what's hot and what's not. | ||
|
CROrens
Croatia1005 Posts
apparently this game sucks | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On March 09 2011 22:30 zocktol wrote: So it seems like this discussion can be ended with the following statement: This game is not Dragon Age:Origins, but tied to its story, and has(might have, have not played it yet) recurring characters. I do not get why people are so butthurt about it, i mean the fact that a lot of people enjoy it, just shows that as with every game, some people like it and some do not like it. And now to my real quesiton, Whalecore, how can you play the game, you are in Europe just like me and i have to wait until tomorrow. How can you even comment on it if you havn't played it yet? The differences are: Worse graphics than DAO. 1400x1050 is max? Wtf? Zoomed in to avoid any sense of playing a strategic game. This honestly feels like another bad WoW copy, instead of the good, solid solo RPG I had hoped for.. I'm getting really worried what they might do to Mass Effect 3 right now :'( | ||
|
CROrens
Croatia1005 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:18 Euronyme wrote: How can you even comment on it if you havn't played it yet? The differences are: Worse graphics than DAO. 1400x1050 is max? Wtf? Zoomed in to avoid any sense of playing a strategic game. This honestly feels like another bad WoW copy, instead of the good, solid solo RPG I had hoped for.. I'm getting really worried what they might do to Mass Effect 3 right now :'( mass effect is safe cuz it was made for consoles in the first place. DA:O was epic cuz it was almost as good as oldschool rpgs, apparently DA2 is a console beatemup set in a fantasy environment  | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
They have a lot going for them because they have such a great story-oriented, console-friendly, action-RPG with Mass Effect. It's a console's dream, and they have a good hold on that market. Whereas Dragon Age, when Origins came out, was more for the type of people who liked Baldur's Gate, expansive, classical RPGs with more tactical-based combat. Something more geared for a mouse and keyboard. Two different markets. Basically, BioWare had two very different franchises, and it's like they tried to merge them together. They're just going to take their Mass Effect 2 formula, success that it was, and apply it to everything now, not realizing that some of their customers have different tastes. So with the reviews, some will just judge the game as an action-RPG, and it will rate decently. Some will be Mass Effect fans who love that type of game, and they'll say it's the best fantasy RPG ever made. Others, like myself, who wanted a Dragon Age game that felt completely different than Mass Effect, won't even play it. I'll wait for Skyrim to come out to get my RPG fix. | ||
|
xlep
Germany274 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:18 Euronyme wrote: How can you even comment on it if you havn't played it yet? The differences are: Worse graphics than DAO. 1400x1050 is max? Wtf? Zoomed in to avoid any sense of playing a strategic game. This honestly feels like another bad WoW copy, instead of the good, solid solo RPG I had hoped for.. I'm getting really worried what they might do to Mass Effect 3 right now :'( I didn't read most of the last 10 pages since I wanted to test the game before plunging into the discussion. I've played about 8 hours on my pc now. What the fuck are you talking about? The graphics are better than in DA:O. I'm not excited about the new darkspawn textures either but on a decent pc, with the high-res texture pack that Bioware released on day one the graphics are superior. Nor ME1 -> ME2 but noticable and undeniable. Also the maxed res isn't 1400x1050, dunno where you got that from... I'm playing 1920x1200. The new camera angle is OK, liked DA:O better but it doesn't take anything from the tactic portion of the game. Only had a Problem with it once and only because NPCs spawned weirdly on another height level. Enough about your weird post now. As for the rest of the game: The story so far is decent, feels a little bit more like ME, but you're still free to roam most of the city within the first ~two hours of playing. At times its more open than DA:O and they cut the ambushes while traveling (would be weird if you get ambushed on your way to the docks...). I feel that it's somewhat harder to get usable items but I'm only 1/3 in and don't have much "money" anyways. The characters are surely up there with those of DA:O, maybe even Mass Effect. I don't wanna talk about them in detail since I love to discover the storys of the characters but I'll say that I really like what they did to the DA:O and DA:O Awakening characters that they imported. I'm a little bit disappointed that the mages' are once again much cooler than those of the rest. I'm playing a mage and I really like the new talent system but not the talents and their distribution(!). It's hard to pinpoint or talk about it since I've only "started" as I've told you, but playing a tank, warrior, mage, mage group feels really really hard (playing on hard difficulty). Spells like fireball don't have that BOOM-effect that they had in DA:O and there's no FF. Absolutely don't like that there's no FF.... From my standpoint the game is worse than DA:O, but the reasons arent the graphics, camera or the new combat style. The fights feel dragged out when the 3rd wave of enemies is coming in, mostly since I don't have mana left and the enemies constantly spawn from every direction. It's really annoying cause your main character goes down before your tank can come by and taunt the new enemies, even if he's got stamina left over. The story is somewhat less epic... but i sorta like that. Even though I'm supposed to be "the champion" rising, I still am fighting my way through thoughs in the lower city with no money, fame or anything. In DA:O you were the last grey warden(s) from the beginning and had some kind of status. | ||
|
Souljah
United States423 Posts
| ||
|
Clickety
Portugal196 Posts
Oh well, we've still got The Witcher and Skyrim left this year. Hoping they don't disappoint. | ||
|
takingbackoj
United States684 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:12 CROrens wrote: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews apparently this game sucks Not suprised by this at all. It's not a terrible game but to be a sequel of Origins its a huge let down in my opinion. Thats probably why its so low on metacritic, it's just a huge dissapointment that could have easily been avoided if BioWare didn't go crazy with the "improvements". I also want to address all the talk about how if you dont like the game it's because its not Dragon Age Origins. When did making a sequel like the original game become a bad thing? Zelda really didn't make to many huge changes other than graphics and its one of the greatest franchises ever. Resident Evil, Mario, Final Fantasy (until the last one) and even elder scrolls are also very legit franchises and they never changed the main core gameplay, they just improved on graphics and animations, storytelling and some small in skills, inventory management, and interface. Dragon age 2 made huge changes in all of these aspects some good, some bad, and many of them were just uneccessary. When you make a sequel to a successful game there is nothing wrong with keeping the core mechanics that worked well from its predecessor intact while improving what didn't work around it. It is true Dragon age 2 is not like Origins in fact it has huge glaring differences to the point where all it shares is the fictional universe. A sequel should be a continuance of its predecessor, not a reboot which is what this game seems to be in my opinion, a unnecessary reboot to a successful video game. I would advise anyone considering purchasing this game to read those user reviews on metacritic in the link CROrens posted, they are pretty much spot on in my opinion, specifically the line that its a "slap in the face to traditional RPG fans". I don't know what pro reviewers are giving this game such high scores but the people buying the game are seeing things differently. | ||
|
PJFrylar
United States350 Posts
The combat is pretty similar to DA:O with the exception of the zoomed out isometric mode. They stated it was removed since it made DA:O much easier when played in that view, which is true. The other big difference is they use alot of reinforcement waves. I kinda like that so far, it makes you have to pay attention to the mini map and the position of your ranged squishies. The run around in circles while enemies chase you issue is still in the game, but you can police yourself on that. They did however make it harder to disengage if you're already being attacked. If you're mage is getting hit by a couple guys, chances are they won't get out of it without help. I feel like people complaining about it feeling like a console button masher are playing on low difficulties. The game IS far too easy on casual/normal and you can cruise through it ez pz. Hard/Nightmare are better and play more similar to DA:O. Personally I recommend nightmare, but the one knock here is the game does feel like a difficulty setting lower than DA:O (nightmare seems similar to hard). I can't really comment much on the story. I only played for about 5 hours (and redid some parts to test the various difficulties). The story seems pretty average for a bioware type RPG so far. My stance on this could change as I get further into the game of course. Also on the same foot I can't comment much on the character development of your companions. The only thing I can safely say if you're expecting BG2 level stuff it won't be there. Area size seems comparable to DA:O so far unfortunately. There are a couple short side paths available for a little extra loot, but thats about it. I wish it was a bit more open and allowed you to explore a bit more. I also hear there is only one city, which is kind of a disappointment. Graphics seem comparable to DA:O, maybe a little weaker. I don't care all that much about graphics so it doesn't bother me. The leveling process is about the same. They did get rid of the (I think they were called skills?) portion that had things like persuade and potion making. But the attribute/ability allocation is very similar. The big difference is that there are upgrade slots for alot of the abilities. Example: warriors can upgrade taunt to be an AOE ability. One thing that does bother me is they scaled back gear customization for party members. The party members have their own (upgrades while they level, plus you occaisonally find other upgrades for them) armor sets that covers everything but accessories (rings/ammy/belt). It takes away from getting your party members exactly how you want them, on the other hand you don't need to worry about equipping everyone as much. Overall i find it a negative change, some people might be ok with it though. Overall I'm enjoying it so far, but I reserve judgement on they story until I get further into the game. I don't know, it doesn't seem all THAT much different from DA:O to me so far. There are differences, but it isn't on the scale of say ME1 to ME2 imo. | ||
|
Casta
Denmark234 Posts
Hope I will see an actual rpg in the future that will focus on lots of options, difficult tactical gameplay while still telling a good story. Been waiting since BG series, but I guess gaming have become too much of an $$$ industry that good graphics, awesome trailers and lots of DLC is the only thing with priority. | ||
|
takingbackoj
United States684 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:28 Casta wrote: Pretty glad I didn't buy this game. After the demo I kinda figured where it was going. Hope I will see an actual rpg in the future that will focus on lots of options, difficult tactical gameplay while still telling a good story. Been waiting since BG series, but I guess gaming have become too much of an $$$ industry that good graphics, awesome trailers and lots of DLC is the only thing with priority. I agree with this completely. Sadly it's a growing trend. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:26 FireBearHero wrote: I always loved this excuse. Tactical combat makes encounters easier. Solution: Remove tactical combat! Wait, what?The combat is pretty similar to DA:O with the exception of the zoomed out isometric mode. They stated it was removed since it made DA:O much easier when played in that view, which is true. My copy hasn't arrived yet, but I'm encouraged by the reports of improved storytelling. I thought DAO's storytelling was crap. I'm sure I'll miss tactical combat (and I wasn't thrilled about all the streamlining in ME2 in the first place), but maybe I'll still have fun with ME2 with swords. I hope. I'm sad we're not getting a game that actually plays like DAO, though. Party-based tactical combat with much better (much more engaging) storytelling and a much better (much less linear and boring) story would've been awesome. And I probably won't bother with DA3, unless they backtrack. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
I actually like the combat system, UI, and graphics more but the storyline and immersion isn't as good as the original (though still interesting so far) will continue playing over the next week until I finish it + Show Spoiler + On March 10 2011 01:34 Pyrthas wrote: I always loved this excuse. Tactical combat makes encounters easier. Solution: Remove tactical combat! Wait, what? My copy hasn't arrived yet, but I'm encouraged by the reports of improved storytelling. I thought DAO's storytelling was crap. I'm sure I'll miss tactical combat (and I wasn't thrilled about all the streamlining in ME2 in the first place), but eh, ME2 with swords could still be a fun, if entirely different, game. I'm sad we're not getting a game that actually plays like DAO, though. Party-based tactical combat with much better (much more engaging) storytelling and a much better (much less linear and boring) story would've been awesome. pretty sure the point was that they didn't want people to have to sacrifice immersion for a tactical advantage, or vice versa as far as that reasoning goes. seems fair to me | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
I love DA2. The art style has grown on me, and the addition of high-res textures for the PC version I thought was a very nice gesture from Bioware. They could have done what they did in DA:O and left it out, but this time they went that extra mile and packaged the thing for download. The simplification of so many elements such as crafting, looting, figuring out what dialogue option does what, figuring out where in god's name to go next, etc. is very welcome. Less time running around the room, right-clicking everything in sight, more time playing the damned game. This kind of thing probably added a good 20% to the overall time of my DA:O playthroughs. The combat is much more engaging and fun. It's fun to watch, and fun to govern. Enemy reinforcements are a great design decision to minimize the horrendously overpowered nature of AOE spells in games like this. People complained about Sleep, Waking Nightmare, Fireball, Cone of Cold etc. ruining DA:O as if spells like Sleep, Emotion: Hopelessness, Fireball et al didn't trivialize the Baldur's Gate series or something. The whole reinforcement thing is cool and they did a good job of introducing you to the concept with the little fake-story intro thing in the demo. That's good game design. Combat with enemy Mages is especially cool. They're like WoW dungeon bosses with their own personal arsenal of soul-destroying abilities, which makes them incredibly dangerous and fun to fight. The difficulty is much, MUCH better designed that DA:O. I got my ass handed to me on Hard Mode by the demo ogre like 3 times. ~3 hours in and I've already suffered a handful of injuries from bad mistakes - these are both good things because it means I'm learning, and I'm being forced to play properly, rather than auto-attack my way to victory like I could do in Nightmare in DA:O starting when I reached Redcliffe. The friend/rival system is a nice twist on the approval systems of yester-yore. Losing an entire party member you spent blood, sweat and tears working with, because you made one bad judgement call, or wanted to play a douche-sandwich persona, is really dumb. It works in a game like Baldur's Gate when you meet a new potential party member on every new map, giving you party members out the ass to choose from if things go tits-up, but when you want each character to have some semblance of a personality, and frequently interject into the storyline, you want them to stick around. Nobody was particularly fond of getting 50+ approval in DA:O just from handing the right people the right gifts, were they? Granted the friend/rival system is difficult to gauge. You want to make them one or the other, but its tough to figure out which decisions will affect their reaction to you in the appropriate manner, but I guess that'll come with time and making many mistakes through multiple playthrough. I even like the inability to equip characters with individual pieces of armour. It adds more personality to them in a way, and allows them to stand-out in the battlefield. I find this kind of system, with specific upgrades for specific NPCs, much more enjoyable than pilfering generic items and throwing them around the place. I was first introduced to it in Anachronox and it was always an exciting moment to find some secret object/quest and get a big upgrade weapon for one of your guys in one go. Oh and interesting thing I've noticed about the camera thing; the top-down camera of DA:O made it impossible to miss any loot. Without it, its easy to roam around and miss some little nook or cranny with something in it. I remember playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 about 10 times each, and literally EVERY time I would find some new object I hadn't noticed before, with some item in it. These were exciting moments during replays and I wonder if this is part of the reason for the change. At any rate, the combat is plenty enjoyable without the top-down view anymore. It felt like a gimmick that was tacked on later, anyway. It didn't feel like it was meant to be played that way. Plus, from building my own levels in DA:O and trying to create them such that the major obstructions disappeared, without making the world look totally dumb, when you go into top-down view I imagine this decision came from the level designers themselves. It's a HUGE chore to do that kind of stuff. Time they could better spend making the rest of the world feel much more alive, and I believe it shows. I'm a big fan of the BG series, PS:T and DA:O. I played through the whole thing, Awakenings and all the DLC TWICE with two different characters in the last 2 weeks. But, the changes they've made to DA2 are incredibly exciting. The game is just plain better in so many areas. Looking forward to taking my time with this one and enjoying another powerful fantasy RPG for the next couple of years. With any luck, modding tools (or integration into the old one) will become available soon and I can start tinkering with such a cool game. | ||
|
Jandos
Czech Republic928 Posts
| ||
|
PJFrylar
United States350 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:34 Pyrthas wrote: I always loved this excuse. Tactical combat makes encounters easier. Solution: Remove tactical combat! Wait, what? My copy hasn't arrived yet, but I'm encouraged by the reports of improved storytelling. I thought DAO's storytelling was crap. I'm sure I'll miss tactical combat (and I wasn't thrilled about all the streamlining in ME2 in the first place), but maybe I'll still have fun with ME2 with swords. I hope. I'm sad we're not getting a game that actually plays like DAO, though. Party-based tactical combat with much better (much more engaging) storytelling and a much better (much less linear and boring) story would've been awesome. And I probably won't bother with DA3, unless they backtrack. I don't see how just removing the isometric view removes tactics. The same things can be accomplished by keeping an eye on all characters and the minimap. I was just commenting that personally the removal of the isometric view isn't a big deal for me. The tactical combat is still there at higher levels. However like I said in my other post, it does feel like it is a difficulty level lower. You won't be able to 1a through nightmare. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:12 CROrens wrote: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews apparently this game sucks pretty sure there's some sort of 4chan attack or something on the game because there are just so many 0 ratings on that site with just silly comments I can understand people disliking it but I don't even think the most avid critics of the game would give it a 0, let alone it be a huge portion of the ratings just seems like the work of trolls to me, could be wrong, but w/e | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:50 FireBearHero wrote: I don't see how just removing the isometric view removes tactics. The same things can be accomplished by keeping an eye on all characters and the minimap. I was just commenting that personally the removal of the isometric view isn't a big deal for me. The tactical combat is still there at higher levels. However like I said in my other post, it does feel like it is a difficulty level lower. You won't be able to 1a through nightmare. Yeah, the combat is plenty-tactical. I've been playing on Hard Mode, I'm only 3 hours in, and I've already found myself popping potions at critical moments, having to CC dangerous things before someone goes down, position my ranged characters in safe locations for when reinforcements arrive and so on. Its pretty intense sometimes, a lot of fun and a metric fuckton more tactical than Nightmare mode in DA:O. | ||
|
takingbackoj
United States684 Posts
On March 10 2011 01:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote: pretty sure there's some sort of 4chan attack or something on the game because there are just so many 0 ratings on that site with just silly comments I can understand people disliking it but I don't even think the most avid critics of the game would give it a 0 just seems like the work of trolls to me, could be wrong, but w/e You say silly comments. The comments that are made are pretty accurate and similar across the board for the most part in my opinion having played the game. Just because a game recieved low ratings doesnt mean its 4chans fault. I would probably legitimatly give this game a 7 at the very most. I think the really low ratings are due more to dissapointment than how users actually feel about the game. It's just a huge dissapointment to a lot of rpg fans especially since they had a pretty good base to work with in Origins. If I had of written a review after the first couple hours of playing I would have given it a 0 probably out of sheer dissapointment and frustration with bioware. I would probably give it a 6.5 or so in reality. Hopefully Skyrim will wash the dissapointing taste out of my mouth. | ||
| ||
