• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dragon Age II |OT| The Revenge of Shit Mountain

EDarkness

Member
Basileus777 said:
The ridiculous ease of managing aggro and spamming healing spells and potions in DAO made "tactical" gameplay rather pointless. The camera notwithstanding, I actually prefer the combat in DA2 and think it's more tactical with things like CCCs. The spawning mid-battle is lazy design, but it actually makes managing all your characters and keeping them alive somewhat involving. And even the spawning becomes less of an issue once you learn how to manage threat.

It was the opposite for me. I actually had to work with the Tactics menu in DA:O. Making sure my guys did what I wanted and sometimes I had to plan what was going on. In DA2, I never even opened up the tactics menu until the very end of the game and even then it was only to see if there WAS a tactics menu. There were so many blank spots in it that I was totally surprised, but not once did I bother with adding anything in or changing presets, even on hard. I just found even with the limits on potions, the game was still way too easy. I guess I should have moved up to Nightmare, but I don't have any desire to go back and play again.

I just felt like I was button mashing my way to victory. At least positioning was important the first game as a rogue. It simply didn't matter in the second game.
 
I kind of wonder if I would have liked the game more if they stripped the sidequests, just made it companion quests + story, and released it as a $20 digital download in prep for Dragon Age 3 (or, in that case, Dragon Age 2).
 

Patryn

Member
Ysiadmihi said:
So the defense force for this game has pretty much vanished?

There's some left at the Bioware boards, but they're relegated to crying "Troll!" at anyone who criticizes the game and not much more.
 

Delodax

Member
chase said:
The combat is fine. You should just get it over with go back to BG2; nothing anyone can do will live up to your unrealistic nostalgia-filled expectations anyway. You'll play it and think how well everything works together without realizing that it formed your appreciation (as others had their appreciation formed by other games) for combat and thus is irreplaceable.

Good game so far, start of Act 3 I guess. Playing on nightmare and I enjoy the combat. Aside some bugs when resurrecting, the spawning of waves of enemies keeps me on my toes. In my version of the game it doesn't seem random and I have to plan how to keep moving my team to survive the onslaughts.

I've appreciated the companion quests so far and I hope there are even more to come. I kind like side quests as well, but hey, that's me.

I agree that there is nothing positive with reused "dungeons". It is certainly preferable to have interesting new locales to explore but for me, Dragon Age 2 is not a game of great exploration. My prime motivations are the interactions with other characters and trying out different tactics during combat.
 

Coxswain

Member
Ysiadmihi said:
So the defense force for this game has pretty much vanished?
It's not really worthwhile to take the position of "This game has some pretty objective, pervasive flaws that hold back quality across the board, but the core concepts in there are mostly solid and it's a pretty good game regardless" in the face of a tidal wave of "UGH BIOWARE THIS IS ABSOLUTE SHIT WHY DID YOU SHIT IN MY MOUTH BIOWARE".

(Which is not to characterize every negative opinion as being shrill and hyperbolic as there are plenty of reasons not to like the game, but there's definitely an abundance of people whose train of thought seems to be 'On the whole, I did not like this game' -> 'Therefore, the whole game is bad without exception' and it's not very fun to try talking about the good points in the face of that.)


I think it'll be a fun game to talk about once everyone's beaten it and most of the people frothing with hatred have moved on.
 
Coxswain said:
It's not really worthwhile to take the position of "This game has some pretty objective, pervasive flaws that hold back quality across the board, but the core concepts in there are mostly solid and it's a pretty good game regardless" in the face of a tidal wave of "UGH BIOWARE THIS IS ABSOLUTE SHIT WHY DID YOU SHIT IN MY MOUTH BIOWARE".

(Which is not to characterize every negative opinion as being shrill and hyperbolic as there are plenty of reasons not to like the game, but there's definitely an abundance of people whose train of thought seems to be 'On the whole, I did not like this game' -> 'Therefore, the whole game is bad without exception' and it's not very fun to try talking about the good points in the face of that.)


I think it'll be a fun game to talk about once everyone's beaten it and most of the people frothing with hatred have moved on.
I think what pushed me from "Good game badly made" in to "Bad game" was the end. I don't particularly want to write everything up and spoiler tag half my post, so I'll just say that it made a mediocre game measurably worse for me.
 
Coxswain said:
It's not really worthwhile to take the position of "This game has some pretty objective, pervasive flaws that hold back quality across the board, but the core concepts in there are mostly solid and it's a pretty good game regardless" in the face of a tidal wave of "UGH BIOWARE THIS IS ABSOLUTE SHIT WHY DID YOU SHIT IN MY MOUTH BIOWARE".

(Which is not to characterize every negative opinion as being shrill and hyperbolic as there are plenty of reasons not to like the game, but there's definitely an abundance of people whose train of thought seems to be 'On the whole, I did not like this game' -> 'Therefore, the whole game is bad without exception' and it's not very fun to try talking about the good points in the face of that.)


I think it'll be a fun game to talk about once everyone's beaten it and most of the people frothing with hatred have moved on.

I went through various stages of like and dislike while playing it. Liked it a lot for most of the first chapter. Hated it during the 2nd, really started to like it again around the end of the 2nd, disliked the ending quite a bit but kinda wanna play though the game all over again with a different class. The game is extremely flawed, but it's not the shit-fest many wished it was going to be (before they even played it, which is just sad). I think it's very deserving of the 78-80% average score that its earned.
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Coxswain said:
It's not really worthwhile to take the position of "This game has some pretty objective, pervasive flaws that hold back quality across the board, but the core concepts in there are mostly solid and it's a pretty good game regardless" in the face of a tidal wave of "UGH BIOWARE THIS IS ABSOLUTE SHIT WHY DID YOU SHIT IN MY MOUTH BIOWARE".

(Which is not to characterize every negative opinion as being shrill and hyperbolic as there are plenty of reasons not to like the game, but there's definitely an abundance of people whose train of thought seems to be 'On the whole, I did not like this game' -> 'Therefore, the whole game is bad without exception' and it's not very fun to try talking about the good points in the face of that.)


I think it'll be a fun game to talk about once everyone's beaten it and most of the people frothing with hatred have moved on.


...if there are an abundance of people who severely dislike the game, I don't see how you can dismiss their opinion, simply because they viewed it more negatively than you. Some thought it was good, some thought it was ok, and some thought it was complete shit. That's just the way it goes. But it is telling to me that the defenders are using this argument more and more. "Oh, once the haters move on, us level-headed people who enjoyed it can talk about it." As if liking the game despite it's flaws is somehow a loftier position than disliking it because of it's flaws.
 

Owzers

Member
ShockingAlberto said:
I think what pushed me from "Good game badly made" in to "Bad game" was the end. I don't particularly want to write everything up and spoiler tag half my post, so I'll just say that it made a mediocre game measurably worse for me.

Disappointment turned to anger.
 

REV 09

Member
Ysiadmihi said:
So the defense force for this game has pretty much vanished?
i love the game, but neogaf shits on everything. it's just not worth defending it anymore. I personally think that the game is fine, it's just that the marketing did a shit job at managing expectations. it shouldn't have been called Dragon Age "2".
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
WanderingWind said:
...if there are an abundance of people who severely dislike the game, I don't see how you can dismiss their opinion, simply because they viewed it more negatively than you. Some thought it was good, some thought it was ok, and some thought it was complete shit. That's just the way it goes. But it is telling to me that the defenders are using this argument more and more. "Oh, once the haters move on, us level-headed people who enjoyed it can talk about it." As if liking the game despite it's flaws is somehow a loftier position than disliking it because of it's flaws.

I get the feeling that most people who defended it pre-launch and for a short while after only did so because PC gamers were complaining. Now that the game is out and everyone knows what it is, they can't just admit they were wrong and anyone whose worries were confirmed are just haters.
 

Mesijs

Member
Sorry if this question has been answered already, but which of the two DA's is a better CONSOLE game. If I'd have to pick either one for PS3, which one should it be and why?
 

MechaX

Member
REV 09 said:
i love the game, but neogaf shits on everything. it's just not worth defending it anymore. I personally think that the game is fine, it's just that the marketing did a shit job at managing expectations. it shouldn't have been called Dragon Age "2".

Yeah, GAF may shit on a lot of stuff, but this really isn't a GAF problem. If you visit other gaming forums (whether that be GameFAQs, GameSpot, IGN, some smaller ones, /v/, and SomethingAwful- boy, those guys are more angry at DAII than GAF is!) you'll find that the sentiment is very mutual. Hell, for what little it's worth, even the gaming press isn't that hot on it even after giving the two most recent BioWare games critical acclaim. And even the things that most people take issue to, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if it was "Dragon Age 2" or "Dragon Age: The Hawke Years/The Champion/Etc" or what-have-you.
 
I'm not going to defend the game as a whole, I think it's a huge disappointing and not particularly good. The shittiness of act III really soured me on it despite liking the actual combat. But I'll stand by what I've said about the game's most important flaws having little to do with the dumbing down and consolisation part of it. In other words, the game's problems aren't really related to most of the pre-release hysteria.
 

Owzers

Member
Mesijs said:
Sorry if this question has been answered already, but which of the two DA's is a better CONSOLE game. If I'd have to pick either one for PS3, which one should it be and why?

i'd pick up Dragon Age GOTY edition for PS3, though the framerate, unless it was patched without me knowing, is horrendous on the ps3 version., and wait for the GOTY edition of Dragon Age 2.
 

Duki

Banned
wow this game is easy as a warrior

wtf

the duel was a total laugh, and act 3 was even more pathetic if you respec to full reaver and berserker

they do good single target dps in the end, but i mean 98% of the combat in the game is fighting multiple weaker foes where they really shine

bit of a joke really
 
Rufus said:
I agree, but in FF12 it actually did something. Depending on what and how much of it you sold, the merchants (or some of them, don't remember) would expand their inventory.

Bazaar'ing a Blood Sword 5-10 levels before you were supposed to be able purchase it and at half the price blew my young mind.
 

TehOh

Member
sillymonkey321 said:
Disappointment turned to anger.

That was essentially my reaction. I had all sorts of complaints about the game, but overall, I enjoyed playing it.

Until close to the end, when three things drove me into anger -
1: The story essentially shoves you into one two terrible paths
2: The second-to-last boss battle bugging on me three times in a row (each time about 8-10 minutes into it).
3: The ending (and lack of one).

After another 24 hours, I feel even worse about the whole thing, not better.

The game had moments where it was great, but was otherwise a huge disappointment.
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
MechaX said:
Yeah, GAF may shit on a lot of stuff, but this really isn't a GAF problem. If you visit other gaming forums (whether that be GameFAQs, GameSpot, IGN, some smaller ones, /v/, and SomethingAwful- boy, those guys are more angry at DAII than GAF is!) you'll find that the sentiment is very mutual. Hell, for what little it's worth, even the gaming press isn't that hot on it even after giving the two most recent BioWare games critical acclaim. And even the things that most people take issue to, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if it was "Dragon Age 2" or "Dragon Age: The Hawke Years/The Champion/Etc" or what-have-you.

I think if it had been sold as a side project to the "real" DA2, then everybody could have been happier. Don't like DA: The Champion of Kirkwall? Well, wait for the sequel. This wasn't the real number 2 anyway. The other one will be more like Dragon Age....right???
 
Basileus777 said:
I'm not going to defend the game as a whole, I think it's a huge disappointing and not particularly good. The shittiness of act III really soured me on it despite liking the actual combat. But I'll stand by what I've said about the game's most important flaws having little to do with the dumbing down and consolisation part of it. In other words, the game's problems aren't really related to most of the pre-release hysteria.

The pre-release hysteria was spot-on. It might have left me with at least some desire to replay it again if it retained all the customization and flexibility of the first game.
 
Basileus777 said:
But I'll stand by what I've said about the game's most important flaws having little to do with the dumbing down and consolisation part of it. In other words, the game's problems aren't really related to most of the pre-release hysteria.

Yeah, this is pretty reasonable.
 

sdornan

Member
The story is written so terribly. There are so many different simultaneous threads going on at once that I have no idea what the hell any of the quest givers are talking about when I pick up quests from them.

In many cases they cross-reference things that previously happened with little concern for whether the player knows or remembers what the hell they're talking about. It's gotten to the point where I'm just skipping a lot of the dialogue because it's so damn uninteresting and/or cryptic.

To compound that, nothing seems to ever happen in this game. The world is completely static, the majority of the game takes place in a single town, and the non-party NPCs are all quest-givers. It's like a damn MMO.

I'm sure I'm repeating things that have already been expressed many times in this thread, but oh well.
 
Confidence Man said:
The pre-release hysteria was spot-on. It might have left me with at least some desire to replay it again if it retained all the customization and flexibility of the first game.

I don't think letting me tinker with NPC's armor or making me invest points in skills to use crafting would change my opinion of this game in any real significant way. Some of that would be nice to have, but they are small things compared to the major design and writing problems in the game. And the skill trees in this game are actually more interesting to me in a customization sense.

I do miss the camera though.
 

Coxswain

Member
WanderingWind said:
...if there are an abundance of people who severely dislike the game, I don't see how you can dismiss their opinion, simply because they viewed it more negatively than you. Some thought it was good, some thought it was ok, and some thought it was complete shit. That's just the way it goes. But it is telling to me that the defenders are using this argument more and more. "Oh, once the haters move on, us level-headed people who enjoyed it can talk about it." As if liking the game despite it's flaws is somehow a loftier position than disliking it because of it's flaws.
Regardless of whether you like or dislike a game, being able to mentally separate the good from the bad and talk about the relative merits of what went right and the exact nature of what went wrong is absolutely a loftier position than "I dislike this game and everything about it" (or, for that matter, "I love this game and everything about it"). I am completely justified in dismissing the opinions of those people.

To a lesser extent, I'm also justified in dismissing the opinions of people whose thought process gets as far as "I didn't like this", but whose justification for that position doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny and debate. (For example: "You cannot have tactics when enemies spawn in waves.") I tend to try to engage those arguments anyway, but when the argument needs to be reset twice per page as new people begin the argument all over again, I don't really care to bother rehashing it endlessly.

I'm not dismissing the opinion of anybody who can back up their position - and there are plenty of people who dislike or even hate the game who can do so and have done so - so no, it's not as simple as 'you can't dismiss anyone's opinion'. I'll talk with someone who thinks the sunrise is ugly. I won't bother with someone who thinks the sun is the same colour as the grass on the ground.
 
Basileus777 said:
I don't think letting me tinker with NPC's armor or making me invest points in skills to use crafting would change my opinion of this game in any real significant way. And the skill trees in this game are actually more interesting to me in a customization sense.

I do miss the camera though.

The player class restrictions, party members' locked combat roles, lack of persuasion impacts the possibilities of resolving quests, no different origins or races to play, dialogue wheel, game takes place in one city, etc...

The only big things that no one expected to be so shitty were the reused environments and pointless story.
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Coxswain said:
Regardless of whether you like or dislike a game, being able to mentally separate the good from the bad and talk about the relative merits of what went right and the exact nature of what went wrong is absolutely a loftier position than "I dislike this game and everything about it" (or, for that matter, "I love this game and everything about it"). I am completely justified in dismissing the opinions of those people.

To a lesser extent, I'm also justified in dismissing the opinions of people whose thought process gets as far as "I didn't like this", but whose justification for that position doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny and debate. (For example: "You cannot have tactics when enemies spawn in waves.") I tend to try to engage those arguments anyway, but when the argument needs to be reset twice per page as new people begin the argument all over again, I don't really care to bother rehashing it endlessly.

I'm not dismissing the opinion of anybody who can back up their position - and there are plenty of people who dislike or even hate the game who can do so and have done so - so no, it's not as simple as 'you can't dismiss anyone's opinion'. I'll talk with someone who thinks the sunrise is ugly. I won't bother with someone who thinks the sun is the same colour as the grass on the ground.

It's not unreasonable, for people to wholly dislike something about a game that changed nearly every aspect of its predecessor. You can feel justified, if you'd like, but there is nothing inherently wrong with not liking the entire product. And unless you can point to something that is factually, objectively better about the game than DA:O, then you're simply having a disagreement with a person, not attempting to persuade somebody that the grass is the sunrise.
 

Coxswain

Member
WanderingWind said:
It's not unreasonable, for people to wholly dislike something about a game that changed nearly every aspect of its predecessor. You can feel justified, if you'd like, but there is nothing inherently wrong with not liking the entire product. And unless you can point to something that is factually, objectively better about the game than DA:O, then you're simply having a disagreement with a person, not attempting to persuade somebody that the grass is the sunrise.
1) It's unreasonable for people to think that Dragon Age 2 "changed nearly every aspect of its predecessor", full stop. They are fundamentally very, very similar games.

2) Class balance is factually, objectively better than DAO/DAA. That's about as arguable as "dungeon layouts factually, objectively have more variety in DAO".
 
Q: Could prolonging development time for the game result in a better variety within the city itself and avoiding reused areas, as seen in the game?

A: Obviously, more time would enable more areas and bigger variation. Honestly, we did not expect this to be such a big deal, but it seems the subject gave rise to a significant number of complaints by both critics and players alike. We listen to the reviews and we will try to address the issue in future games.

Q: Does every battle consist of enemy waves? What is your answer for all those people that claim the lack of ability to know the number of waves and where they will pop up causes a battle that consists of reactions instead of tactics and planning?

A: Part of the tactical game is adapting to changes. The waves might feel different, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not agree with those that think the wave pattern is terrible as of itself, but I do agree that there are things it's possible to do in order to improve the use of the waves. We can use them less often and improve the breeding mechanic, for instance. All in all I think the waves are an excellent addition to the game.

Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance.


WELCOME TO THE NEW BIOWARE
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Coxswain said:
1) It's unreasonable for people to think that Dragon Age 2 "changed nearly every aspect of its predecessor", full stop. They are fundamentally very, very similar games.

2) Class balance is factually, objectively better than DAO/DAA. That's about as arguable as "dungeon layouts factually, objectively have more variety in DAO".

1) Sorry, no. They're extremely different games. Are there similarities? Of course. Are their vast differences? Of course.

2) I agree, but then again, I think they simply made all three classes a slog to play through - which to me, isn't an improvement over at least having 1 fun class to play as.
 
Fimbulvetr said:
Haha. I missed the blood magic one.

Really? Oh man.

Yeah it's ridiculous that Hawke's blood magic is just a box you tick basically. At least in Origins you had to make an in game choice to gain it, and risk pissing off companions.
 

Coxswain

Member
WanderingWind said:
1) Sorry, no. They're extremely different games. Are there similarities? Of course. Are their vast differences? Of course.
Name one single thing that constitutes a fundamental change from one game to the other. I'll helpfully point out a few things that are definitely not fundamental changes:

- Changing the camera angle is not a fundamental change.
- Speeding up combat is not a fundamental change.
- Rebalancing classes is not a fundamental change.
- Moving dialogue options from a single, sequential list to a standardized, semi-graphical array is not a fundamental change.
- Neither is giving the main character a voice.
- Nor is it a fundamental shift for the main character to always be human.
- The number of pieces of equipment that can be changed on party members does not constitute a fundamental change.
- Replacing skills that create items that have no use other than in combat with a bench you can use outside of combat to create items that have no use other than in combat is not a fundamental change.
- Replacing a single, depthless "Persuasion" skill that comes up in one in ten conversations with Friendship triggers and/or delegating conversations to companions in about one in ten conversations is definitely not a fundamental change.
- Giving the player the option to make decisions that do nothing is not fundamentally different from giving the player options to make decisions that do nothing except display a single screen of text after the player has already beaten the game.


Edit: Also: You, personally, having a strong fondness for one game and a strong dislike for the other, is not a fundamental change.
 

Xilium

Member
Basileus777 said:
I'm not going to defend the game as a whole, I think it's a huge disappointing and not particularly good. The shittiness of act III really soured me on it despite liking the actual combat. But I'll stand by what I've said about the game's most important flaws having little to do with the dumbing down and consolisation part of it. In other words, the game's problems aren't really related to most of the pre-release hysteria.
I think the primary problems are the things they claimed they changed/added in for the better ultimately being annoying or pointless.

I'm fine with the faster paced combat (primarily because I'm on PC w/ auto-attack) but having the enemy waves on EVERY SINGLE CONFRONTATION is just plain annoying and tedious. If it were just during boss battles or special enemies (carta bard?) that could summon support, I would be fine with it but as it is, it's obviously just a ploy to extend the length of the game.

The framed narrative had 2 somewhat interesting points, both of which just have you playing an overpowered character. They did nothing with it otherwise.

The so called focused narrative is about as prevalent as the critical path in ME2.

Speaking of ME2, they probably would have been better off just dumping the inventory system (can't believe I'm saying this). With the revisions they made and all the DLC items you get (many of which you don't even have to pay for), the nearly all the loot you get is just sold off anyway.

The dialog system is essentially set up to where you can almost always choose the neutral/sarcastic option and end the game with everyone friendly towards you. Except for maybe Fenris and Anders (assuming you don't do their companion quest), you really have to go out of your way to make your companions hate you. In other words, the rivalry system is basically unnecessary.

The 10 year time frame was ultimately wasted. Hardly anything changes. I can think of 3 characters that had a social status change and that's it. A few people die but nobody ages, the city never changes, people don't relocate, nothing. That rockslide in Sundermount blocking the path up the mountain was still there 9 years later. WTF!

And once again, Bioware seems to be moving further and further away from having your decisions effect anything. They make you think that decisions you made earlier in the game have an impact in other quest but when you actually go back and change you choices, you find out that they'll just deus ex machina the scenario to make it play out the same regardless.

These were all things that they were hyping up as being these amazing changes that we should look forward to and why we would overlook the fact that it's different from DA:O but all those things were half-assed and pointless. Then you add in poor/repetitive level design, a ridiculous ending, half the characters in the game being radical extremist, ect. and I think it adds up to a poor game and according to them, they did these things to appeal to a console audience because 80% (or whatever bs number they threw out there) of people that played origins never made it past the first hour (So the logical thing to do is to cater the sequel towards that 80% that didn't like the first game...).
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Coxswain said:
Name one single thing that constitutes a fundamental change from one game to the other. I'll helpfully point out a few things that are definitely not fundamental changes:

- Changing the camera angle is not a fundamental change.
- Speeding up combat is not a fundamental change.
- Rebalancing classes is not a fundamental change.
- Moving dialogue options from a single, sequential list to a standardized, semi-graphical array is not a fundamental change.
- Neither is giving the main character a voice.
- Nor is it a fundamental shift for the main character to always be human.
- The number of pieces of equipment that can be changed on party members does not constitute a fundamental change.
- Replacing skills that create items that have no use other than in combat with a bench you can use outside of combat to create items that have no use other than in combat is not a fundamental change.
- Replacing a single, depthless "Persuasion" skill that comes up in one in ten conversations with Friendship triggers and/or delegating conversations to companions in about one in ten conversations is definitely not a fundamental change.
- Giving the player the option to make decisions that do nothing is not fundamentally different from giving the player options to make decisions that do nothing except display a single screen of text after the player has already beaten the game.

Yeah...that doesn't work. You can't "helpfully" label every change as non-fundamental to suit your point. In any event, this is quickly going nowhere. Feel however you want about the game, and I'll do the same.
 

CatPee

Member
Mesijs said:
Sorry if this question has been answered already, but which of the two DA's is a better CONSOLE game. If I'd have to pick either one for PS3, which one should it be and why?

From what I've read, the 360 version has a more consistent framerate, but some worse animations and textures (though textures are shit on both console versions, really). PS3 version has the lower overall framerate and more dips (especially during saving. I think it goes into the singles during combat while saving) but slightly better-looking textures and animations.

I'd grab the GOTY version. The DLC makes it worth it and I swear the framerate is actually somewhat improved from the original.
 
Coxswain said:
Name one single thing that constitutes a fundamental change from one game to the other. I'll helpfully point out a few things that are definitely not fundamental changes:
Significantly increasing the cool down on all abilities and introducing a cool down on potions. Adding enemy waves. Adding enemies that have a health bar several times size of others. Addition of cross class combos.

They are all significant changes that make DA2 a different game from DA:O.
WanderingWind said:
Yeah...that doesn't work. You can't "helpfully" label every change as non-fundamental to suit your point. In any event, this is quickly going nowhere. Feel however you want about the game, and I'll do the same.
Just so you know I am with you. And I think his stance of "Its exactly the same game" is somewhat ridiculous. I just think its easier to ignore it most of the time than get into an argument about it.
 
Lostconfused said:
Significantly increasing the cool down on all abilities and introducing a cool down on potions. Adding enemy waves. Adding enemies that have a health bar several times size of others. Addition of cross class combos.

There were "cross class" combos and waves in Dragon Age Origins. Warriors and rogues could shatter enemies frozen/petrified by a mage, rogues could do extra damage against stunned/knocked down opponents. They've tuned it a bit in this game but the fundamentals are the same.

And there were also definitely waves, maybe the frequency of waves in DA2 constitutes a significant change, but there were certainly multi-wave fights in the first game. Many of the boss fights and quite a few normal fights had reinforcements coming in.

I guess the cooldown on potions is significant, but it's a good change IMO.
 
wayward archer said:
There were "cross class" combos and waves in Dragon Age Origins. Warriors and rogues could shatter enemies frozen/petrified by a mage, rogues could do extra damage against stunned/knocked down opponents. They've tuned it a bit in this game but the fundamentals are the same.

And there were also definitely waves, maybe the frequency of waves in DA2 constitutes a significant change, but there were certainly multi-wave fights in the first game. Many of the boss fights and quite a few normal fights had reinforcements coming in.

I guess the cooldown on potions is significant, but it's a good change IMO.
Yes there were wave fights in Origins, probably four or five. The spider boss in Deep Roads, the spirit apparatus, defending red cliff, the darkspawn in the Alienage. Shattering a frozen enemy is only one example and it doesn't even work the same way between the two games. The fundamentals being the same does not mean the games are different people. These are significant differences between the two games.

Are you going to tell me that Planescape and BG2 are the same games just because they have the same fundamentals? As in they both follow the ADnD rule set and you click on npcs to innate dialog and then you have a limited list of available replies?
 
Lostconfused said:
Yes there were wave fights in Origins, probably four or five. The spider boss in Deep Roads, the spirit anvil, defending red cliff, the darkspawn in the Alienage.

Broodmother
fight against the lesser dragon and drakelings on the ashes of andraste quest
several battles against the cultists have fire demons that come out of the ground during them on the andraste quest
warden's keep final battle


There are more than that I promise you.


Shattering a frozen enemy is only one example and it doesn't even work the same way between the two games. The fundamentals being the same does not mean the games are different people. The are significant differences between the two games.

Are you going to tell me that Planescape and BG2 are the same games just because they have the same fundamentals? As in they both follow the ADnD rule set and you click on npcs to innate dialog and then you have a limited list of available replies?

No i'm not really arguing that the two games aren't different, just that your examples weren't significant changes.
 

Salaadin

Member
Enemy waves are WAY more frequent in DA2 though. And they literally spawn right on top of you, removing all positional strategies from the majority of the
 

Coxswain

Member
Lostconfused said:
Significantly increasing the cool down on all abilities and introducing a cool down on potions. Adding enemy waves. Adding enemies that have a health bar several times size of others. Addition of cross class combos.

They are all significant changes that make DA2 a different game from DA:O.
Of course it's a different game than DAO. It's just got far, far, far more in common with the first game than there are differences between the two. There's less difference between the two games than there is between Halo and Call of Duty. It's enough difference that they're different; it's enough difference that it's easy to see how one can like one and dislike the other; it's not enough difference to justify the hyperbolic position that nearly everything has been changed or whatever it was.

Your specific points are really strange, though, since almost all of those things were in DAO in the first place.
- They didn't significantly increase the cooldown on anything even close to "all abilities". Winter's Grasp and Heal are the only obvious offenders; everything else is pretty comparable to DAO. That's not to say that they should have done that (well, they should have done it for Heal), and honestly they really should have lowered cooldowns to be congruous with the pacing of the rest of the combat system - I complained about that the first time I played the demo, even - but it's not a huge change, let alone a fundamental one. Go back to DAO and mod it so that Winter's Grasp takes 20 seconds to recharge and Heal takes 40. You're not suddenly playing a different or even unfamiliar game.
- There was always a cooldown on potions. They made it longer, and they made the cooldown global amongst every kind of Health potion, every kind of stamina potion, etc, but it's a rebalancing issue, not a fundamental change (and I don't think you can rightly even argue that it was anything other than a completely positive change, considering how potion-chugging made DAO trivial on every single difficulty).
- Enemy waves are overused in DA2. They weren't absent from DAO. Redcliffe starts with a big multi-wave fight. The Brood Mother spawns in waves of Darkspawn throughout the fight (along with tentacles that literally pop up out of nowhere like DA2 enemies). It's a tool in the franchise's toolbox - it happened to be used sparingly in the first game, and overused heavily in the second, but it's in both.
- There were always enemies with more health than others. Hurlock Alphas had more HP than Hurlocks, Ogres had more than any sort of 'lock, etc. It's not a fundamental change - it's not even a change, except that a larger health bar gives the player a slightly more detailed version of the information they already have.
- Cross-class combos A) were already in DAO, particularly the Frozen -> Shatter combination, and B) aren't really a whole lot different from any of the other spell combos that were available in the first game. They're standardized now, and they make classes besides Mages useful for something other than being the target of a Force Field, but they're not fundamentally different - just much, much better balanced.
 
I used those examples because they function differently between the two games which leads to combat being significantly different between the two.

Yes there are wave fights in Origins, they work differently from the ones in DA2. Yes you could shatter enemies in Origins the mechanics are not the same as they are in DA2.

You can keep saying that Origins had those things in it. And you are right, it does. But both games do them differently which adds up to the combat not being the same between the two games.

Edit: Also I disagree that difference have to be fundamental. Fundamental differences would mean that this isn't Dragon Age anymore but maybe more like Fable or Diablo or even Mass Effect.
 

Coxswain

Member
Nobody ever said that they were the same. I said that they were very, very similar, which they are. I think I've gone out of my way to even say, more than once, that there is easily enough difference between the way each game handles the same idea that it's very possible for someone to really like one game's handling and really dislike the other game's handling. I don't have a problem if you have a strong preference - I do too!

All I'm saying is, if you seriously, hand-to-god, honest-and-true think that Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age Origins stand further apart than being Coke to the other game's Pepsi (Edit: You know what, I'll even give a little bit of slack here: Coke to the other game's generic store-brand Cola), you should probably take a big step back and seriously rethink your approach to interpreting video game mechanics.
 
Coxswain said:
All I'm saying is, if you seriously, hand-to-god, honest-and-true think that Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age Origins stand further apart than being Coke to the other game's Pepsi, you should probably take a big step back and seriously rethink your approach to interpreting video game mechanics.
Ok then I am not disagreeing with you in any way. My main problem with DA2 is the hype and the review scores for it. The game is deeply flawed and at no point in time did it deserve the 80+ scores that it was getting. I agree that there are a lot of things to like about it, or actually only the companions and the banter. At least that is the only part of the game I can enjoy. But there are a lot of things that deserve to be criticized and Bioware taken to task for.

In short I just don't think its a good game. As much as I will rant about ME2 I will admit that it is a good game and accept its GAF GOTY. I can't imagine anyone honestly liking DA2. Probably because its as bland of a Bioware RPG you can get and there isn't anything really unique or interesting about it.
 

Rufus

Member
Coxswain said:
All I'm saying is, if you seriously, hand-to-god, honest-and-true think that Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age Origins stand further apart than being Coke to the other game's Pepsi (Edit: You know what, I'll even give a little bit of slack here: Coke to the other game's generic store-brand Cola), you should probably take a big step back and seriously rethink your approach to interpreting video game mechanics.

I think it'd be more helpful at this point if you specifically pointed out which posts irked you. (I don't care, personally, just saying.)

edit #2: Never mind, the post below points it out.
 
Top Bottom