I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 more than Origins...and it wasn't even close

Coxswain said:
To be honest, I think it's less that the AI is worse than it was in previous games (although it is much less customizable) and more that the mechanics and pacing of the game are that of a pure action RPG, unlike the more abstract, tactical format of DAO and DA2, which leads to a one-two punch of A) The same AI that can stay out of trouble when combat is essentially on a 2D plane, with the area-of-effect of a frontal attack just being a straight 90-degree cone, is not able to deal with it when there's a third dimension in play, and the hitbox for a hammer swing starts somewhere off to the bad guy's left, and ends up going over his right shoulder and slightly behind him, and B) When the AI isn't up to snuff, the game is just going on too quickly for the player to step in and manually control all four characters, whereas it was pretty routine in both DAO and DA2 to be issuing almost every single command personally during tough encounters (at least on Nightmare).

Regardless, though, trying to wrangle my party in DAI feels more akin to dealing with the AI party members in a Tales or Star Ocean game than it does playing a game like DAO/DA2, and it's really frustrating at times.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It's very reminiscent of the AI troubles that Tales of games have where they just have no positional awareness what so ever.

If the combat was slower paced and less action oriented it wouldn't be a problem. However as it is you'll be focusing on controlling your own character and you'll turn to look at your caster who is tanking an aoe or a melee character that is standing in the enemy's cleave radius. Sure you can quickly pause and rectify it briefly but they've already taken a bit of damage and they often just do the same thing over and over again.

Anyone who says it isn't an issue, obviously hasn't played the game on Nightmare.
 
Massa said:
I'll take that mages/templars story over "player character is The One saves the world against evil" anytime.
Click to expand...

I'll take a boring standard over the self defeating drek that 2 storyline ends up being. Tries to portray the mage/templar conflict as this really difficult complex thing and then has all the mages either end up demon possessed or as suicide bombers.
 
Coxswain said:
DAO is a case of an immaculately polished, repeatedly iterated, carefully hand-crafted - in other words, not rushed in the slightest - game that is just, at a fundamental level, kind of boring and mediocre.
DA2 is the broken, shitty alpha of a game that would have probably been really good and pretty interesting if it hadn't been forced to ship 30-50% of the way into development.

DAO gives you a fantastic interface for a tactical combat system, and couples that with interesting, varied encounters all throughout, yet remains a 4/10 tactical game because the core combat system is just so shallow and unbalanced.
DA2 gives you a pretty damn good combat system with decent balance, good pacing, interesting skills, etc, yet isn't any better as a tactical combat game because there basically isn't any encounter design and you're thrown up against the same fight every ten minutes for the entire duration of the game, with different skins on the same enemies.

DAO gives you a complete story, layered with choices and reactivity all the way through, where everything matters, and nothing feels threadbare - except for the actual story, which has about as much style and originality as any given collection of "bring me 10 bear asses" MMO fetch quests (Oh boy! Orcs! And they're an ancient evil, that threatens to overrun the land. Please let them).
DA2 is actually a really cool concept for a story - a 10-year story, largely contained to the setting of a single city, that's satisfied to tell you about the life of basically just one guy, rather than trying to go epic and save the world - but that concept is utterly unsupported and undercut by anemic, constantly-reused area designs, important-seeming choices that are never touched on again, and an entire third act that might as well be a post-it note that says "Remember to put a game here. -Bioware"


And so on and so forth. Neither game is anywhere close to an unqualified success or failure, in other words. You have to ignore or just not be aware of a lot of obvious things to love either of them, and if the things that either one sucks at are the things that get on your nerves, neither of them are good enough in other areas to make up for that.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty spot-on analysis of the pros and cons of both games, IMO, although you left out the characters themselves (which to me is the one of the most important parts about a Bioware game). To me, the characters in DA2 are superior to the characters in DA:O, which is one of the reasons I remember DA2 so fondly. But both games definitely have their flaws. I think DA2 could have been a great sequel if they'd given it more time and hadn't pushed it out the gate. =(
 
TheYanger said:
Just like Inquisition though, or Mass Effect 2, the 'plot' of DA:O is VERY VERY LITTLE of the actual story, it's about world building. Anyone saying Dragon Age was a LOTR ripoff paid ZERO attention to what was going on in that game. Someone last page said it was much more Game of Thrones, and it clearly is (In a lot of ways). The blight and being the big hero is such a small part of what you do in that game it's almost negligible. If we could sum the game up like that we wouldn't need the Keep.
Click to expand...

Well not to mention the fact that the blight and ostagar and that whole intro chapter in origins just felt like someone slapped me with a sign that said "the grey wardens are the night's watch and ostagar is the wall, except not because bioware is super original guys"
 
Dragon Age 2 is worse in virtually all departments (I honestly can't think of one thing I preferred). Voiced protagonist, no auto attack (Bioware even claimed it was in 8 hours before release, liars), worse characters (reminded me of animie tween cheese), one main location, poor art direction, majorly reused assets, bad story... it just goes on and on.

Dragon Age: Origins was a respectful nod towards RPGs of yesteryear and was a delicious treat even on consoles. Dragon Age 2 seemed to target a totally different market and borrowed far too heavily from Mass Effect. There's a reason why Origins had long legs in the sales department, especially for a new IP. Shame on Bioware for throwing it all away.
 
Coxswain said:
I can see how someone would like DA2 more than DAO. Personally I thought they were pretty much in a dead heat with each other, quality-wise, but they're an odd pair in that they ended up with pretty much diametrically opposed strengths and weaknesses.


DAO is a case of an immaculately polished, repeatedly iterated, carefully hand-crafted - in other words, not rushed in the slightest - game that is just, at a fundamental level, kind of boring and mediocre.
DA2 is the broken, shitty alpha of a game that would have probably been really good and pretty interesting if it hadn't been forced to ship 30-50% of the way into development.

DAO gives you a fantastic interface for a tactical combat system, and couples that with interesting, varied encounters all throughout, yet remains a 4/10 tactical game because the core combat system is just so shallow and unbalanced.
DA2 gives you a pretty damn good combat system with decent balance, good pacing, interesting skills, etc, yet isn't any better as a tactical combat game because there basically isn't any encounter design and you're thrown up against the same fight every ten minutes for the entire duration of the game, with different skins on the same enemies.

DAO gives you a complete story, layered with choices and reactivity all the way through, where everything matters, and nothing feels threadbare - except for the actual story, which has about as much style and originality as any given collection of "bring me 10 bear asses" MMO fetch quests (Oh boy! Orcs! And they're an ancient evil, that threatens to overrun the land. Please let them).
DA2 is actually a really cool concept for a story - a 10-year story, largely contained to the setting of a single city, that's satisfied to tell you about the life of basically just one guy, rather than trying to go epic and save the world - but that concept is utterly unsupported and undercut by anemic, constantly-reused area designs, important-seeming choices that are never touched on again, and an entire third act that might as well be a post-it note that says "Remember to put a game here. -Bioware"


And so on and so forth. Neither game is anywhere close to an unqualified success or failure, in other words. You have to ignore or just not be aware of a lot of obvious things to love either of them, and if the things that either one sucks at are the things that get on your nerves, neither of them are good enough in other areas to make up for that.

(Frustratingly, Inquisition sort of just hauls off and does its own thing completely separate from either of the two previous games, so it's got a whole new set of pros and cons and you can't really predict how much you're gonna like it based on how you felt about any of the previous games.)
Click to expand...

This guy nailed exactly how I feel about the series (save for the fact that I prefer DA2). This is a fantastic post.
 
Coxswain said:
I can see how someone would like DA2 more than DAO. Personally I thought they were pretty much in a dead heat with each other, quality-wise, but they're an odd pair in that they ended up with pretty much diametrically opposed strengths and weaknesses.


DAO is a case of an immaculately polished, repeatedly iterated, carefully hand-crafted - in other words, not rushed in the slightest - game that is just, at a fundamental level, kind of boring and mediocre.
DA2 is the broken, shitty alpha of a game that would have probably been really good and pretty interesting if it hadn't been forced to ship 30-50% of the way into development.

DAO gives you a fantastic interface for a tactical combat system, and couples that with interesting, varied encounters all throughout, yet remains a 4/10 tactical game because the core combat system is just so shallow and unbalanced.
DA2 gives you a pretty damn good combat system with decent balance, good pacing, interesting skills, etc, yet isn't any better as a tactical combat game because there basically isn't any encounter design and you're thrown up against the same fight every ten minutes for the entire duration of the game, with different skins on the same enemies.

DAO gives you a complete story, layered with choices and reactivity all the way through, where everything matters, and nothing feels threadbare - except for the actual story, which has about as much style and originality as any given collection of "bring me 10 bear asses" MMO fetch quests (Oh boy! Orcs! And they're an ancient evil, that threatens to overrun the land. Please let them).
DA2 is actually a really cool concept for a story - a 10-year story, largely contained to the setting of a single city, that's satisfied to tell you about the life of basically just one guy, rather than trying to go epic and save the world - but that concept is utterly unsupported and undercut by anemic, constantly-reused area designs, important-seeming choices that are never touched on again, and an entire third act that might as well be a post-it note that says "Remember to put a game here. -Bioware"


And so on and so forth. Neither game is anywhere close to an unqualified success or failure, in other words. You have to ignore or just not be aware of a lot of obvious things to love either of them, and if the things that either one sucks at are the things that get on your nerves, neither of them are good enough in other areas to make up for that.

(Frustratingly, Inquisition sort of just hauls off and does its own thing completely separate from either of the two previous games, so it's got a whole new set of pros and cons and you can't really predict how much you're gonna like it based on how you felt about any of the previous games.)
Click to expand...

Do you have a summary post of your thoughts on Inquisition, by the way?
 
Y2Kev said:
Do you have a summary post of your thoughts on Inquisition, by the way?
Click to expand...

Nah, I didn't hop on Inquisition on day one or anything. I'm actually literally playing it right now, in another window, but I haven't even really hit the end stretch, let alone digested and reflected on the game as a whole.

So far my main impression is just that I have to keep double-checking that it's actually a Bioware game. It's so divorced in style and structure from everything else they've done, even going back as far as their IE days. Not even necessarily in a good way or a bad way, but really, really different.
 
Coxswain said:
Nah, I didn't hop on Inquisition on day one or anything. I'm actually literally playing it right now, in another window, but I haven't even really hit the end stretch, let alone digested and reflected on the game as a whole.

So far my main impression is just that I have to keep double-checking that it's actually a Bioware game. It's so divorced in style and structure from everything else they've done, even going back as far as their IE days. Not even necessarily in a good way or a bad way, but really, really different.
Click to expand...

I've been playing FFXIV for most of this year. Feels like I never left the MMO scene since I started playing DA:I. It's a really weird change of pace.
 
"I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 more than Origins...and it wasn't even close"

Either you just think you did or this is a troll thread. Otherwise
54330040.jpg
 
Dragon Age Origins was one of my favorite games from last gen. Dragon Age 2 was so bad that I haven't touched another Bioware game since.
 
Eh, I won't say you're crazy, but the dungeons in DA2 are objectively worse because of poor encounter design and the fact that there is only like 2. Honestly I'd max cap the score for DA2 at 6/10 simply for having the most limited amount of areas of any RPG of its type. Like I feel I'm taking crazy pills when I remember that this was something that was allowed...

Characters, story, plot, etc, are a lot more subjective, I liked some of those things in DA2, but I still prefered them in DA: O. Since I cared more about the gameplay and combat as a whole, DA: O was ahead by a landslide, even given its faults, as was mentioned that you essentially have the exact same encounter every 10 minutes in DA2, I never felt like "oh, that last room was tough, I really had to use strategy and go all out". Its the same with the dungeon design, not to mention terrible lack of character customization, the gameplay as a whole is seriously flawed in DA2.
 
Coxswain said:
Nah, I didn't hop on Inquisition on day one or anything. I'm actually literally playing it right now, in another window, but I haven't even really hit the end stretch, let alone digested and reflected on the game as a whole.

So far my main impression is just that I have to keep double-checking that it's actually a Bioware game. It's so divorced in style and structure from everything else they've done, even going back as far as their IE days. Not even necessarily in a good way or a bad way, but really, really different.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Structurally, it feels quite a bit like a typical Bioware game, but I'm not very far. The whole "speak to the mages/speak to the templars/rally support for the Inquisition" seems like something I've seen before, but again I'm very early.

I can't get going with the game. I keep starting it and just keep getting bored with it. I really dislike not having a healer.
 
Whenever I see people praising DA2's story I just feel such a disconnect.

I don't have any interest in bashing anyone's opinions it's just that this is one that I do not get at all.

I found the story to be terrible, specifically the entire conflict between the mages and the templars was just garbage. Everyone you meet from either faction is an asshole lunatic and the game seems specifically designed to make you regret every story decision by having whoever you allied with or helped turn out to be a heaping jackass. I'm sure this was meant to be "deep" or "realistic" by introducing moral gray areas and what not but I found it to be handled very very poorly. On top of that you have to suck up to Anders at all times if you want to have a healer in your party and I despise him.

Like I said, I just don't get it.
 
Y2Kev said:
I can't get going with the game. I keep starting it and just keep getting bored with it. I really dislike not having a healer.
Click to expand...

Yes, in this regard, plus wide open areas with a lot of things to gather but not a lot to do, reminds me a lot of Guild Wars 2 or many other MMOs, though GW2 had the no healer thing.

I had one very frustrating fight already where I was down to two potions, party at around 40% life, and I was on hard, I tried to load some previous saves but could not quite get out of that situation. I had to like cheese the boss to win..

I keep getting bored too, I just became inquisitor and took a break for the last couple of weeks, I'll try to get back into it soon.
 
I really do have a disconnect with people who actually prefer the story in DA2 over Origins. Yes, Origins is generic but it actually makes sense and people act in a rational manner unlike in DA2 where every mage turns into a blood mage and every templar is some raving lunatic who wants to murder all mages and then Bioware wants me to chose between these two? GTFO with that nonsense. The only story line that was any good was the Qunari storyline which they screwed up by ending it too early. I will agree that I did like some of the characters namely Varric, Aveline, and Merrill.
 
Y2Kev said:
Interesting. Structurally, it feels quite a bit like a typical Bioware game, but I'm not very far. The whole "speak to the mages/speak to the templars/rally support for the Inquisition" seems like something I've seen before, but again I'm very early.

I can't get going with the game. I keep starting it and just keep getting bored with it. I really dislike not having a healer.
Click to expand...

The whole open world thing has definitely diluted the game somewhat, imo. Prior Bioware games were far more focused. That said, I fell into a reasonably acceptible groove with Inquisition: Story > Exploration > Story > Exploration etc.
 
I liked a lot of DA: 2 and could definitely see people preferring quite a bit of it to DA: O. The story theme was cool and not nearly as cliched as the overall plot in DA: O. Characters seemed interesting, etc. I was personally really excited for DA: 2 when they were revealing everything. Even when everyone was all lol shit mountain about it I was still pretty hyped. I didn't mind the changes to more action based combat and all that.

Then the game came out... Despite playing through Origins nearly 4 times right in a row (something I never ever ever ever) do, I couldn't finish DA: 2. The fucking dungeons are what did it. It was so goddamned boring going through the same awful dungeon so many times. I just couldn't finish it, despite mostly liking everything else...
 
gogosox82 said:
I really do have a disconnect with people who actually prefer the story in DA2 over Origins. Yes, Origins is generic but it actually makes sense and people act in a rational manner unlike in DA2 where every mage turns into a blood mage and every templar is some raving lunatic who wants to murder all mages and then Bioware wants me to chose between these two? GTFO with that nonsense. The only story line that was any good was the Qunari storyline which they screwed up by ending it too early. I will agree that I did like some of the characters namely Varric, Aveline, and Merrill.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you didn't get the story.

When those events happen, they affect your decision making. Your mother turned into a victim of blood magic. Do you hate mages? But you need to protect your sister who is a mage. What do you do then?

The important issue is that you aren't making good or evil choices. You have no idea what is good or evil until you make that decision for yourself. The choices are clearly opened.

Compare that to one of the more "neutral" choice areas in DA:O, the quest line in Orzammar where you recruit Gimli's friends. You only have one choice that is the SMART choice. Choosing between Harrowmont and Bhelen is not hard at all once you gathered the information. Bhelen is the only choice as he will help fight against the blight on the surface. Barely any choice making in there.
 
I would say its better, but it gets way too much hate. I lived it being in one setting and found the combat fine too.
Personally I thought the dungeons in both were lacking. DAO's were too long and very boring, while DA2's were cut and paste jobs.




OzPinoy said:
Not sure what you're thinking but nope.
Click to expand...


Guy posts gigantic op and you post this fly by shite within a minute?

I don't beleieve for even a moment you read beyond the thread title.
 
I liked some of the characters (especially Anders, Merill and Fenrir) in DAII but the overall plot and the sparse variety in locations was a huge disappointment.
 
Wulfram said:
There are things DA2 did well.

The plot is most definitely not one of them. I mean, Act 2 is OK - even if the persistent yet unacknowledged ineffectiveness of the protagonist is wearing. But there basically is no main plot. The first act is just pointless stuff that happens. And the finale is just a sub-plot of DA:O but stupider.

The combat mechanics were superior, but the encounter design was rubbish so they go to waste
Click to expand...

This is well said. Where it counts, DA2 falls flat on its face even if it does some things well.
 
Y2Kev said:
Interesting. Structurally, it feels quite a bit like a typical Bioware game, but I'm not very far. The whole "speak to the mages/speak to the templars/rally support for the Inquisition" seems like something I've seen before, but again I'm very early.

I can't get going with the game. I keep starting it and just keep getting bored with it. I really dislike not having a healer.
Click to expand...

What threw me in the first couple hours was honestly the way they used the dialogue. Pretty much every other Bioware RPG has had a really slow-paced opening with tons of dialogue that lets you instantly start defining your main character's personality between the "super nice saint" and "ridiculous hard-ass" extremes (and in the case of DA2, the "guy who thinks he's really witty"), coupled with at-length conversations between you and some of the major players/party members where they beat you over the head with what kind of personality those characters have.

Conversely, basically the entire intro of Inquisition is made up of expository dialogue, your initial "meeting" with the head Templar guy is basically just him walking up, calling you a dick, and taking off, and even most of the sidequests only give your character a pretty neutral tone. Your character ends up feeling like pretty much a blank cipher all the way up until you're actually doing the no-turning-back-now Mage/Templar mission.

I don't know if that's a compliment (ie: "It's good that they let you feel out the story and your position in it before they start making you nail down a personality") or a criticism (ie: "Your character doesn't really have a personality to speak of until you're a good five hours into the game"), but it makes the early hours of the game feel a lot different from every other Bioware game.


That's before getting into the mechanical stuff, like that they sort of turn you loose on proper gameplay much more quickly compared to the extended intros of everything as far back as Irenicus's sex dungeon in BG2, or that the side quests exist in this weird space where none of the specific side content is mandatory, but it's mandatory that you do some of the side content, and unlocking new areas is basically done via an RPG-themed version of collecting Stars in Mario 64.

The critical-path stuff is probably not too different structurally from Bioware's older works, but the way that it's all framed feels totally different from what they've done before.
 
jamsy said:
The dungeons - I hated how long and time-consuming the dungeons were in Origins. DA2 fixes that with shorter dungeons that I definitely appreciated. Sure, more variety in design would've been nice, but I didn't mind one bit.
Click to expand...

woogOAD.gif


I'm with you on DA2 being a good, fun game with a nice story, but being better than Origins? Nah.
 
Coxswain said:
What threw me in the first couple hours was honestly the way they used the dialogue. Pretty much every other Bioware RPG has had a really slow-paced opening with tons of dialogue that lets you instantly start defining your main character's personality between the "super nice saint" and "ridiculous hard-ass" extremes (and in the case of DA2, the "guy who thinks he's really witty"), coupled with at-length conversations between you and some of the major players/party members where they beat you over the head with what kind of personality those characters have.

Conversely, basically the entire intro of Inquisition is made up of expository dialogue, your initial "meeting" with the head Templar guy is basically just him walking up, calling you a dick, and taking off, and even most of the sidequests only give your character a pretty neutral tone. Your character ends up feeling like pretty much a blank cipher all the way up until you're actually doing the no-turning-back-now Mage/Templar mission.

I don't know if that's a compliment (ie: "It's good that they let you feel out the story and your position in it before they start making you nail down a personality") or a criticism (ie: "Your character doesn't really have a personality to speak of until you're a good five hours into the game"), but it makes the early hours of the game feel a lot different from every other Bioware game.


That's before getting into the mechanical stuff, like that they sort of turn you loose on proper gameplay much more quickly compared to the extended intros of everything as far back as Irenicus's sex dungeon in BG2, or that the side quests exist in this weird space where none of the specific side content is mandatory, but it's mandatory that you do some of the side content, and unlocking new areas is basically done via an RPG-themed version of collecting Stars in Mario 64.
Click to expand...

I will say there are a few answers that I'm unsure as to how the character will respond in DA:I and ends up coming off harsher or completely different than how I intended. I tended to assume it was still TOP RIGHT IS GOOD BOTTOM RIGHT IS ASSHOLE for the longest and while it sort of is still true, sometimes there are answers that are ambiguous all around. I recall somehow stumbling into a positive acknowledgment for something I didn't like that happened. Minor issue but it's definitely different.

Still feel like it boils down to "Good Neutral Asshole" though, just now it's unlisted.
 
I like it the more personal approach, and the fact that this gave room for a little more personal contact with one's companions. However, there are some things with D2 which is really bad: / I like it, but it's not as good as Origins or inqvisition. glad you like it, I hope that BioWare dare to experiment a bit with the way of telling a story, if I have anything to complain about when it comes inqvisition it is that the story is a little generic
 
before I went away for christmas, I was playing through DA2 again. I notice now why I have not played it since 2011. The combat is so boring. wave after wave after wave of enemies. All the characters are talking in snark snark snark. It gets so annoying after a while. Anders is ruined in this game. It is ugly as sin and the main story is a mess. I am forcing myself through it just for DA:I
 
Shining Sunshine said:
Sounds like you didn't get the story.

When those events happen, they affect your decision making. Your mother turned into a victim of blood magic. Do you hate mages? But you need to protect your sister who is a mage. What do you do then?

The important issue is that you aren't making good or evil choices. You have no idea what is good or evil until you make that decision for yourself. The choices are clearly opened.

Compare that to one of the more "neutral" choice areas in DA:O, the quest line in Orzammar where you recruit Gimli's friends. You only have one choice that is the SMART choice. Choosing between Harrowmont and Bhelen is not hard at all once you gathered the information. Bhelen is the only choice as he will help fight against the blight on the surface. Barely any choice making in there.
Click to expand...

No, I got that they wanted to give grey areas, its just done poorly. Your example doesn't really give any choice to the player. Why not give the player choice in regards to saving their mother and then have several different scenarios arise from either saving or not saving her. Like a totally different storyline or series of events? This doesn't happen. All we get is a cut scene and a few lines of dialogue from Hawke and that's basically it. Its treated as just a thing that happens to Hawke instead of it being an opportunity to offer a new series of quests or hell even dialogue options in the game but none of this is done. You could attribute it to EA rushing them, which I could agree with seeing as how they've approached it differently in Inquisition but its still leaves the player with a lack of options when compared to Origins. Even in your Origins example, the player still has the choice, even if it isn't much of a choice, it is still available to them. If it was DA2, the game would choose Blehen for us and you would have an option on how to react to that.
 
jamsy said:
The dungeons - I hated how long and time-consuming the dungeons were in Origins. DA2 fixes that with shorter dungeons that I definitely appreciated. Sure, more variety in design would've been nice, but I didn't mind one bit.
Click to expand...
So when you went through the same exact cave for the 27th time, you didn't mind?

Low standards.
 
I enjoyed DA2 more than DAO and a far sight better than DAI. The recycled dungeons in DA2 were a huge problem, but replacing them with open worlds full of mind numbing mmo quests was not the solution. DA2 was a game where the protagonist had a personality, the plot wasn't completely generic save the world bullshit, and the villains had interesting motives. You won't find any of that in any of the other games in the series.

MacNille said:
also for those of you who say it looks better then DA:O

this is from 2011.
Click to expand...

I don't know where those images are from, but it looked decent on PC.
 
Intheflorsh said:
I don't know where those images are from, but it looked decent on PC.
Click to expand...

They're the filler NPCs which were put on Kirkwall's streets as an apparent desperate attempt to address the engines inability to put a lot of people on the screen. They do look horrible, but you're not really supposed to look close at them.

Except for Bethany's hand's that are just inexplicably horrific looking.
 
Undeniability DA2 was built to run better on consoles, but putting DAO as some bar of measurement is a joke. From the get go there are tons of low textured assets, the dalish origin is full of them.
 
Schweinehund said:
Undeniability DA2 was built to run better on consoles, but putting DAO as some bar of measurement is a joke. From the get go there are tons of low textured assets, the dalish origin is full of them.
Click to expand...

DAO was not a very pretty game. It spent a long time in development on PC, and the game was rather plain looking. The console versions were rushed out pretty quickly and didn't look great either. Functional at best.

But the game doesn't have the militant ugliness and deeply unpleasant look of DA2.
 
MacNille said:
also for those of you who say it looks better then DA:O
this-looks-very-good.jpg

this is from 2011.
Click to expand...

May want to compare the PC versions to one another. The PC version of Origins was super dated looking. DA2 had this weird ass, jagged, anime like aesthetic going on, but it was graphically better than Origins.
 
-The combat went from tactical pseudo turn-based RPG to fake RPG (it was essentially a hack n slash).
-The story was a watered down cliche filled incoherent pile of shit.
-They re-used the same areas 3+ times in certain instances.
-The characters were one dimensional and most of them had an insanely less amount of side dialogue as compared to DA:O
-The game was extremely linear compared to DA:O (which itself was partially linear).
-Ending managed to be worse than its drivel story.
-Did I mention the combat was ludicrously stupid? If its going to be a hack and slash they might as well go all the way; instead we were left with something kinda in between which is boring as shit to play within 10 minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Former Bioware Dev: EA Refused Funding for Dragon Age Origins Remasters or Remake
2
79
1K
Paasei replied
I am playing Dragon Age Origins and...
2 3
102
8K
EverydayBeast replied
Coming to Game Pass: Gears of War: Reloaded, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, Void/Breaker, and More
2
60
760
Tobimacoss replied
Dragons Dogma 2 is such a disappointment. Underwhelming doesn't even describe it.
2 3
108
3K
BbMajor7th replied
Dragon Age: The Veilguard failed even on PlayStation Plus
Sales-Age  2 3
102
11K
freefornow replied
Top Bottom