The PC game does look different qua interface but how different is it in terms of battle-system?
-
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.
I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 more than Origins...and it wasn't even close
- Thread starter jamsy
- Start date
I can remember a few things about Dragon Age 2.
- Visiting the exact same dungeon a dozen times, with the game trying to make me believe it's an entirely different cave despite the developers not even bothering to remove the cut-off sections from the map.
- Any semblance of strategic positioning and planning being ruined by the "one more wave" school of battle design. This is its worst flaw, even worse than the incredibly blatant level reuse.
- Bioware reaching the apex of nerdbait writing with Merrill.
- Evilore's glorious shit mountain thread.
Just seeing that 34 slot hotbar makes me sad about where the series went.lol this is DA:O, feel free to post screens from DA2
[...]
gotta go to the wounded coast for the 12th time brb
Very. Tactical interface is basically baldurs gate with even more tactical options. On console youre basically playing on easy and encounters are not as large and challeging as on pc.
How could you forget the utter trainwreck that is the mages/templars story? Everyone is a blood mage and goes crazy!
lol this is DA:O, feel free to post screens from DA2
It's just ugly aesthetically.
I did think elves looked neat, but found the art style change very unappealing overall. Inquisition looks like a much prettier Origins, and is all the better for it.
Edit: Some Origin pics I had aswell, I much prefer the look of this title to 2:
Seeing as it's like 10 euros right now I'll give it a try, thanks.
Dont forget mods!
not sure what you me-
You can cherry pic images for every game To make them look worse then already are
Dragon Age 2's look is basically all the cherry-picked ugly images of games rolled into one piece of media so it works in this instance.
When it comes to Dragon Age 2, it was a bumper year for cherries then.
Probably explains all the red liquid constantly rolling over the brown landscape.
"Look at all that juice!" taken to a whole new level.
loaf of bread
Member
Origins is better but DA2 is not as bad as people want it to be.
I liked it. If it had anything resembling combat, I would have nailed it as my GOTY that year, but that was such a let down, I felt angry with it,
hooijdonk17
Member
I haven't played DA2, but I've seen the SHIT MOUNTAIN thread, and it really boggles my mind that anyone would argue it looked better than Origins.. Seriously. It may be a better game overall, but looking better than Origins? That's probably trying too hard.
People want to like Origins because it reminds them of the golden age of crpgs, even though it doesnt play near as well as Baldurs Gate gameplay and looks like store brand D&D. The OP was right, DA:O was a slog to play and people want to like it on principle. Dragon Age 2 is a better game but I wouldn't say that it is a good game.
Askherserenity
Member
Holy shit, did The Witcher 2 really come out around the Dragon Age 2 release? I would've cried if I wasted 60 dollars on this shit and not get Witcher.
I just saw the original OT for the first time. Legendary.
I just saw the original OT for the first time. Legendary.
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.)
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.)
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
I'm one of those outsiders that really prefers 2. I like the characters more, I like the story being set in a city, I never cared at all about the combat in either game so it just felt simpler and easier, therefore I preferred it, since I didn't have to engage as deeply in the part I cared the least about. The reuse of assets didn't really bother me, since I was just running through all dungeons as quickly as possible to get to the next story bit, since I was actually interested in how it would play out and how the characters would progress, much more so than Origins.
DAO had a ton of fetch quests and "click random spots on the ground" quests that no one ever seems to remember. All the DA games have those but I think DA2's system was the most heinous. You could find some dead woman's bones out in a temple and apparently immediately know who they belonged to, then you bring them back to her poor distraught husband and he gives you some gold while the following dialogue plays (paraphrasing from my last playthrough):
Hawke: It's me! Your reason for living!
Husband: Oh thank you! I've been looking for this!
WHAT?
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Have you fiddled with the tactics at all? It's not comprehensive, but it does an adequate job of keeping your party members alive.
That1BlackGuy
Member
Agreed, I prefer Dragon Age 2 over Origins mainly on the basis of its action oriented combat. Origin's combat was so monotone and plodding that it just dampened the entire experience of the game.
The thing about DA2 that bugged me is that while the game explored the theme of causality, it cruelly railroaded Hawke as the catalyst to the 3 big calamities of the DA universe (Corypheus, red lyrium and Templar-Mage rebellion).
Geralt fixes shit while Hawke can't help but cause world-destroying problems. Wish Bioware would cut him some slack.
Geralt fixes shit while Hawke can't help but cause world-destroying problems. Wish Bioware would cut him some slack.
There's no setting that exists that will make your party not shit. You either keep them all on a short leash with tactical or suffer the ranged immediately running to their deaths. At the very least a stay away from me option should exist, but no, everyone has to follow a character no matter what, even when mechanics need to have your party stay apart or otherwise. It's just not fun fighting your party AI.
Tempesta di Fuoco
Banned
I shouldn't have to tell my party members that, to dodge the giant fireball falling from the sky, you have to move 5 feet to the left.
I miss the ability to actually usefully have a tactical gameplay style, but I don't miss the actual combat in DAO. Inquisition would've been SO much better with a useful tactical view, the depth is there (and the complete breakability with certain builds of course) but the ability to utilize it is painful.
DAO for all of its faults let me play like a real WRPG (on pc anyway). DA2 was rubbish, and DA:I I WANT to play like DA:O but instead I'm left just playing it action style with occasional pauses because it's too cumbersome to micromanage the fights.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I loaded up Dragon Age 2 yesterday on my gaming laptop - which I run TF2 at max settings, Civ 5 at max settings, Divinity Original Sin at max settings, Starcraft 2 at max settings, at 1080p. Not ultra-demanding games, but very pretty ones. It was one of the ugliest games I've ever seen, and performed even worse. It even had that face remove glitch that we most recently saw in AC Unity. Weird for a 3.5 year old game.
It was not terrible to play, but it was such an immediately unappealing game that I just couldn't keep on.
I am sure there is some good to be mined from it, but I'm not really willing to find out.
It was not terrible to play, but it was such an immediately unappealing game that I just couldn't keep on.
I am sure there is some good to be mined from it, but I'm not really willing to find out.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Do you have shadow strike turned on? Turn it off and they'll stay away.
Pray tell which party based RPG has that filter? Sure as shit wasn't in Baldur's Gate 2 either.
I would love to see some fair screenshots of DA2.
I refuse to allow ranged to use close up attacks, that doesn't help their other issues, DA:I AI is simply insufferable without you babying the entire group.
I'll take that mages/templars story over "player character is The One saves the world against evil" anytime.
Tempesta di Fuoco
Banned
It shouldn't be in any filter, gambit, whatever. It should be programmed into the AI's fucking DNA. If something is dodgable, don't stand there staring at it when you have more than enough time to dodge it.
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.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
How? Turn fade step/evade/stealth to preferred and you don't really have to worry about keeping your mages/rogues alive anyway.
In fact the stealth reset skill in the Assassin tree turns your dual dagger rogues into Gondar.
Sanctuary
Member
Both games were about equal to me.
Origins:
-Mostly generic story, but the dialogue and narrative was more than serviceable.
-Terribly outdated graphics, which would have looked great in 2004.
-Mostly generic party members besides Morrigan, and Alistair (as long as Morrigan was in the group).
-Terribly archaic combat that had been done to death in almost every Infinity/Aurora engine game since the first Baldur's Gate.
-The "tactics" system was mostly bad, although somehow it was miles above what Inquisition managed. Usually Origins turned into an auto-attack, pause-fest on Hard or Nightmare and the tactics were only good for potion quaffing and prison/force field use.
DA2:
-More interesting story, better dialogue, better narrative and a voiced protagonist (I know how many feel about that, but it just made the narrative more consistent).
-Much more interesting combat. The "press A for Awesome" is really overblown unless playing on the easiest difficulties. What really hurts the combat overall though was the wave based garbage that killed any real sense of tactics, especially positioning.
-Graphics were both better and worse than Origins. They were at least consistent.
-Lazily recycled areas
-Less generic party members, although it had enough of them too.
Origins:
-Mostly generic story, but the dialogue and narrative was more than serviceable.
-Terribly outdated graphics, which would have looked great in 2004.
-Mostly generic party members besides Morrigan, and Alistair (as long as Morrigan was in the group).
-Terribly archaic combat that had been done to death in almost every Infinity/Aurora engine game since the first Baldur's Gate.
-The "tactics" system was mostly bad, although somehow it was miles above what Inquisition managed. Usually Origins turned into an auto-attack, pause-fest on Hard or Nightmare and the tactics were only good for potion quaffing and prison/force field use.
DA2:
-More interesting story, better dialogue, better narrative and a voiced protagonist (I know how many feel about that, but it just made the narrative more consistent).
-Much more interesting combat. The "press A for Awesome" is really overblown unless playing on the easiest difficulties. What really hurts the combat overall though was the wave based garbage that killed any real sense of tactics, especially positioning.
-Graphics were both better and worse than Origins. They were at least consistent.
-Lazily recycled areas
-Less generic party members, although it had enough of them too.
DA2 just raised the cooldown timers on abilities and added in mashing for auto-attacking. It really felt like a passive experience to me.
I tried to go back to Origins recently but it's just unbearable, even having liked it decently when it came out. It's all so toothless and plain, and systemically it just feels incoherent. Trying to compose a party you want runs you up against walls at every turn. Even heavily modded the balance is pretty dreadful, which doesn't incentivize me to take my time to meticulously work through the combat at any reasonable difficulty level. Origins also just has absolutely terribly boring characters. Alistar's self-righteous sniveling trails you along through most of the game and it is the absolute worst. The constant strain to appease these idiots for basic stat buffs brings to light how one-dimensional most of the cast is.
This couldn't be any further from the truth when facing dragons. But again, we're getting side tracked, my main gripe with DA:I is the AI which as I stated was far and away better in both DA:O and DA2. I just don't understand where they decided to break it down to such barebones mechanics for the newest.
dripdripsplash
Member
Hahahaha. Gorillas are badass.
Tempesta di Fuoco
Banned
Fighting dragons really shows off how poorly designed the battle system and AI is in Inquisition. It's absolutely atrocious.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Did you not pause and assign in DA:O and DA2 either when fighting dragons? I had way more trouble keeping my party alive in the DA2 high dragon fight than any of the DA:I dragon fights.
Sanctuary
Member
During the earlier levels, the battle system feels pretty bad if you are playing on Hard or Nightmare. Once you have some mid-level weapons and armor it almost becomes too easy on almost everything that isn't a dragon fight. And the only real reason dragon fights are "harder" is because of how at least half of them jump all around the screen, voiding your positioning efforts. The real killer on these fights though comes from the wing buffet attack (which hurts the most due to your inability to position properly) and the static fields that the electric dragons put on your party members. Otherwise, as long as you've built up your focus on whoever you are bringing before each dragon, they are pretty easy, even on Nightmare. You can get most of them down to 50% before they even really have a chance to fight.
The "AI" itself isn't that bad, even on Nightmare in regards to ability use, or what the tank is doing. The main problem is that the AI has no positional awareness (flanking, avoiding AoE etc) and the tactical options are neutered compared to what was seen in Origins, even if that too had many issues. The tactical camera in Inquisition seems like an afterthought too.
Kuro Madoushi
Unconfirmed Member
While I think DA2 "could" have been the better game, the short dev cycle and lack of polish definitely shows.
One thing that irritates me to no end is the arena style battles that come up so often. It's just an endless cycle of meat to grind up where I use the same tactics more or less to win and I can't leave til they're all dead. I'd think I'd win and then out pop more baddies that are conveniently positioned near my ranged attackers.
The story starts off ok, but isn't anything to write home about. I might have beaten the game if I didn't have to go through the exact same levels again to do more or less the same fetch quest MULTIPLE TIMES.
While the battle system is a lot flashier and a lot more visually rewarding and appealing than DA:O, I just felt the battles dragged on too long and the meat grinder was boring to see after the 6th wave of enemies.
This isn't to say that DA:O is a perfect game. We all know of the Fade... <_<
The fighting doesn't have a lot of flashy moves and you could exploit the shit out of it.
The story does share some parallels with LOTR but it's not the same story and its focus is definitely different.
While I feel DA:I tries to rectify some of the problems in DA2, there is still a LOT of fluff and filler I goddamn hate too. Shard collecting, resource gathering, inventory management REALLY bog the game down. It's really making the game a slog to get through...and while I do like the fighting in the game, again, I just feel it's a bit repetitive and I don't find myself really using any new tactics. I can't put my finger on why I find the fighting repetitive and the fighting in DA:O not as much so though...
One thing that irritates me to no end is the arena style battles that come up so often. It's just an endless cycle of meat to grind up where I use the same tactics more or less to win and I can't leave til they're all dead. I'd think I'd win and then out pop more baddies that are conveniently positioned near my ranged attackers.
The story starts off ok, but isn't anything to write home about. I might have beaten the game if I didn't have to go through the exact same levels again to do more or less the same fetch quest MULTIPLE TIMES.
While the battle system is a lot flashier and a lot more visually rewarding and appealing than DA:O, I just felt the battles dragged on too long and the meat grinder was boring to see after the 6th wave of enemies.
This isn't to say that DA:O is a perfect game. We all know of the Fade... <_<
The fighting doesn't have a lot of flashy moves and you could exploit the shit out of it.
The story does share some parallels with LOTR but it's not the same story and its focus is definitely different.
While I feel DA:I tries to rectify some of the problems in DA2, there is still a LOT of fluff and filler I goddamn hate too. Shard collecting, resource gathering, inventory management REALLY bog the game down. It's really making the game a slog to get through...and while I do like the fighting in the game, again, I just feel it's a bit repetitive and I don't find myself really using any new tactics. I can't put my finger on why I find the fighting repetitive and the fighting in DA:O not as much so though...
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.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Embrace the Combat Roll/Evade/Fade Step.
Mobile Suit Gooch
Grundle: The Awakening
I did too, op.