Dragon Age II

[MorgothPl]

I like Dragon Age 2... though it's completely different and way away from the genre of Bioware RPGs. I believe its NPCs and plotline is better then the first part, though it's such a subjective opinion, that we can argue on it till next year

How I see the changes? I think it was a test. A test before Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 3. They wanted to see how it will be perceived, how far they can go and so. Check the ME3 spoilers - they promise us full character customisation and full inventory.

 

[NKDietrich]

I've said this a million times before but honestly if developers want to jackknife in a different direction with their games which is going to upset the original fans, can't you please just start a whole new franchise/Intellectual property instead of fucking with a winning formula.

What the hell does it matter? Obviously they weren't planning on making another game like the first, or they would have done it. It's not like them calling DA2 anything else would have made any difference. They still wouldn't be making a "proper" sequel to DAO.

Honestly there is nothing of value connecting these 2 games, DA2 could have been a completely different fantasy world and not tarnished DAO good name and everyone would have been happy, fans of DAO can ignore DA2, fans of the new game can enjoy, the studio can enjoy more sales, everyone is a winner.

How the fuck does the sequel not being as good tarnish the good name of the first? It doesn't. Is Deus Ex terrible because Invisible War wasn't as good? Is MOO2 bad because MOO3 was a joke?

Honestly it doesn't matter at all. If people aren't interested in DA2, it doesn't in any way impair them from playing DAO. Sure, they might be bummed they didn't get a proper sequel, but like I said above, that was never in the cards to begin with.

It's fairly selfish for anyone to state that a company should only make one kind of game in any given setting/IP.

 

[Climber]

What the hell does it matter? Obviously they weren't planning on making another game like the first, or they would have done it. It's not like them calling DA2 anything else would have made any difference. They still wouldn't be making a "proper" sequel to DAO.



How the fuck does the sequel not being as good tarnish the good name of the first? It doesn't. Is Deus Ex terrible because Invisible War wasn't as good? Is MOO2 bad because MOO3 was a joke?

Honestly it doesn't matter at all. If people aren't interested in DA2, it doesn't in any way impair them from playing DAO. Sure, they might be bummed they didn't get a proper sequel, but like I said above, that was never in the cards to begin with.

It's fairly selfish for anyone to state that a company should only make one kind of game in any given setting/IP.

Your argument doesn't really make any sense and works against you actually. You state that yes the games are vastly different and that DA2 isn't a proper sequel and it was never in the cards to begin with that is was supposed to be a proper sequel. If that is the case, why not just take the course of action and name it something different than marketing it as a "proper sequel" to an amazing game that gamers all around flocked to?

I hated the demo of the game, hated how different it felt, and hated how the plot line went in the demo so I didn't get DA2. Actually replayed DAO and called it good . I honestly didn't get any sense of DAO in DA2 it literally felt like a whole other game.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It matters because people become invested both financially and emotionally in franchises and making jarring changes in the series upsets fans.

Saying that we'd not see a "proper" sequel to DAO if they'd taken their new DA2 ideas to a new franchise is a big assumption, I think many of the DAO fans would have preferred the IP lay dormant for a period of time until a worthy sequel could be made, or at least sell the IP on to another studio who would be willing to honour the original style.

You're massively downplaying the importance of an established brand, when IP for popular games is sold on it goes for a very large amount of money, and that's because consumers are invested in that IP so there is a lot of value there, before you even build a game around it. For example the Fallout IP was bought by Bethesda for $5.75 Million, no assets, just the ownership of the IP.

Why would anyone pay that amount of money for IP? Because it has an established fan base who are willing to further invest in the series both financially and emotionally but generally speaking those fans want something that doesn't stray from the established forumula because thats why they love the game to begin with.

The changes in DA2 are no less jarring that doing something like taking the Half Life series and forcing the player into a 3rd person view, could you imagine that? The HL fans would go fucking nuts, it's no different here, the fans are displeased and that's entirely understandable. I'm simply suggesting there is a way to keep everyone happy rather than pissing off a decent portion of your established fan base.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Yes comparing DA2 to Tolstoy makes *me* the fool? Origins is The Stand and DA2 is Goosebumps.

 

[eggrock]

Depth?

What depth? The entire game could easily be explained in one sentence. Build an army, defeat the dragon. It was clearly 'high concept', aimed at 12-year-olds. I'm willing to bet that the phrase high concept was even spoken aloud when Origins was being developed.

I could boil down Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series into a single sentence but that would be doing it a great disservice. (I'm not comparing DA:O with Jordan's work.)

I've read thousands of fantasy and sci-fi novels and the plots never deviate from a very few plots.

7 Basic Plots

Orson Scott Card boiled it down further in his How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy guide, with basic plots revolving around milieu, idea, character (DA 2?) or event (DA:O).
I'm sure there are many more explanations that all say essentially the same thing.

Labeling one plot style as childish is simply trolling.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Life can be boiled down to one sentence, if you want to take it there. It doesn't mean life is without depth, just the person trying to describe it. Which I think is the issue here.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

To become emotionally invested in a video game franchise is, to be frank, a 100% ridiculous thing to do.

 

[NKDietrich]

It matters because people become invested both financially and emotionally in franchises and making jarring changes in the series upsets fans.

Then they can ignore the portions of the series they don't like. They haven't lost anything, and the story itself is sort of an aside from the main storyline of DAO, so they aren't missing anything there either. They can blissfully pretend DA2 never existed while those who do like DA2 get a game to enjoy.

Saying that we'd not see a "proper" sequel to DAO if they'd taken their new DA2 ideas to a new franchise is a big assumption,

I wouldn't call it a big assumption. It certainly makes an assumption, but I think it's a pretty safe one. If the Dragon Age guys were interested in making a more direct sequel, they'd be working on it instead of shoveling DA2 out the door.

I think many of the DAO fans would have preferred the IP lay dormant for a period of time until a worthy sequel could be made, or at least sell the IP on to another studio who would be willing to honour the original style.

Good for them. Unfortunately there are more than just hardcore DAO fans to consider.

You're massively downplaying the importance of an established brand, when IP for popular games is sold on it goes for a very large amount of money, and that's because consumers are invested in that IP so there is a lot of value there, before you even build a game around it. For example the Fallout IP was bought by Bethesda for $5.75 Million, no assets, just the ownership of the IP.

That's certainly important, which is why companies try to expand their brand, and their fanbase. You don't expand anything by making the same game over and over. That just creates a more entrenched fanbase, not a larger one. Eventually that entrenched fanbase dries up on you.

Why would anyone pay that amount of money for IP? Because it has an established fan base who are willing to further invest in the series both financially and emotionally but generally speaking those fans want something that doesn't stray from the established forumula because thats why they love the game to begin with

You don't buy an IP to buy its fanbase. You mentioned Fallout, for example. It had only a small number of zealous fans hating on everything and taking handfuls of downers. FO3 and New Vegas are very popular games, but have little in common with their predecessors.

The changes in DA2 are no less jarring that doing something like taking the Half Life series and forcing the player into a 3rd person view, could you imagine that? The HL fans would go fucking nuts, it's no different here, the fans are displeased and that's entirely understandable. I'm simply suggesting there is a way to keep everyone happy rather than pissing off a decent portion of your established fan base.

There is no keeping everyone happy, first off. Regardless of what DA2 was called, you're still only left with DAO and no sequel. People would still bitch "Where is my DAO sequel, why are you guys working on some crappy new IP!"

I've been gaming for well over 20 years and I've never seen a crappy sequel ruin one of the greats. In fact, the crappy sequels tend to become more and more forgotten as time goes on.

If BioWare wants to experiment with one of their IPs to try and find the right gameplay balance, fine by me. I'll buy the games that look good, and skip the ones that don't. The ones I skip aren't going to make the ones I play any less enjoyable.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

To become emotionally invested in a video game franchise is, to be frank, a 100% ridiculous thing to do.

People like their hobby

 

[HaMMerHeD]

People like their hobby

Perhaps, but en emotional investment such that you feel betrayed or abandoned by your favorite corporate dreadnought if they release something with your favorite name on it that you don't personally like?

It's a hobby, not a love affair.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

To become emotionally invested in a video game franchise is, to be frank, a 100% ridiculous thing to do.

I disagree with that, once I'm hooked in emotionally the experience is much more significant and powerful.

Games have always struggled here because they've not felt real enough to create genuine empathy for the characters in game, but developers are getting better at it. I played Heavy Rain on my friends PS3 using my new projector last week, on a nice big 95" screen, this is a great example of how games are crossing that emotional barrier, we had to make our character chop off his own finger using a series of tricky button holds on the controller, frantically mashing buttons and finally a 6axis movement down to bring down the knife, a moment that brought me that little bit closer to games than I've been before.

Some people I believe cried or were at least severely gutted at the end of the last HL episode instalment, valve were really pushing for an emotional climax there and for a lot of people they at least in part succeeded.

I think entertainment is better with emotional ties to it, I like to watch films to make me laugh and make me cry, I like to play games that make me feel for my character, I actually feel kind of sorry for anyone who can't emotionally invest into entertainment because it makes the experience so much better.

*edit*

To YOU it's a hobby. To my friend F.E.A.R was a bunch of geometry and pixels none of which made him batter an eyelid, to me it was a terrifying experience that scared me to my core. Yeah so I'm emotionally invested in F.E.A.R and if they release a sequel that spoils the universe they'd created then that's a real kick in the balls for me, but I don't think that makes being emotionally invested ridiculous.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

Eh. I've never seen a movie or played a game that made me cry or care about the characters in any way. Suspension of disbelief is very, very hard for me to do, so I just don't get invested like that.

 

[TwistedAegis]

I find that as I've gotten older I appreciate a game with a good story more than super exciting guns, spells, effects, etc. Almost more like an interactive book. I think it just comes from a difference of perspective. For some they are games, and diverging far off from a previous game is just experimenting with new things, so what? For others who really enjoyed the story and characters, it is hugely disconcerting and disappointing not to be able to continue on. Sort of like reading the first of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and finding the second book is about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

I could be an oddball here, but I enjoyed both flavors of the Dragon Age series. DAO & DA2 are both excellent games, each in their own way.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Eh. I've never seen a movie or played a game that made me cry or care about the characters in any way. Suspension of disbelief is very, very hard for me to do, so I just don't get invested like that.

Try Toy Story 3, just about everyone I've talked to said they've cried at the end, something I need to get around to watching actually

For some people it is hard, or impossible, I could see how from your perspective how it seems ridiculous but for many of us, it's quite the opposite.

 

[Artificiary]

hey guys im in a fantasy genre mood, Dragon Age 1 or 2? which is more exciting and stuff?

Anyone new to this thread and looking for feedback or recommendations on either of the DA games would do well to discount the majority of what Wabe has to say. He’s extremely biased and in defense mode which means his rose colored glasses are not coming off.

I am a big fan of both games but when it comes down to it I would recommend Dragon Age: Origins over DA 2 based on the opinion that it actually feels like a more complete and well thought out game.

Dragon Age 2 feels rushed, unbalanced, and unfinished, period. Here are my major gripes:

• After about 8 hours you have seen about 90% of the environments/tile sets that you will see in the entire 40 to 50 hours of gameplay. This is acceptable in budget RPG titles and RPG's from about 8 to 10 years ago but even then most AAA RPG titles never got this sloppy. Bioware literally built about 6 or 7 decent size themed dungeons, broke them up into sections, and then reused various combinations of sections for every-single-side-quest; thats not innovative or creative, that’s lazy.

• Enemies spawn out of thin air and walls, on top of and/or behind you mid battle. This also reeks of sloppiness/laziness. The reason they did not have to do this in DA:O is because the majority of fights were better planned (from enemy positioning to the type and number of each) and enemies were hardier in general. Hell, Bioware could have addressed this easily enough in DA2 by simply making only a single wave of “fodder” enemies for most battles and just giving them all 3x the amount of health. Instead they were going for the gore factor (which I admit looks cool at first) but they did it to the detriment of combat balance as most enemies simply exist to provide an explosion at the end of your Warrior or Rouge’s teleport rush attack (which brings me to my third point).

• Combat is NOT simply more difficult in DA2 on Hard or Nightmare, it is unbalanced, and painfully so. If you thought DA:O was a cakewalk then you did one of a few things; 1. Ran a party with more than 1 mage, 2. Slammed healing potions like they were going out of style, 3. Played the game on one of the Pussy difficulty settings, 4. Lied about playing the game (ahem… Wabe&#8230. Sure in DA2 they changed the timer on potions/Heal spells and modified a few enemies’ attacks so they could be avoided, but that’s it in the way of improvements. General / random encounters are so easy at harder difficulties, with almost any party combination, it is laughable. DA2 only becomes a challenge under one of two scenarios; 1. You chose the wrong companions or character build for a particular boss fight, 2. You tried taking on one of the game’s few completely unbalanced encounters on Hard or Nightmare (where survivability completely depends on whether or not you were a victim of scenario 1.). It really feels like Bioware did not do much gameplay balance testing on the Hard or Nightmare difficulties because there is such a huge variance from jokingly easy to punch your monitor difficult.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m still enjoying DA2 a great deal and would recommend you play it after you finish DA:O, but it is not, in most ways, a superior game or experience to DA:O.

As far as the NPC’s and story are concerned, I’m kind of neutral since those are much more subjective topics. I did however enjoy the story and NPC’s of both games.

TLDR version; Play DA:O first, it is a more well balanced game. Then go play DA2.

 

[Kangg]

Eh. I've never seen a movie or played a game that made me cry or care about the characters in any way. Suspension of disbelief is very, very hard for me to do, so I just don't get invested like that.

Sooo... That means Mark is basically a cold heartless bastard with no emotions ?

 

[eloj]

Eh. I've never seen a movie or played a game that made me cry or care about the characters in any way. Suspension of disbelief is very, very hard for me to do, so I just don't get invested like that.

Perhaps you're a psychopath? Or don't watch many movies.

 

[Ocellaris]

Eh. I've never seen a movie or played a game that made me cry or care about the characters in any way. Suspension of disbelief is very, very hard for me to do, so I just don't get invested like that.

Ice cold... Do you even watch movies? I can't watch movies or play story driven games if I simply don't care AT ALL about the characters.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

<snip>
TLDR version; Play DA:O first, it is a more well balanced game. Then go play DA2.

You made really good points. I do think that DAO > DA2, but DA2 is still enjoyable. I felt that they had less places to see & explore than DAO. I'm hoping that if an expansion is in the works, it will implement improvements based on community complaints. I'm unsure how the DLC will look with DA2. I think that most but not all of the DLC in DAO are pretty good quality.

 

[Artificiary]

You made really good points. I do think that DAO > DA2, but DA2 is still enjoyable. I felt that they had less places to see & explore than DAO. I'm hoping that if an expansion is in the works, it will implement improvements based on community complaints. I'm unsure how the DLC will look with DA2. I think that most but not all of the DLC in DAO are pretty good quality.

I totally agree; DA2 is still a very fun game in its own right (despite how much I emphasized its flaws). And I'm definitely looking forward to future expansions/DLC for it.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

DA2 has better skill trees, but lacks non combat skills and abilities.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

I totally agree; DA2 is still a very fun game in its own right (despite how much I emphasized its flaws). And I'm definitely looking forward to future expansions/DLC for it.

I've had a headache with a few of Mass Effect 2's DLCs. I hope that Bioware doesn't follow the trend of "horse armor" packs & horrid storylines like Arrival. They need to improve upon solid DLC (Lair of the Shadowbroker & Shale) for any future releases with DA2 & ME3 (when it's released).

DA2 has better skill trees, but lacks non combat skills and abilities.

I did notice that that there wasn't enough passive abilities, when that's what I tend to focus on over active abilities in RPGs. I prefer to have a stronger baseline to handle elites & bosses than a powerful but rarely used ability.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

Try Toy Story 3, just about everyone I've talked to said they've cried at the end, something I need to get around to watching actually

For some people it is hard, or impossible, I could see how from your perspective how it seems ridiculous but for many of us, it's quite the opposite.

I saw Toy Story 3. The ending didn't seem that interesting, or even genuine to me.

Sooo... That means Mark is basically a cold heartless bastard with no emotions ?

No, it's just that all of my emotional investment capital is tied up with raising my daughter.

Perhaps you're a psychopath? Or don't watch many movies.

Ice cold... Do you even watch movies? I can't watch movies or play story driven games if I simply don't care AT ALL about the characters.

I watch a lot of movies, and I sometimes enjoy the stories and the characters. But do I feel sorry for them when they get hurt or glad for them when they have a victory? No I don't, because they aren't real.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I watch a lot of movies, and I sometimes enjoy the stories and the characters. But do I feel sorry for them when they get hurt or glad for them when they have a victory? No I don't, because they aren't real.

Ex adrenaline junky? I have a friend that is the same way, but only started feeling that way after he got into, and eventually gave up, cliffdiving and extreme sports.

I don't feel in any way connected to characters that don't interest me, but with some good character building and well thought out writing, I can get into it.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I did notice that that there wasn't enough passive abilities, when that's what I tend to focus on over active abilities in RPGs. I prefer to have a stronger baseline to handle elites & bosses than a powerful but rarely used ability.

I was referring to things like persuasion, speechcraft and the like.

I tend to build a good baseline of passives too, but I think some of the emphasis in DA2 points to the sustained toggle abilities. Fenris is a good example of that. I'm sure Merril is too, but I don't really care for her as an NPC.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

I was referring to things like persuasion, speechcraft and the like.

I tend to build a good baseline of passives too, but I think some of the emphasis in DA2 points to the sustained toggle abilities. Fenris is a good example of that. I'm sure Merril is too, but I don't really care for her as an NPC.

I was thinking about persuasion as well but I guess my post focused on combat. I wanted to have a stronger sway on characters that were harder to see eye to eye with.

In regards to Fenris, I might have to mod in his skill tree into my next playthrough as a warrior. It's probably the best thought of any of the skill trees.

 

[WabeWalker]

The funny thing is that the areas in The Witcher were also heavily re-cycled - I can't count the number of times I went into the sewers, or had to visit that church.

How come nobody ever mentions this? Because, the game gets a pass, that's why.

There was also a lot less exploration in The Witcher. You had the starting area, the town, and then that field area that took place in the latter stages of the game. It just wasn't vast. I could prove scientifically that Dragon Age 2 is a larger game.

And what about the lack of character customization that people have been bitching endlessly about in Dragon Age 2. Guess what - The Witcher has zero character customization. Mike Laidlaw said that Bioware wanted to maintain the visual integrity of the characters by not allowing players to equip their party members with generic outfits. In the past, whenever I've argued how I wanted to change Geralt completely, people argued back, saying, well, Geralt wouldn't be Geralt if you could change his looks and his style, don't be stupid, he's Geralt.

Yeah, well neither would Bethany be Bethany if you could change her look or style, nor would Varric be Varric, nor would Fenris be Fenris, nor would Aveline be Aveline - these people are what they are because of their personal style. It's the exact same argument. What Bioware did was the exact same thing CD Projekt did, and for the exact same reason. But oh no - suddenly EA has to be brought into this. Now people want to argue that where CD Projekt made a marvelous decision, Bioware made the same decision to cut corners. Um, that argument could be applied to The Witcher as well. But again, nobody ever mentions this, because the game gets a pass. Nobody ever says that there's zero character customization in The Witcher because it shaved time off the development cycle.

People say they're tired of seeing me posting about The Witcher. Yeah, well I'm getting tired of seeing Dragon Age 2 being bashed by people who then defend The Witcher over the exact same things they had a bash at Dragon Age over! It's exasperating!

The Witcher
1) Re-cycled areas. Check.
2) Zero character customization. Check.
3) Confusing story that isn't tight and begins to wander. Check.
4) Early bugs and broken gameplay. Check.

Dragon Age 2 is easily my game of the year so far. I rarely play through titles twice, but I might re-start this one as soon as I'm finished. Can't wait for the DLC to start arriving.

 

[Riddleofsteel]

The Witcher was based on a series of novels, so what we see of Geralt (the protagonist) is likely CD Project's rendition of him and his adventures in THEIR rendition of the story world. Hence why the customization is lacking, most likely. I'm keen to see your scientific proof of Dragon Age 2 being larger. Really.

 

[TwistedAegis]

It is one thing if you have to go to the same spot over and over again for a quest. That is lame from a quest standpoint.

But to go on different quests to supposedly different locations that look exactly the same is something altogether different. They couldn't even bother to edit the damn mini-maps to not show areas you couldn't access in each iteration.

 

[WabeWalker]

The Witcher was based on a series of novels.

So I've repeatedly been told.

But it doesn't change the argument one iota. CD Projekt was attempting to maintain the integrity of Geralt, and Bioware was doing the exact same thing in creating characters that couldn't be equipped with generic armor. Mike Laidlaw explained all this.

And if a person is going to accuse Bioware of 'cutting corners' by doing this, then it's certainly fair to say the exact same thing of CD Projekt - that in denying us customization options, CD Projekt also shaved time off their development schedule.

Just admit it.

Also, I can guarantee you that the combined areas in Dragon Age 2 are greater than in The Witcher. Are you joking me? There is NO WAY that there are more areas in The Witcher. I can practically count the number of areas on one hand.

 

[Stiler]

So I've repeatedly been told.

But it doesn't change the argument one iota. CD Projekt was attempting to maintain the integrity of Geralt, and Bioware was doing the exact same thing in creating characters that couldn't be equipped with generic armor. Mike Laidlaw explained all this.

And if a person is going to accuse Bioware of 'cutting corners' by doing this, then it's certainly fair to say the exact same thing of CD Projekt - that in denying us customization options, CD Projekt also shaved time off their development schedule.

Just admit it.

Also, I can guarantee you that the combined areas in Dragon Age 2 are greater than in The Witcher. Are you joking me? There is NO WAY that there are more areas in The Witcher. I can practically count the number of areas on one hand.

Are you out of your mind? There's a difference in how Bioware allowed any party member to be equipped witih the right armor/weapons depending on their stats and then in the second one you couldn't. They can say it was to "keep" character all the want.

In the Witcher 2, if you've been following anything about it, you'd understand that this time around they are allowing oyu a LOT more freedom to eoquip Geralt in many different clothing/armour styles compared to the first one.

On top of this, if you honestly think Dragon Age 2 has more area's then The Witcher 1, did you even play it?

The Witcher 1 has faaaaaaaaar more areas and variety in it's environments then Dragon age 2, FAR more.

You had the castle area, the small town/outskirts after that, the city, the swamp area, the lakeside, the crypts/sewers, the village then, Island, then the places late in the game (if you even got that far). You obviously didn't play the Witcher much at all.

Dragon age 2 takes the majority of it's time in Kirkwall, literally you'll spend most of your time going back and fourth between the various part sof the city over and over and over. Even when you think "oh great, we'll be going somewhere new with this storyline/quest, you get pulled right back into the city very quickly and are left with a cheap feeling.

 

[Cali3350]

The funny thing is that the areas in The Witcher were also heavily re-cycled - I can't count the number of times I went into the sewers, or had to visit that church.

How come nobody ever mentions this? Because, the game gets a pass, that's why.

There was also a lot less exploration in The Witcher. You had the starting area, the town, and then that field area that took place in the latter stages of the game. It just wasn't vast. I could prove scientifically that Dragon Age 2 is a larger game.

And what about the lack of character customization that people have been bitching endlessly about in Dragon Age 2. Guess what - The Witcher has zero character customization. Mike Laidlaw said that Bioware wanted to maintain the visual integrity of the characters by not allowing players to equip their party members with generic outfits. In the past, whenever I've argued how I wanted to change Geralt completely, people argued back, saying, well, Geralt wouldn't be Geralt if you could change his looks and his style, don't be stupid, he's Geralt.

Yeah, well neither would Bethany be Bethany if you could change her look or style, nor would Varric be Varric, nor would Fenris be Fenris, nor would Aveline be Aveline - these people are what they are because of their personal style. It's the exact same argument. What Bioware did was the exact same thing CD Projekt did, and for the exact same reason. But oh no - suddenly EA has to be brought into this. Now people want to argue that where CD Projekt made a marvelous decision, Bioware made the same decision to cut corners. Um, that argument could be applied to The Witcher as well. But again, nobody ever mentions this, because the game gets a pass. Nobody ever says that there's zero character customization in The Witcher because it shaved time off the development cycle.

People say they're tired of seeing me posting about The Witcher. Yeah, well I'm getting tired of seeing Dragon Age 2 being bashed by people who then defend The Witcher over the exact same things they had a bash at Dragon Age over! It's exasperating!

The Witcher
1) Re-cycled areas. Check.
2) Zero character customization. Check.
3) Confusing story that isn't tight and begins to wander. Check.
4) Early bugs and broken gameplay. Check.

Dragon Age 2 is easily my game of the year so far. I rarely play through titles twice, but I might re-start this one as soon as I'm finished. Can't wait for the DLC to start arriving.

Its a totally different game? Based on a different universe? Based on a different gameplay style? With a totally different conversation and consequence engine? Based firmly on a existing plotline?

You visit the sewers once - ONCE - in the game. The beg of the second chapter. You NEVER return. Have you even played the game? I honestly dont believe you have. You throw out utter shit like "I can scientifically prove it" or link to something on Wikipedia that in absolutely no way supports your point, then bottle down the plotline of the first DA to "build army and fight dragon" when ANYTHING IN THIS WORLD can be bottled down to something so simple.

When you add the fact you didnt know what a blood mage was I honestly dont even know what to think about you. Its certainly not a positive feeling whatever it is.

 

[Shalafi]

WabeWalker does not play the games he posts about he merely just posts stuff that he read on other websites from others who actually play the game, the positive and the negative depending on how he feels about a particular game.

I thought most of you would have figured that out by now.

 

[WabeWalker]

WabeWalker does not play the games he posts about...

Um, Fail...

I buy and play every game I post about (to the point where some people here seemingly wish that I wouldn't). But what's profoundly disturbing is that we're now on page 62 of this thread. You've been posting religiously since page 1. By your own admission you didn't buy Dragon Age 2, and haven't played it.

Why can you not see that you just posted about yourself!

 

[Riftsaw]

I'm sure just about all of us have disagreed with Wabe at some point but it'd be pretty boring in game discussions without him IMO.

 

[WabeWalker]

I'm sure just about all of us have disagreed with Wabe at some point but it'd be pretty boring in game discussions without him IMO.

Now this is more like it.

 

[Shalafi]

Um, Fail...

I buy and play every game I post about (to the point where some people here seemingly wish that I wouldn't). But what's profoundly disturbing is that we're now on page 62 of this thread. You've been posting religiously since page 1. By your own admission you didn't buy Dragon Age 2, and haven't played it.

Why can you not see that you just posted about yourself!

You said you didn't know what a blood mage is.

 

[ikarinokami]

The funny thing is that the areas in The Witcher were also heavily re-cycled - I can't count the number of times I went into the sewers, or had to visit that church.

How come nobody ever mentions this? Because, the game gets a pass, that's why.

There was also a lot less exploration in The Witcher. You had the starting area, the town, and then that field area that took place in the latter stages of the game. It just wasn't vast. I could prove scientifically that Dragon Age 2 is a larger game.

And what about the lack of character customization that people have been bitching endlessly about in Dragon Age 2. Guess what - The Witcher has zero character customization. Mike Laidlaw said that Bioware wanted to maintain the visual integrity of the characters by not allowing players to equip their party members with generic outfits. In the past, whenever I've argued how I wanted to change Geralt completely, people argued back, saying, well, Geralt wouldn't be Geralt if you could change his looks and his style, don't be stupid, he's Geralt.

Yeah, well neither would Bethany be Bethany if you could change her look or style, nor would Varric be Varric, nor would Fenris be Fenris, nor would Aveline be Aveline - these people are what they are because of their personal style. It's the exact same argument. What Bioware did was the exact same thing CD Projekt did, and for the exact same reason. But oh no - suddenly EA has to be brought into this. Now people want to argue that where CD Projekt made a marvelous decision, Bioware made the same decision to cut corners. Um, that argument could be applied to The Witcher as well. But again, nobody ever mentions this, because the game gets a pass. Nobody ever says that there's zero character customization in The Witcher because it shaved time off the development cycle.

People say they're tired of seeing me posting about The Witcher. Yeah, well I'm getting tired of seeing Dragon Age 2 being bashed by people who then defend The Witcher over the exact same things they had a bash at Dragon Age over! It's exasperating!

The Witcher
1) Re-cycled areas. Check.
2) Zero character customization. Check.
3) Confusing story that isn't tight and begins to wander. Check.
4) Early bugs and broken gameplay. Check.

Dragon Age 2 is easily my game of the year so far. I rarely play through titles twice, but I might re-start this one as soon as I'm finished. Can't wait for the DLC to start arriving.

did you play the witcher?

1. each chapter pretty much open up a new area, and all the areas were quite diverse and distictive.
2. again, while you couldn't change the outward apperance, becuase well hes a character from a book, you could pick quite a view skills, and the alchemy system was soo deep that you play the game alot of different ways.
3. well if you prefer the by the numbers of DA2 then you could find the witcher confusing
4. never had a bug and i got the game the first day.