@Galiant said:

@Arker101 said:

If you find that you love DA:O, you probably won't like DA 2

I love both.

I like both.

Both games should be pretty cheap all over the place, just try both. If you wait till after you're done with DA:O Ultimate (which will take ages), DA2 will be even cheaper and we'll know stuff about DA3 (safe bet: reveal between GDC and E3)

@Undeadpool said:

@ArbitraryWater said:

@Undeadpool said:

@Brodehouse: Preaching to the choir on that one. I've made the very same observation myself and I'm sure if I were on message boards a decade ago it would've been people grousing about how BG2 is the worst RPG ever and can't even hold a candle to BG1. Ain't nostalgia a bitch?

Listen, while I totally agree with your general assertion here, I don't think this is true. Baldur's Gate II is such a dramatic and significant step up from BG in so many ways, I have trouble picturing even irrational message board people from the year 2000 making that claim, considering the near universal praise that game obtained. In contrast, pretty much everyone--even people like you and I who like the game--think Dragon Age II is a step down from Origins. Anyways, carry on.

See, you SAY that, but take this for example: I honestly think ME2 is a massive step up from ME1. I've gone back and played ME1, and I find it hilarious that people call it "dumbed down" considering how much dumber I can be in ME1 with no consequences. Others disagree with me, though and while I absolutely agree that BG2 is a massive step up, it's not about looking at something objectively. A fanboy is, almost by definition, someone who has lost the ability to think about something objectively, and that's all that I'm lampooning.

While I agree with you about "fanboys" not being able to view things objectively; I think using ME2 is a bad example. ME2 *was* a huge step up from ME1, and if you look at the ratings, reviews etc. the general consensus is that ME2 is a huge leap forward. The same with BG2, it improves upon everything that made BG1 great and I don't believe it would have received the same level of hate that DA2 received.

The problem with DA2, which set the world on fire, was that compared to the original it was a huge step down in *quality*. People will always have different opinions on which game/sequel they enjoyed more; for example I feel that ME1 had a far better story then ME2, but I don't think anyone can deny the quality and attention to detail that went into ME2 and by extension BG2. Thats the difference with DA2 and DAO, the quality.

The story telling is really good in DA2. I still like Orgins better BUT for what it is DA2 is a fine game people just blew their expectations out of the water for it.

Play DA:O. Then convince yourself that Dragon Age 2 doesn't exist.

What we really need for Dragon Age 3 is the filling/insides/story/setting/whatever of Origins, in the "skin" og DA2 (ie. graphics, style, combat system etc.). DA:O was so goddamn boring and ugly to look at. Every character looks almost the same if they wear the same armor, and everything in that game is gold, brown and ochre.

While the events of both games have widespread effects on the world, the story of the first Dragon Age is epic, is set in a large country and is a throwback to older BioWare RPGs(which was pretty much the promise the game was made on). The story of the second Dragon Age is around a political struggle, is set in largeish city and it's surroundings(and you'll see the same areas a lot) and is much more like a Mass Effect than a traditional BioWare RPG.

@Junkerman: I'll agree with your general assertion, but on more subjective things I actually like DA2 more. The characters specifically felt a great deal more complex and nuanced compared to DAO, and they had SO much more banter within the party. I also think people unfairly forget that DA: O has some pretty substantial flaws (the combat could not feel more sterile if it was soaked in rubbing alcohol).

@Undeadpool said:

@Junkerman: I'll agree with your general assertion, but on more subjective things I actually like DA2 more. The characters specifically felt a great deal more complex and nuanced compared to DAO, and they had SO much more banter within the party. I also think people unfairly forget that DA: O has some pretty substantial flaws (the combat could not feel more sterile if it was soaked in rubbing alcohol).

Yet Dragon Age II lacks so much of what players like myself enjoyed about the original game. I liked being able to create my own character, complete with a specific background, and playing through that before engaging in the main story. I like how the story itself varied depending on the origin choice, and in general having that freedom to play who I wanted to play. It's one of those elements that set Dragon Age apart from Mass Effect, in which you are always Commander Shepard. Your Shepard might look different from everyone else's, but you're still Commander Shepard. As far as the combat in Origins is concerned, I enjoyed it a lot, but that's more or less because the game plays very similar to Final Fantasy XII in some ways. Bioware basically borrowed the entire concept of gambits from Square Enix's game; the only real difference is that Dragon Age offers them all up front.

Now, for Dragon Age II, a change of pace to the combat isn't really bothersome to me. Not in the grand scheme of things. What initially put me off of the game was the presentation of the main character. Now, instead of being able to play the character I wanted to play, I am forced to play as a human with an established background and history. Hawke is Bioware's attempt to create a fantasy world version of Shepard, and that's not what I signed for. Nor did I sign on for the opportunity to see most every choice I made during the first game go completely to waste. Did you kill Leliana? Tough beans, because she's still alive. Also, here's a deus ex machina to bring back Flemeth regardless of whether or not you killed her in the first game. Or really, I could just cite any number of other choices that ultimately don't matter, because Bioware made their own choices to overwrite yours in a story that's almost entirely tangential to that of the first game. So really, what do your choices from the original game boil down to? Alistair is either a king or a drunkard?

Choices matter, indeed.

If, in Dragon Age 3, Bioware still insists on focusing once again on Hawke, or at the very least another predefined Commander Shepard-like stand-in, I am done. Dragon Age II took all of my fucks. I have none left to give to this franchise.

@Undeadpool: Oh I definitely agree with you about DA2, it is a great game. I spent 40 hours playing through that game and loved it to bits. I enjoyed seeing the city and the characters evolve over a decade, I LOVED the party banter and the interactions. I'd spend a great deal of time just running around with different combinations of characters to hear all of their banter, and the general plot beats were exciting and fun (except for the hideous ending). But the game could have just been so much more; if the character models changed to reflect the passage of time, if the city changed, if you were introduced to new areas... All of these things could have had a huge impact on the game, tightening the seams between Acts and heightening immersion.

All of these things *should* have been in the game and would have if it hadnt been such a rushed product.

That is why it failed to stand up to Origins and that is why it suffered such a backlash. Not because it was a bad game, but because it wasnt held to the standard that Bioware had set for itself.

@TEHMAXXORZ: Even though it was a let down its still worth playing if your getting it cheap. It isnt a bad game its just not great, but its still pretty fun. Plus your going in to it with lower expectations so it wont be so bad for you, i say give it a go.

@Dangerlove said:

Dragon Age 2 is a more self contained story that sets up more significant events yet to happen in the Dragon Age universe. I would still recommend picking up Dragon Age 2 because if you shop around you can get it for like 20 bucks.

but you still have to play at least 20 hours of the game.

time is more valuable than money

@Junkerman: The game definitely has unrealized potential (the non-aging thing REALLY bugged me), but considering it was basically "gun to your head, get this game made in ~12 months, it turned out amazingly. I'll never say the game's perfect, but I think the venom and vitriol that gets heaped on it is more a product of insta-nostalgia for DA: O (a game which, even after its release and juuuuust about up to the announcement of DA2, was called "shallow, dumbed down, and nothing like Baldur's Gate 2).