Forums › Dragon Age II Forum › Dragon Age II Xbox 360 Forum › I feel like this has aged better than Or ...

I feel like this has aged better than Origins.

Page:

This topic is now read-only on GameSpot.
To post new messages, please visit GameFAQs and log in using the same email and password that you use on GameSpot.

john7281

Jan 10, 2013 8:29 am GMT
The only difference in combat between the 2 I noticed is DA2 is faster paced. After beating both of them numerous and on both ps3 and 360, the combat feels very similar aside from different attacks. They play the same just one is slower than the other.

For difficulty I actually found Origins to be so much easier to play through could almost do it in my sleep, DA2 isn't as easy to play through. For stories I loved DA2 a lot more on that front, aside from Act 3 that is. Neither one of them give anything special when compared to other games stories I think.

Only complaints I have with DA2 over Origins was that I couldn't duel wield as a warrior like I did in Origins. I also didn't like at first the lack of Whirlwind from duel wielding tree. The same environment being repeated was horrible, and enemies jumping in out of nowhere was a bad idea as well. I did like the enemies jumping in at times, cause there were a few that made it look like they jumped in from a ledge up above, but they still appeared out of thin air, since wasn't standing on the ledge to begin with.
Zombie_Mayor

Jan 14, 2013 3:53 am GMT
p0iz3n0us posted...
Zombie_Mayor posted...
I, personally, got bored very easily with the DA2 battle system. Sure, its more action packed, fast-paced, and easier to learn. But there was absolutely zero challenge to it. (if you don't believe me, play a force/elemental or force/primal mage.) Even on nightmare I was tearing my way through hordes of bad guys with little-to-no difficulty. I liked that (despite its horrendously slow pace) there was an actual challenge to playing Origins on the harder difficulties. Each game has its merits, though. I personally loved both stories and all of the characters. But, if they could bring some of that challenge back, but still maintain the action-packed nature of DA2's battles for DA3, then I'd be a happy gamer.

Please tell me what battle was challenging in Origins outside of the first Ogre fight? Maybe the FIRST time you play through the game it's challenging (like most games), but Origins is even simpler than DA2.

I said that it was challenging on the higher difficulty levels. The High Dragon variations can all be a pain, just thinking off the top of my head. The Harvester in Amgarrak was another that I had difficulty with, too. But perhaps you're just better at this game than I am. *shrug*
Mu_Nova

Jan 25, 2013 3:27 pm GMT
I've always had a little motivation problem with the dwarf part of the game, myself (not saying the city name because... I've forgotten. It's been too long ._.). I enjoy dwarven culture and all, and stuff in that part of the game, but the age-long Deep Roads part always puts me off. I kinda drudge through that, and am fine through most of the rest of the game.

Anyway, though I think I prefer DA2 combat, and certainly the graphics, I dunno which has aged better. Having not played either in ages, I feel motivated to play both. I just know I prefer Origins overall.
---
"Ah yes, 'cliff racers'... I have dismissed that claim." ~ St. Jiub
I like My Little Pony. You do not have to watch My Little Pony.
sarevokmb

Jan 28, 2013 7:00 pm GMT
DA2's gameplay was always better. DAO played like a watered down Baldur's Gate. This game has some really fun combat. The story may have its problems, but I have still replayed this many more times than I have DAO.

I played through DA:O once when it came out, and once when I got the Ultimate edition, with all of the expansions and dlc. I've had a few partially completed playthroughs, but whenever I reach the mage tower, I lose interest. That section sucked, and they almost forced you to play it longer because of all of the skill bonuses you could find there.

I've played through DA2 about four times. There are just a lot of interesting variables in the story that I wanted to check out, and I loved playing the other classes, because they all play so differently.

I wasn't as obsessed as I was with Mass Effect 2 though. I played through that game twice when it came out, and then did another complete playthrough with every single piece of DLC that came out. Including Zaeed, since I couldn't redeem his code until almost a month after launch, because I didn't have an internet connection.
---
"The law is only a protection when everyone agrees to be bound by it. We don't." -Thane, Mass Effect 2
smurfsn1p3r

Jan 29, 2013 2:46 pm GMT
I agree with you TC. After my love of DAO has passed to normal levels I can now appreciate this game a lot more. I will admit I was one of the haters at first, only because I was still blinded by DAO story.

Like someone else said on here Story alone cannot save the game. This game blends it well enough with its combat. I only wish the characters had a little more life to them, but that is me nitpicking.
---
Skyrim has become this gens Final Fantasy VII.
darkfire9189

Feb 16, 2013 8:00 am GMT
phoenix52 posted...
Parts of Origins really do drag on and on. The beginning is like absolutely no fun and I can't stand the Circle Tower/Fade anymore. There are definitely other parts of the game that I really do enjoy, but it's a chore to get to them.

A lot of people hate the "hit button>something awesome" rationale of DA2, but at the very least it means that people like me can pick it up and do something fairly enjoyable without having to wade through a swamp for half an hour looking for a box of old parchment.

DA:O was meant to be slower and more tactical. DA2 wanted the CoD crowd, the press A for Awesome button crowd. Everyone wants the CoD crowd because the CoD crowd dominate everything and hate anything that isn't "Awesome".

DA:O's gameplay was slow, but, it still felt nice as it was probably the last we'll ever see of that type of game. DA3 will be exactly like DA2. Screw the older fans who liked the slower tactical gameplay and different origin stories.

It's worse because DA2 is inferior in nearly every possible way. It's as bad as the deep roads/fade in DA:O. DA:O had problems, they could have fixed them instead of casually tossing everything that made DA:O good away and turning the series into a mass effect clone.

Modern game development in general. Toss away everything that made your older series good in order to get the big bux from the CoD crowd.
dennis_phong

Feb 21, 2013 11:45 am GMT
Leodux posted...
some09guy II posted...
Leodux posted...
Fraust posted...
So having more ways to deal with a situation and more variety in the way you go about those ways equals simpler. Good to know.

Yeah. DA II is way more complex than Origins will ever be.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You know I'm right.

You are.
---
--
Xbox Live GT & PSN ID: danteliveson
XBOX LIVE GT: danteliveson
[IMG]
Fraust

Feb 22, 2013 6:10 am GMT
Yeah just look at the number of ways to handle things in Orzammar compared to the Starkhaven mages. Double dealing Belehn and Harromont or how you deal with the Anvil and Branka has nothing on the complexity of dealing with the run away Starkhaven mages. How no matter what you do with the mages the exact same things happen in the end of that quest arc(they end up in the circle and try to kill you later) proves the true complexity of DA2.
smurfsn1p3r

Mar 10, 2013 3:04 am GMT
k darkfire posted...
phoenix52 posted...
Parts of Origins really do drag on and on. The beginning is like absolutely no fun and I can't stand the Circle Tower/Fade anymore. There are definitely other parts of the game that I really do enjoy, but it's a chore to get to them.

A lot of people hate the "hit button>something awesome" rationale of DA2, but at the very least it means that people like me can pick it up and do something fairly enjoyable without having to wade through a swamp for half an hour looking for a box of old parchment.

DA:O was meant to be slower and more tactical. DA2 wanted the CoD crowd, the press A for Awesome button crowd. Everyone wants the CoD crowd because the CoD crowd dominate everything and hate anything that isn't "Awesome".

DA:O's gameplay was slow, but, it still felt nice as it was probably the last we'll ever see of that type of game. DA3 will be exactly like DA2. Screw the older fans who liked the slower tactical gameplay and different origin stories.

It's worse because DA2 is inferior in nearly every possible way. It's as bad as the deep roads/fade in DA:O. DA:O had problems, they could have fixed them instead of casually tossing everything that made DA:O good away and turning the series into a mass effect clone.

Modern game development in general. Toss away everything that made your older series good in order to get the big bux from the CoD crowd.

Blame the publishers who wanted the game to be out within a year. Despite it being a rushed title, it is still one of the better rushed titles to ever be released. I can only imagine how much DA3 will improve on what could have been another game of the year, had Bioware had time to make the game they wanted.

For only being one year, I think Bioware outdid themselves, and showed they can get the job done. Look at many other rushed titles, they all have game breaking bugs that cannot be patched. DA2 has corrected most of the harmful bugs, and it is a very enjoyable game.

Saying they catered to the COD fans shows your shallow knowledge of the industry as a whole.
---
She's courting him. With a fear reserved for dragons.
KobraXZ

Mar 10, 2013 1:26 pm GMT
smurfsn1p3r posted...
k darkfire posted...
phoenix52 posted...
Parts of Origins really do drag on and on. The beginning is like absolutely no fun and I can't stand the Circle Tower/Fade anymore. There are definitely other parts of the game that I really do enjoy, but it's a chore to get to them.

A lot of people hate the "hit button>something awesome" rationale of DA2, but at the very least it means that people like me can pick it up and do something fairly enjoyable without having to wade through a swamp for half an hour looking for a box of old parchment.

DA:O was meant to be slower and more tactical. DA2 wanted the CoD crowd, the press A for Awesome button crowd. Everyone wants the CoD crowd because the CoD crowd dominate everything and hate anything that isn't "Awesome".

DA:O's gameplay was slow, but, it still felt nice as it was probably the last we'll ever see of that type of game. DA3 will be exactly like DA2. Screw the older fans who liked the slower tactical gameplay and different origin stories.

It's worse because DA2 is inferior in nearly every possible way. It's as bad as the deep roads/fade in DA:O. DA:O had problems, they could have fixed them instead of casually tossing everything that made DA:O good away and turning the series into a mass effect clone.

Modern game development in general. Toss away everything that made your older series good in order to get the big bux from the CoD crowd.

Blame the publishers who wanted the game to be out within a year. Despite it being a rushed title, it is still one of the better rushed titles to ever be released. I can only imagine how much DA3 will improve on what could have been another game of the year, had Bioware had time to make the game they wanted.

For only being one year, I think Bioware outdid themselves, and showed they can get the job done. Look at many other rushed titles, they all have game breaking bugs that cannot be patched. DA2 has corrected most of the harmful bugs, and it is a very enjoyable game.

Saying they catered to the COD fans shows your shallow knowledge of the industry as a whole.

Flashy animations, button mashing controls, and a voiced protagonist have nothing to do with time constraints. The expansions, which could have fixed many of DA2's problems, threw us in isolated scenarios.
smurfsn1p3r

Mar 10, 2013 9:41 pm GMT
KobraXZ posted...
Flashy animations, button mashing controls, and a voiced protagonist have nothing to do with time constraints. The expansions, which could have fixed many of DA2's problems, threw us in isolated scenarios.

You just named every game since the PS2. Those are what we call game mechanics, they are a vital part to make sure the game is enjoyable. What does have to do with time constraints is the story, levels, character development, and the extra polish.

If you do not like to press buttons when you play games, I heard the Kinect has a few decent titles.

I am not trying to start an argument, but the basis of your debate is that the game is for CoD players because you have to press "A" to attack. So, do hack and slash games like Baldur's gate II: Dark Alliance cater to CoD players? It does have those three features you mentioned.
---
She's courting him. With a fear reserved for dragons.
KobraXZ

Mar 11, 2013 9:47 am GMT
smurfsn1p3r posted...
KobraXZ posted...
Flashy animations, button mashing controls, and a voiced protagonist have nothing to do with time constraints. The expansions, which could have fixed many of DA2's problems, threw us in isolated scenarios.

You just named every game since the PS2. Those are what we call game mechanics, they are a vital part to make sure the game is enjoyable. What does have to do with time constraints is the story, levels, character development, and the extra polish.

If you do not like to press buttons when you play games, I heard the Kinect has a few decent titles.

I am not trying to start an argument, but the basis of your debate is that the game is for CoD players because you have to press "A" to attack. So, do hack and slash games like Baldur's gate II: Dark Alliance cater to CoD players? It does have those three features you mentioned.

I said nothing about Call of Duty. I'm saying DA2 fell short because of poor design choices by BioWare, not just EA being pushy.

- When I say flashy animations, I mean how ridiculous combat looked. There's no reason a rogue should do a sideways flip to finish off a basic attack combo. 2H Warriors swing around a sword almost as big as them as if it were light as a feather, and mages look like baton twirlers. This is not vital to anything. It probably cost more money than the simple swings and slashes in Origins.

- The voiced protagonist (and voice acting in general) is probably one of the bigger mistakes in DA2. It cost a lot of money, locked us out of selecting other races, and resulted in the tacked on "Chivalrous, Sarcastic, Arrogant" dialogue wheel from Mass Effect we got stuck with. There also should have been way more quests utilizing the mail/bounty board system, because there's no reason they should have wasted money to hire a voice actor just to tell me to go to the Wounded Coast for the 20th time to kill some more bandits. Again, not vital.

- In Origins, you target someone, press one button, and auto attack them automatically until they die. You're free to use your abilities while all of this is going on. Tapping A to basic attack serves absolutely no purpose other than to be annoying. That's precisely why the PC version retained the Origins system.
__Blight__

Mar 11, 2013 2:32 pm GMT
KobraXZ posted...
smurfsn1p3r posted...
KobraXZ posted...
Flashy animations, button mashing controls, and a voiced protagonist have nothing to do with time constraints. The expansions, which could have fixed many of DA2's problems, threw us in isolated scenarios.

You just named every game since the PS2. Those are what we call game mechanics, they are a vital part to make sure the game is enjoyable. What does have to do with time constraints is the story, levels, character development, and the extra polish.

If you do not like to press buttons when you play games, I heard the Kinect has a few decent titles.

I am not trying to start an argument, but the basis of your debate is that the game is for CoD players because you have to press "A" to attack. So, do hack and slash games like Baldur's gate II: Dark Alliance cater to CoD players? It does have those three features you mentioned.

I said nothing about Call of Duty. I'm saying DA2 fell short because of poor design choices by BioWare, not just EA being pushy.

- When I say flashy animations, I mean how ridiculous combat looked. There's no reason a rogue should do a sideways flip to finish off a basic attack combo. 2H Warriors swing around a sword almost as big as them as if it were light as a feather, and mages look like baton twirlers. This is not vital to anything. It probably cost more money than the simple swings and slashes in Origins.

- The voiced protagonist (and voice acting in general) is probably one of the bigger mistakes in DA2. It cost a lot of money, locked us out of selecting other races, and resulted in the tacked on "Chivalrous, Sarcastic, Arrogant" dialogue wheel from Mass Effect we got stuck with. There also should have been way more quests utilizing the mail/bounty board system, because there's no reason they should have wasted money to hire a voice actor just to tell me to go to the Wounded Coast for the 20th time to kill some more bandits. Again, not vital.

- In Origins, you target someone, press one button, and auto attack them automatically until they die. You're free to use your abilities while all of this is going on. Tapping A to basic attack serves absolutely no purpose other than to be annoying. That's precisely why the PC version retained the Origins system.

Who the f*** cares how a rogue finishes a combo? I'll take that over the insanely slow and stale combat of DA:O. Such a weird nitpick and makes it hard to take your post seriously.

The story of DA is not interesting in the least, where they basically just copied Tolkien without add anything diverse or new to the formula. There was nothing "epic" about DA:O, all three quests requires extremely long and boring dungeons and characters with weird motivations (To this day I still don't understand Loghains motivation) and plain enemies and atmosphere.

DA2 didn't really build on this world either and the story is nothing to write home about. They did at least make the combat fun and I can pick up DA2 and enjoy myself.
---
"This is Stannis Baratheon. The man will fight to the bitter end and then some." - Tywin Lannister
auldfharte

Mar 11, 2013 4:27 pm GMT
DA2 is great for short-attention-span-theater type gaming, but I will agree DAO combat was slooooow. The thing is, I felt I had better control over tactics with Origins, and much better character development, and felt the quest was more epic in scope. I did have fun with DA2, and Varic almost makes up for the shallow characters. Plus, DA2 did have a great end fight--those moving statues were something else. I haven't played in a while, but I haven't sold it either.
---
"There be no butter in hell!"-CCF
auldfharte

Mar 11, 2013 4:39 pm GMT
I have to add, some of those areas in Origins are too long. The deep roads and the fade took way too long. It was fine the first time, but a few replays later, I just wanted it over. At least it wasn't the same recycled dungeon, or I would have sold it
---
"There be no butter in hell!"-CCF
KobraXZ

Mar 13, 2013 3:17 pm GMT
__Blight__ posted...
Who the f*** cares how a rogue finishes a combo? I'll take that over the insanely slow and stale combat of DA:O. Such a weird nitpick and makes it hard to take your post seriously.

The story of DA is not interesting in the least, where they basically just copied Tolkien without add anything diverse or new to the formula. There was nothing "epic" about DA:O, all three quests requires extremely long and boring dungeons and characters with weird motivations (To this day I still don't understand Loghains motivation) and plain enemies and atmosphere.

DA2 didn't really build on this world either and the story is nothing to write home about. They did at least make the combat fun and I can pick up DA2 and enjoy myself.

Totally missed the point. I'm saying the animations overall are childish. Evade, Stealth, Whirlwind, Scythe, etc. are all way too flashy looking. They lack the gritty feel of the first game.

I suppose you could call the combat of Origins slow or stale, but it was like that because the game had tactical combat. Positioning was extremely important, unlike this game where you can dash to someone from 10 feet away or roll a 2H warrior and hit everything around you at once.

The story wasn't knew or interesting, but it was well done, so there's that. Character-wise in DA2, pretty much everyone is two-dimensional. There's zero development besides the twist where you find out Merill is a blood mage 30 seconds after you meet. In the end, everyone chooses sides but it's so obvious who's choosing each side that it really doesn't matter, but it's not like that matters either since both factions are the same exact thing.

At least we can agree on one thing. DA2 didn't develop the world at all. The Free Marches are supposed to be huge and varied. This game portrays it as caves, identical coastlines, lifeless forests, and a city.
__Blight__

Mar 15, 2013 6:13 pm GMT
KobraXZ posted...
__Blight__ posted...
Who the f*** cares how a rogue finishes a combo? I'll take that over the insanely slow and stale combat of DA:O. Such a weird nitpick and makes it hard to take your post seriously.

The story of DA is not interesting in the least, where they basically just copied Tolkien without add anything diverse or new to the formula. There was nothing "epic" about DA:O, all three quests requires extremely long and boring dungeons and characters with weird motivations (To this day I still don't understand Loghains motivation) and plain enemies and atmosphere.

DA2 didn't really build on this world either and the story is nothing to write home about. They did at least make the combat fun and I can pick up DA2 and enjoy myself.

Totally missed the point. I'm saying the animations overall are childish. Evade, Stealth, Whirlwind, Scythe, etc. are all way too flashy looking. They lack the gritty feel of the first game.

I suppose you could call the combat of Origins slow or stale, but it was like that because the game had tactical combat. Positioning was extremely important, unlike this game where you can dash to someone from 10 feet away or roll a 2H warrior and hit everything around you at once.

The story wasn't knew or interesting, but it was well done, so there's that. Character-wise in DA2, pretty much everyone is two-dimensional. There's zero development besides the twist where you find out Merill is a blood mage 30 seconds after you meet. In the end, everyone chooses sides but it's so obvious who's choosing each side that it really doesn't matter, but it's not like that matters either since both factions are the same exact thing.

At least we can agree on one thing. DA2 didn't develop the world at all. The Free Marches are supposed to be huge and varied. This game portrays it as caves, identical coastlines, lifeless forests, and a city.

Like I said - That is nitpicking. While I agree that the first one was grittier it still didn't help the stale combat.

If I wanted a tactical RPG then I would play one. I don't mind switching characters and setting up tactics but when I have to do it 30 times in some boss battles it starts to get annoying. It ruins the flow of the battle system, which DA2 fixed thankfully. (This is probably better on PC, but I refuse to purchase this game again.)

I didn't even find the story well done. The explanations of everything were not interesting or unique, which made it feel as if Bioware just tried to cram as much lore as possible into every corner. When the world itself isn't that unique or interesting throwing lore at you every 5 minutes just makes playing the game tiresome.

DA2 was pretty crappy, but I thought DAO was worse. I am actually surprised by how many people like it and the backlash DA2 got.
---
"This is Stannis Baratheon. The man will fight to the bitter end and then some." - Tywin Lannister
smurfsn1p3r

Mar 15, 2013 7:40 pm GMT
KobraXZ posted...
I said nothing about Call of Duty. I'm saying DA2 fell short because of poor design choices by BioWare, not just EA being pushy.

When I say flashy animations, I mean how ridiculous combat looked. There's no reason a rogue should do a sideways flip to finish off a basic attack combo. 2H Warriors swing around a sword almost as big as them as if it were light as a feather, and mages look like baton twirlers. This is not vital to anything. It probably cost more money than the simple swings and slashes in Origins.

- The voiced protagonist (and voice acting in general) is probably one of the bigger mistakes in DA2. It cost a lot of money, locked us out of selecting other races, and resulted in the tacked on "Chivalrous, Sarcastic, Arrogant" dialogue wheel from Mass Effect we got stuck with. There also should have been way more quests utilizing the mail/bounty board system, because there's no reason they should have wasted money to hire a voice actor just to tell me to go to the Wounded Coast for the 20th time to kill some more bandits. Again, not vital.

- In Origins, you target someone, press one button, and auto attack them automatically until they die. You're free to use your abilities while all of this is going on. Tapping A to basic attack serves absolutely no purpose other than to be annoying. That's precisely why the PC version retained the Origins system.

You are right, I am sorry. It was darkfire who made the CoD comment. Please accept my apologies.

Every game has animations to help the game feel more smoothly with an action type game. Rogues are agile characters, and who is to say that they do not attack like that(mine did in D&D), would you prefer them standing stabbing like this was an *bit Nintendo game?
As for 2H weapons, they are not swinging the sword as fast as one might think, they are sluggish, but not to slow were the enemy can hit you 6 times before you swing the weapon(this is not Monster Hunter).
Mages are not the merlin type character we grew up with. in this world they are fierce characters, and I would not be pleased if my mage stood there swinging a staff left and right, with a willow stick.

These little things are important when you have the player actually needing to hit the button, you do not want the character swinging once every 3 seconds, while you are getting mobbed by 6 guys, you need the game to respond the gamer as quick as possible.
DA:O battles were boring, and bnever really needed to strategize much, just use your strongest attacks, and you win, just like any other game.

You think all this was by design? it was forced by EA to be released within a year, Bioware had to honor that deal, and so they had to make a rush job of a game. everything you are complaining about in this area is due to lack of time, not lack of imagination. Imagine you wrote a book, and it took you three yeas to write, it became a #1 best seller,now your publisher is telling you that you have to write a follow up within one year, or your book will not be published. EA cashed Cowed DA, and it backfired. Bioware did a great job with what they had to work with. It is a decent title, and I love it as much as I love the older RPGs that made them possible today.

So pressing "A" affects your ability to open the wheel, or use a hotkey? How do you play games if you need the game to do certain things for you? Would be like Halo auto firing at enemies so I can look at my map, and throw grenades. Just because you do not like this feature does not make it less important. DA:O was a great game, probably the best RPG to every be seen since Baldurs gate II(Not Dark Alliance). If they made the game a full blown strategy Sim RPG, then I can understand. but it was an action game and the combat dragged out battles longer then it needed to. I am thankful I have control of my attacks.
---
She's courting him. With a fear reserved for dragons.
AnonYC

Mar 15, 2013 10:23 pm GMT
I agree. For me the best part of Origin was the story and characters along with the amount of choices you can make in the game. For a time you felt that the choices you were making mattered and it was going to contribute to something bigger in the long run, but this doesn't really hold true.I Think this killed the story in DA:O for anyone revisiting it.
Gianhardy141

Mar 16, 2013 7:05 pm GMT
Hi I just finished Dragon Age 2 after I got it 2 weeks ago

I played DA:O multiple playthroughs and multiple is a litotes.

Overall I can disagree with this topic completely DA2 was a poor man's version of DA:O.

Dragon Age Origins brought back classical RPG and was destined to rival the new RPG's in the market

It brought back tactical combat and no it wasn't slow. It just didn't end in 10 seconds like DA2 combat was.

In Origins thinking was needed. There was variety in how you could approach leveling and fighting.

In Da2 there is no armor customization and no 2nd class. I worked hard to make Ferris and Aveline different but in my 2nd playthrough that's going to be even harder

Overall Dragon Age 2 failed because they wanted to entertain the simple minded people. They wanted people to look at the bright color lights and the cool swishy animations. Well after the first hour DA2 is just a medieval Dynasty Warriors in our Dragon Age. It was not entertaining. You press x over and over and over. There was no real variety or unique approach to fighting.

Also the story, god there was no engaging story. I heard earlier someone bash the story of Origins as unoriginal sure i admit it. Almost all RPGs are becoming unoriginal yes the concept is usually always unoriginal but the APPROACH was so incredible. With deep companions, funny companions, and intelligent independent companions I cared about all my companions in Origins. Especially the romances. Leliana and Morrigan tugged at my heart strings each were so dynamic and unique. I made the choice of trying to get both and suffer that break up. and as a female I loved Alistair so much and regretted having to break off at Zevran.

But OMG everyone in DA2 was so WHINY. Anders was such a crybaby. Merill was so weak and unengaging, Aveline was with us cause her husband died.... Fenris was basically a Final Fantasy character. Isabella and Varric were only decent

and the romance was just so weak. I just got with Merrill because no WAY i would romance Isabella and gosh Da2 romance doesn't even feel like a romance. It feels like 2 little kids saying they like each other

The approach in DA:O was unique. I cared for my Warden. Sure he couldn't talk but the diaolouge options available were great. I felt like a jerk, funny guy, heroic guy and i DONT NEED TO HEAR IT TO KNOW IT. READING it i knew it was funny i didn't need it TOLD it was. And my companions reactions SHOWED me i was being funny.

I literally almost never laughed in DA2. the dialouge wheel killed interaction.

All that was left was a weak story in DA2 that did not compare to DA:O. also it's a SEQUEL. why did we have to feel so disengaged from the adventure we had just a year ago. Having Alistair appear for 2 minutes is not enoug. And Zevran was still kill but thats all we had as a connection to our old game..

DA2 was a fail combat wise, and story wise. I haven't even mentioned no crafting, repetitive maps, your party NEVER being all in one place making the already weak customizing even harder, and the awkward story telling