Forum:DA2, Then Origins?

Forums: Index > Game DiscussionDA2, Then Origins?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4435 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Did playing DA2 make anyone new to the Dragon Age universe want to play Origins, and if so what did they think of it? Just curious.Oso27us (talk) 22:58, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I played DA2, then bought DAO & DAA, then replayed DA2. I liked DA2 way more than DAO. I have written about my impressions here already, so I'll just copy-paste)

What I disliked in DAO:

1. Silent protagonist. I liked the voiced one (female, never tried the male) better.

2. Abundance of 'third options'. I think the game would be so much better if you actually had to choose between elves and werewolves or Connor and his mother instead of 'choosing' both.

Having more options is good, having 'best options' is bad. Suppose you have two choices, Choice A has pros and cons, and Choice B has pros and cons. You sit down and think carefully what choice to make. But if you are presented with Choice C that has pros of both A and B and cons of neither, the decision becomes obvious and the 'choice' is effectively removed, unless you want to roleplay a character whose intentions are other than simply 'good'.

3. No rivalry. Oh, I would be so glad to rival Wynne.. there was no option. I know you can 'harden' Alistair and Leliana. I guess it's some analog of rivalry. But why do you need to say one certain line in one certain place to activate it?

4. Companion replies during dialogues with non-companion NPCs. I replayed DA2 with different parties just to see what would these companions say in certain situations. Some pairings (Anders and Fenris, Isabella and Aveline) were just hilarious. And in DAO.. each time that the Warden engages into such a conversation all his/her companions step back and watch in silence. As if they are not there at all. The ability to talk to them in the camp doesn't cover it for me, you learn people by how they act in specific situations, not by simply chatting with them.

5. Approval. Again, in DA2 I felt that my whole party reacted to everything I do. In DAO they were passive.

6. Lesser gifts in DAO.. really, that was stupid. You've just saved a kitten from a tree. Morrigan disapproves, but you can give her a meat bone and she will forget about your little disagreement)

And to add to that list:

7. I could not romance Morrigan as a female Warden. I really wanted to. Asherinka (talk) 23:01, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I can understand some of your complaints and a few of them I agree on, but I disagree with

2. I liked the idea of having a third option and I don't really see how its a flaw, if anything having only two extremes as an option seems counterproductive because it comes across as punishing the player rather than trying to make them understand both sides, for example take Orzammar, The reason as to why that worked as a two way problem was that on one end you if you voted for Harrowmont, you'd be taking the more lawful approach and essentially preventing the rise of a tyrant, but at the cost of making Orzammar more harsher and stricter for the casteless and trade with the surface essentially ceases. on the other hand, if you voted for Bhelen, Orzammar becomes much more supportive of the casteless and more willing to trade with the surface. It worked because no matter what option you pick the player isn't necessarily punished (like deciding between Carver and Bethany *if your a rogue player your screwed if you want to make Bethany a templar*, Templar and Mage war in which some companions fight against you no matter the side you pick *Fenris if you choose mage, Anders if you choose templars* or *choose between Sebastion and Anders*)

5. Approval, If I defile the Sacred Ashes of Andraste, I'd expect Leillana to either kill me or run away from me rather than sticking around and having angry sex because I'm her rival.

But I respect your opinions and I mean no ill will towards you :) --SirXblade (talk) 04:09, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Issues I have with your complaints:

2. It's much more likely that a scenario would have multiple solutions instead of just two. I was glad I could save the Circle, then use their mages for the benefit of all. It made me feel like my decisions mattered.

6. For people who find it annoying to talk to the characters, gifting was a quick and easy way of securing the useful approval bonuses.

7. No offense meant, but I find that complaint to be a little narrow-minded. There is such a thing has heterosexuality in the world, DA2 be damned. Complaining that a company didn't write a character as bisexual or gay is a little nit-picky. Rathian Warrior (talk) 23:27, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I am not complaining, I am sharing my impressions because the OP asked to. I can cease writing anything if it makes you feel uncomfortable :)

2. Re so-called "third options", I've explained above. Every decision must have its price, or it becomes too easy to choose. The decision you mentioned had no price at all. I heavily disliked it.

6. I love talking to characters, isn't it the point of RPGs? :)

7. Sure, but I would like her to be Bi. And after DA2 I see no reason why she couldn't be Bi back then) To clarify, I'm a straight female, but I really liked the character and wanted to make her my Warden's LI. Asherinka (talk) 23:37, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think people who played DA:O first will always love DA:O more, and vice versa. I actually played DAO first, so DA2 didn't impress me at all. It's sort of like reading the book first, THEN seeing the movie. I always do that, go into the theatre, and then b*tch about how it didn't match up to the book.

I did like the voice for Hawke, and I would have massively appreciated it if my Warden wasn't mute. I also do see the difficulty of it, though; just the sheer amount of voice files that have to be made, since there are multiple voice sets. But hey, that can be a new mod! Ideas, hint hint :D

Approval system... I have to give DAO that one. The approval system for DA2 allowed much hypocrisy, such as blood mage pro-mage "I'm a effin' mage and mages rock and die, scum Templars!" Hawke that I played was diddling Fenris. It made very little sense. And then my second "I love Templars, hear me roar" Hawke was living with Anders. It felt like... Sebastian and Anders in a relationship, or Merrill and Fenris. I think it's more normal for one to be friends with people who uphold same values, so that was just weird for me. Leliana screaming at you and dumping you because you defiled Andraste's Ashes make sense to me, but if that just upped the rivalry she'd still be in my bed after doing such sacrilege. As sexy as angry sex may sound, that relationship just won't work. That would be like Morrigan and Alistair having angry sex after one of their many arguments.

The only one in which friendship/rivalry worked (for me, anyway) was Carver/Bethany, because they are tied to Hawke by kinship of blood. But if Hawke was doing everything that annoyed and angered Isabela, I think she'd just have run off before the end of Act II. That's what I'd do. Apart from personal affections there isn't much that's tying the companions to Hawke, so rivalry made little sense to me. (At one point Fenris annoyed me so much I wanted to take his Blade of Mercy and shove it through his chest. Fenris was pretty pissed with me as well. If that was real world, we would have cut each other to ribbons at that point.)

As for the third options issue, I do recall in Redcliffe and Brecilian Forest going "hmm, well, deus ex machina!". But then again, Flemeth pops up everywhere like toadstools after rain... as I never hardened Alistair I was forced to make the difficult decision of forcing a moaning, whining, at-times-no-older-than-age-five Alistair onto the throne (which seemed a BAD, BAD idea, even to me), or put a cold "I'm kind of a b*tch" Anora, who hasn't a drop of Calenhad in her body, onto the throne. As I was pretty much a Fereldan at that point I agonised over it for hours. the Circle Tower decision was easy since I was a mage, but Orzammar was extremely difficult to decide as well.

If the game was actually real life, I think the easy way out would have been to kill Isolde. Since this is a game and we can respawn, going to the Circle for help is the easy way out, but as I played it through the second time without respawn, I was very tempted to sacrifice Isolde to save my hide. And then run screaming for the hills and live like that hermit from the Forest.

Dunno. Both have their pros and cons. DAO was far superior in its storytelling, but DA2 had better system overall in my opinion (for some reason, DAO had such combat lags on my PC that when I order someone to chug a potion, they'd keep fighting for some while and then end up dead before they get around to drinking. That was hellishly annoying). --GabrielleduVent (talk) 00:03, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I did the exact same thing. I played DA2 for a couple months before I got Origins and then eventually Awakening. I played DA2 and loved it, then I played Origins, and liked even better. I liked it in DA2 on how more of the characters can be romanced regardless of what gender your playing as, in DA:O. Some things sucked after playing DA2 I couldn't do with in Origins, and there were also some things I wish they took from Origins after playing it and put them into DA2 as well.

1. Should I feel guilty I wanted to bang Morrigan with a chick or wanted to have a dude get laid with Alistair? I just happen to find it nice to romance characters of the same sex as your protagonist. I wont act like it's the end of the world because Morrigan and Alistair are straight, but it's just my personal preference.

2. About DA2, I find that I do like to have more control over what my companions use and wear. I'm not much into having a character only able to use a bow and arrow or only able to use 2-handed weapons, I'd like it if I could choose how I develop them rather than have it decided for me right on the spot.

3. After playing DA:O I kind wished they'd have put a dog as a companion in DA2. I could say I really enjoyed having a dog around in my party to pounce on people and place rabbit heads in someone's pack to see the priceless reaction they have.

_{Marauder 09} ^{I can make the Black Sun look like a Swoop Gang.} 00:29, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you can have a dog. It's part of the Black Emporium DLC. --GabrielleduVent (talk) 00:31, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I realize that, I just would've like it if your dog was a companion rather than a sustained ability. Probably should have worded that better.

_{Marauder 09} ^{I can make the Black Sun look like a Swoop Gang.} 00:38, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I actually liked having the dog as a sustained ability better. You still get the occasional companion interaction with him, but he doesn't take up a companion slot- I rarely found him worthwhile to bring with me in Origins. A lot of people mentioned they wished they could have same sex relationships with Morrigan and Alistair in Origins, but personally I don't think that every character should be bisexual. I don't have any problem with having bisexual or gay companions and characters, but I feel like making all the romance options bisexual is bad writing. But if we've decided that not being to romance every character we wanted to, how we wanted to, is a downside to the games then I'd like to add that I would've liked to be able to romance Aveline.--Liam Sionnach (talk) 05:17, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

There's a mod for the dog to not take up the slot, but it broke the game somewhere. Bad dog.

I personally liked Morrigan and Alistair being heterosexuals. Morrigan just doesn't seem the type to go both ways, and if Alistair could go for guys... well, I'd imagine he wouldn't be a virgin then, considering he grew up in a monastery with whole bunch of other boys.

The combat system for DA2 is probably going to get reused for DA3, since it seems they're using the same engine. I hope there will be less hypocrisy this time. Talking to Cullen with my blood mage mode on and him going "I'm looking for apostates and underground mage rebellion!" while Anders was standing there was a bit laughter-inducing.

Also, Gaider said no more party camp. I really liked party camp, as it was time for me to just relax and talk and dance (thanks to dance party mod), so that makes me sad :(.--GabrielleduVent (talk) 05:25, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

As a long time player of sequels before originals I can totally understand the sentiment, however, will argue to death regarding No.2 aka "multiple choices are bad". For me, ye olde Bioware's binary choice is only marginally better than brand new Bioware's "We don't need no stinkin' choices!", so if they enhance situation with more choices, however blatant, it is only a very good thing indeed. Besides, in DA:O's case optimal choices are designed to be harder to get than obvious ones. Say, if you follow Alistair's advice and go for Lothering first, you don't know that the Mage Tower can help; persuading Dalish elder to undo the curse requires specific dialogue and possibly a skill check. 'sides, 'best options' is a subjective thing, e.g. for me the best option is always to keep werewolves because I fucking hate elves. Dorquemada (talk) 07:57, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Re choices - once more) I don't mind multiple choices, I don't like easy choices. I loved the Orzammar quests - this is how choices should be done. I liked the ending with sacrifices vs OGB. I liked the Landsmeet. All options have benefits and flaws. I don't mind having a third choice as long as it is not "the third choice"). I meant this trope, but it feels like you are not familiar with it, so I thought I would clarify. Don't be offended if you are)
And I wrote from the start that if your intentions are other than 'good' (i.e. you hate the elves), you may favor one of the extremes. But personally I like it when one can't tell what option is 'good' and has to sit and think about it, not when one has to do something specific to activate that 'good' option. The latter may give you the sense of accomplishment, but IMHO it demeans the choice itself. I don't think such trade off is worth it. Asherinka (talk) 08:45, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I know this trope. I just don't think it is bad by design. It really depends on how it is implemented - say, there is infamous example of Fallout 3, where in the end you have to either send a woman to die from radiation or sacrifice yourself, when, a) by that point you have so many anti-rad drugs you could open a pharmacy chain, b) it is extremely likely that your current companion is immune or even healed by radiation. This caused such a backdraft that Bethesda added in the third option in a DLC. So I'm okay with making sacrifices, but stupid sacrifice when there's a rational option to avoid it only makes you look like an idiot. Possibly dead idiot. Dorquemada (talk) 10:07, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that) Asherinka (talk) 10:12, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in a bit similar situation with ME - started with ME2 and loved it, so I insisted we must get ME1, as well. I haven't had the time to play it myself but I watched my husband play and we discussed it a lot, and it's far superior story- and RPG element-wise. I can see now why so many people claim ME2 was streamlined and dumbed down, though I must say that for the likes of me, who never played a shooter before, it was an advantage (but only to a certain extent - the descriptions of weapons without stats were more confusing for me than columns of numbers could ever be). - That said, even with these reservations, I still think that the free copy of ME2 was the best part of the DA2 preorder, which, in retrospect, I wouldn't have made, while I would have paid for ME2 without hesitation.

Concerning the "abundance" of the third option in DAO: the only time I had problems with it was the Connor dilemma, since I really, really do not think I should rely on the word of a bloodmage and poisoner whom I only met half an hour ago to keep the demon under control. - Meaning, I didn't and sacrificed Isolde instead. I can't see what's wrong with the third option in Nature of the Beast, and I would very much like to have a third option in DA2, since being pushed into choosing one of two factions where there should have been way more options how to solve the conflict, was really lame.--Ygrain (talk) 15:22, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think the third choice thing is being overplayed here. The big ones were Nature of the Beast, and using the Mages to save Conner. It's not like it was happening in every quest. And as Dorquemada pointed out, sometimes a third choice is good when the first two are stupid. I mean, when the options are 'make sure werewolves stay werewolves forever (or kill them all)' vs. 'kill all the elves', there had better be a third option even if it is 'leave and let these assholes kill each other'. I mean it should be pretty obvious that you need a third option when the first two are both acts of mass murder against the innocent. To me it's not about getting out of the hard choices, it's about not being forced to make the dumb ones.--Liam Sionnach (talk) 16:10, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

The three choices? We must've been playign different games, then. :P No, but seriously, I liked it that there were many options in the main quests, i.e. I could have the both the Lady of the Forest and their savage humans killed as well as Zathrian. That guy was a dick, but the werewolves were beyond hope in my opinion. I don't see what's wrong with having choices in an RPG. Sounds like trolling a little to me. :P Henio0 (talk) 18:55, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

@two previous posters
I do think that it would be better if the options were 'make sure werewolves stay werewolves forever (or kill them all)' vs. 'kill all the elves', as it is simply more realistic. I don't fancy a fairy tale with a vengeance-driven blood mage who is suddenly able to forgive and forget. And no, I'm not trolling. But I already regret writing it at all, really :) It is just an opinion)
Or, if you want another option, make Zathrian lift the curse, but at some cost other than his own life, so that it is comparable to the other two. Asherinka (talk) 19:34, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I personally in my "canon" playthrough sided with Zathrian and killed the werewolves. Then, when he's happy and all, I stab him in the back and kill him too. And so I would not prefer there to be just the option to kill one side off. I like having several choices. But I do agree that making Zathrian understand and forgive was kind of fake. 'tis why I kill the bastard. Henio0 (talk) 19:54, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think it would better overall if the choices were "Cure the werewolves by killing off all the elves that were responsible for the cures and get footsoilders" or "kill of the werewolves to save the elves" --SirXblade (talk) 20:10, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I also played the games chronologically. As stated above, it is very much like reading a book and going to watch the film at the cinema, it never lives up to your imagination.

I was never bothered with the number of choices, rather that whatever I chose I had an idea of what the outcome would be and how it would affect me/the world. Some quests had 2 choices, some had 3, which is better than, "side with the mages and kill the bloodmages" or "Side with the Templars...and kill the bloodmages" The fact that I could decide if all the Elves were to be punished for one persons mistake/choice, or whether to show mercy to the werewolves and trap/trick Zathrian into lifting the curse, or just plain "kill all werewolves" is the true hook for a good story like this, where you choose the path you walk.

I guess I was spoilt with DA:O, it is, I think my first RPG (unless Pokemon counts) :), and I fell in love with the level of detail that was included in the game, in particular:

- The amount of lore, in game text, speech and quest information.

- The more ambiguous speech selection, choice of 6 possible answers, not always clear as to what answer you could receive, which made you think a little harder on your decision, rather than "press up for good, down for bad" etc.

- Talent/Skill points, the ability to really customise your PC in terms of passive abilities, such as coercion, stealing, survival and so on.

- The way that tactics and positioning actually mattered during battles, i don't have to run the risk of losing my archers/mages as soon as a 2nd wave of enemies appear, or to have to physically enter the fray tapping attack like a mad man as my PC would otherwise stand idly by untill another button press is actioned.

- The Party Camp, time to relax after a hard days questing, give Sten his sword, talk to Wynne about my feelings, tease Alistair, make sure Oghren hasn't choked on his own tongue, and later sexy time with the bard.

In my opinion it is bad form a developer to remove existing features of a game, unless they are broken or are being upgraded in another form. For example, removing Coercion skills, why need to pass a skill checkpoint, when all you have to do is press the blue button to continue conversation. Or removing Survival skills to make the maps so small you can see all the enemies from where you are anyway. Or removing Trap making in favour of just spawning a new wave directly behind your support team and obliterating them outright. James Ward1987 (talk) 22:02, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I played DA2 then Origins then Awakening. I really enjoyed all three games and think there were pros and cons to all them.

Origins: It was nice to be able to initiate convos with your companions on the move and I did like the part camps. I do think you can have love/hate relationships but yes it did make sense that some things you did could be total deal breakers in terms of your companions sticking around and they would just leave if they disliked you enough on the other hand I didn't like that you had to have high enough approval to do their personal quests - you needed the gifts to hike their approval in a lot of cases but it needed to make more obvious what they were - you could get that Zevren liked Antivian leather and as the sole elf in the part it made sense he was the one who would appreciate the Dalish gloves and Leilana's gifts were obvious as were Oghren's but Sten's? - it would have been nice if you'd picked something up as a gift or saw something on a stall someone would go - hey that's nice or x would like that.

As for the third opinion - I liked in 'Nature of the Beast' don't see what's wrong with 'everyone lives' (except the guy who started the trouble) 'just this once' (9th Doctor quote see The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - two parter). However with Redcliffe I feel you are demonised for not going to the mages for help when you are leaving a rampaging demon behind to do it - for quite a long period of time if like me you didn't do the 'Broken Circle' quest first - I think the third opinon there should still exist but they're ought to be consequences for leaving the demon on its own to do more damage.

Well in my headcanon my Warden left most of her companions behind at Redcliffe Castle to keep the demon secured while she went to Kinloch Hold. At least that way it makes sense for me. And I do appreciate having that option, it makes the Mages vs Templars choice more poignant from a meta perspective, because you're also saving/dooming Isolde or Connor with your decision. It certainly left my goody-two-shoes Cousland feeling quite tormented over helping the Templars invoke Annulment. Kestrella (talk) 22:03, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

maybe Bann Teagan gets possessed again for example. + As for the third opinion - I liked in 'Nature of the Beast' don't see what's wrong with 'everyone lives' (except the guy who started the trouble) 'just this once' (9th Doctor quote see The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - two parter). However with Redcliffe I feel you are demonised for not going to the mages for help when you are leaving a rampaging demon behind to do it - for quite a long period of time if like me you didn't do the 'Broken Circle' quest first - I think the third opinon there should still exist but they're ought to be consequences for leaving the demon on its own to do more damage. - +

Well in my headcanon my Warden left most of her companions behind at Redcliffe Castle to keep the demon secured while she went to Kinloch Hold. At least that way it makes sense for me. And I do appreciate having that option, it makes the Mages vs Templars choice more poignant from a meta perspective, because you're also saving/dooming Isolde or Connor with your decision. It certainly left my goody-two-shoes Cousland feeling quite tormented over helping the Templars invoke Annulment. Kestrella (talk) 22:03, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

-

Perhaps if Alister or Leilana waded in and said look I'll stay to keep the demon in check if that's what it takes to save Isolde and Connor then it might have worked better having that third option or at least made it seem like the issue of the problem of having the demon uncontained addressed.

At Orzamour you were not given enough information about what the two men stood for to make an informed decision about who to make king - the info that Bhelen supported the casteless and Harrowmont didn't was never relayed in game - that was a deal breaker for my hubbie who gave up on the game after Orzamour - he was also had a female character who wanted to romance Morrigan although it did make sense that Morrigan wouldn't romance someone if she couldn't see a tangable result i.e progency and Alister doesn't seem the type to be interested in men whilst Anders and Fenris - I can believe could be - Anders isn't one to like being pinnned down and Fenris - I think would respond to anyone who showed him affection - I think that Fenris is desperately lonely and in need of love he's never really remember receiving if he ever received it at all.

- - However I loved the Landsmeet and loved that you had options to affect big things like who ruled Feralden and Orzamour and who fought the Archdemon that you didn't get in DA2. You could be a total dick if you wanted or a saint who ensured the most people survived and you could get it wrong - in supporting the better man in Harrowmont you would make things worse for Orzmaour than supporting a ruthless tryant.

- - Having free choice of what to kit your party out in was something I think it's a shame they got rid of although I ended up taking Cailen's armour off Oghren because it seemed dumb that someone half the king's height could wear his armour and for the same reason I never liked having my elven Warden in Legion of the Dead armour in Awakening.

- - Awakenings - I liked that objects in the environmnets triggered conversations but you missed out on some convos if you didn't have that person in your camp when you were near the location. The bugs annoyed me the Nathional bug which denied you his quest in DA2 if you didn't do certain specific things with him in the endgame despite the fact that the epilogue said he lived and the one that denied you Sigrun's companion quest where really and the one that resulted in my kit getting lost in the Silverite Mine - to quote Oghren - "no one touches my junk". By now the cumbersome nature to the talents arranging was getting annoying too - trying to read up on what all the spells and talents did and a limited number of slots to have access to them meant I ended up using the tried and trusted ones - with mages it was the sprit healer stuff, crushing prison, cone of cold, glyth of paralysis and the paralysis spells. I didn't really use any of the new skill branches for any of the classes because reading what they did was just too bothersome. Didn't like that gifts to Oghren had dimishing returns from Origins but it started his approval rating at zero - either reset the approval rating from gits or more helpfully retain the approval rating you had in Origins - after all you knew the guy before what you did or didn't do to help him or miff him off should count for something if he cared at the time he'd care later he's not that much of a piss-head that he'd forget or decide it didn't matter anymore.

- - I liked the challenge of ruling a kingdom and again being good didn't necessarily result in the greater good and being pragmatic alienated you for a person you liked and doomed her in following her death wish.

- - - DA2 - I liked the fact you could have long conversations one on one with characters. Gifts again weren't ideally used - they ought to be flagged and more made of them. I got to like giving them in Origins and Awakening and I liked that they were plot items. It was nice that they were flagged up though like Fenris's interest in the sword you give him that sparks a conversation being flagged up as Fenris would like this.

- - I agree with many about the lack of impact of choice and it was annoying that you could only equip your own character with new armour - especially if like me you played as a mage. Ok - Aveline as a guard and a guard captain it made sense she'd want to keep the armour that denoted her role - I always saw Aveline as very much a policewoman character - but you should have had some flexibility to give her some groovy warrior greaves and gauntlets that you found lying around that you couldn't equip on yourself if you were a mage or rogue. Also it made sense that human and elven armour didn't fit Varric for example. There's no reason why any of the other characters shouldn't have been able to have armour you found lying around couldn't have been equiped to them and it was annoying as a mage to have all this great warrior and rogue armour you just could do nothing with but sell and having played DA:O and A - it's a shame that the ability to equip with two weapons wasn't retained for DA2 - it makes sense a warrior, rogue or arcane mage - would have both melee and ranged weapons equipped and Leilana was rather a dab hand with both. I had great fun in DA:O especially equipping all my characters with good armour - fighting monsters for it and on occasion buying it - I saved up to buy 'The Felon's Coat' for Leilana.

- - Restricted two-handed fighting to rogues sucked

- - The restrictons of skills you and your companions could acquire was good and bad - the system needed symplifying and having unique skills and skill sets did give each character and unique style of fighting so you didn't give everyone the same template because it was useful but it did mean that if you didn't install 'Exiled Prince' like me then you picked up arrows that no one could use.

- - I can see why a lot of people are profoundly irritated to the recycled environs, spawning waves of enemies and the lack of choice impacting on the game especially the last. The bisexuality of most of the characters makes sense to me - Anders and Isabella are free spirited enough for it to plausible and Fenris and Merril - naive and lonely enough.

- - I got used to a silent protagnost in DA:O (I even got used to her annoying perky soundbits when you clicked on her) but I have admit I liked a voiced one better and I also liked that you knew if what you were saying was nice, snarky or blunt. No it wasn't always obvious how your comments were supposed to be taken in DA:O. It's also more realistic to the character speak - loved fem Hawke's voice too.

- - I think it is definatley playing DA:O and DA:A just because the stories and characters are so interesting and to form your own opinions about what worked and didn't work better in the original games as opposed to the sequel. You should always form your own opinion.

Ser Pedantic 87.194.82.77 (talk) 22:57, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

- - System is not needed symplifying.Unique skill is good but it is not enough. In DA:O there was much more skills, that was really usefull.They destroy almost half of spells skils and specialisation in DA2, because it they think it was hard for players.For what players?)It is RPG, in such games always you must think,read , and try to understand how to play such game.They was hoping that symplifying game they will involve new people, and earn more money.But it does not work this way. If you want more money -make more games. - - It is not the isuues about only skills, it about almost everything:batle system, where almost no tactics and atacks is too fast; plot: I think everyone understand);recycled environs;quests:almost of them are generic; companion armour; no chat with your companion; no epicness; no great batles. I just cant understand people who like this game.I forsed me to play the first act, because I thought it would be interisting later, but it didnt.But I must admit that Legacy was ineristing, maybe even more then whole game). Lagacy and Arishock,and respect of first game is only reason to play DA2. User:Riman

I can't understand the hate for DA2 - yes it was flawed but it was still fun to play and I'm looking forward to getting the DLCs and replaying it with them and the male Hawke - you could chat with companions just not whilst roaming around - I liked that DA:O but it's not a deal-breaker. Can you not accept that for me planning my battle tic-tacs and having to read what every spell and stunt does is a bit tedious and some of the spells were means to an end and not useful in themsleves. I play table-top RPGs with friends and what I like most is the character interacting not the intracacies of battle stategy different people playing in different ways and felt the skill trees of DA2 worked better than the infinate number of boexes of Origans and Awakenings - RPGing is about more than just system rules and the characters in DA2 worked for me althoguh the plot wasn't was good as DA:O and you were a tad rail-roaded. Just because I have different priorities as a gamer doesn't mena I'm not gettign what it's all about. I just have a different perspective.

Ser Pedantic195.194.86.1 (talk) 16:16, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I also play the good old pen-and-paper RPGs, and I have exactly the same complaints as Riman, including forcing myself to play through Act I. --Ygrain (talk) 18:58, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing Ash, and I mean no offense here, and I'm pretty sure a lot of players will agree with me here, Morrigan being heterosexual is really what makes her a great character. She grew up in a swamp, with no female interaction except her mother I imagine if she were to end up with another woman it would be very awkward. And beside's if anyone would peg her as a sexual experimentalist they'd think she was a total slut, like Isabela. User:Super Warden

I don't see how the place where a person grows up or who they interact with is supposed to determine their sexual orientation. If anything it'd be better for Morrigan to end up with a woman. She's been taught from a very young age that men want exactly one thing from her and will never respect her. I imagine she'd be way less awkward about falling in love with someone she sees as an equal from the start.

That doesn't mean I want her to be a lesbian. I actually like having companions with whom you don't have to worry about potential romances. It's nice to have a "friendship only" line drawn in the sand here and there, makes all the characters feel more realistic. I'm just saying that Morrigan's character being awesome has absolutely nothing to do with her sexuality and everything to do with her personality. Kestrella (talk) 10:04, February 27, 2012 (UTC)