Forum:What would you rate Origins and DA2 out of 10

Forums: Index > Game DiscussionWhat would you rate Origins and DA2 out of 10

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4653 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

I was wondering what would people of the Wiki rate Origins and DA2 out of 10

Origins: 9 - Now I love the characters and the politics side of the game (Damn the Landsmeet was fun) But the only thing that bothered me was Combat. Now I'm a Console player and the Combat was fine the first time through but now that I have completed the game 4 times now any time I try to do it again I just get so damn bored of the combat that I give up. It feels so slow and a bit lackluster.

Dragon Age 2: 8.5 - Ive seen alot of hate for this game but come on guys its better than most games out there. The Combat I felt was far more fun. Each companion felt a bit more developed (Morrigan never blew up a Chantry) and I loved the family aspect (Carvers final in-game line made me say "Screw it I dont hate you really man" and go for a epic bro hug)

What would you guys rate them and why?--TheRageMage (talk) 10:58, July 24, 2011 (UTC)TheRageMage

Origins: a 9. Only because the combat was terribly dull. It reminded me very much of Baldur's Gate 2, whilst having much better graphics and feeling more involved with the camera angle and direct control of the player character, and the various questlines and major areas was very diverse (something tossed away by the sequel).

DA2: 6. It had moments both plain laugh-out-loud ridiculous as well as poignant, but the only 'improvements' were some of the new talent trees (Vanguard and Battlemaster :D) and combat, only its fluidity and intensity - the wave-after-wave and 'sreamlining' of the classes where Warriors only really serve best as a Tank, and only regenerate stamina when they KILL (unbecoming of something not adept at dealing damage) really annoyed me. I preferred the companions in Origins as well as having a proper Dog (coupled with the mod that allowed him to act as a 5th party member).

Phylarion (talk) 11:51, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Origins 11, ok 10. The best RPG I ever played, everything perfect, I mean everything.

DA2, 5. I hated everything but Isabella and the story and that's worth a 5, IMO.

I know I did not comment much but I guess my complaints are known, they are bascually the differences from DA:O to DA2 like battle system, art direction, equips system, even the codex etc... Raoniluna (talk) 12:13, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

There were a whole lot of these threads earlier, right after DA2's release. But now that time has past, I'd rate Origins a solid 9.3 on PC (the second highest score ever for me as I'm a tough grader), and a 8.9 on Xbox (also a good score as nothing on Xbox would ever eclipse a 9.0 for me), the two platforms I played on. I would rate DA2 on PC as maybe a 6.0, and a 7.5 on Xbox. Quite a disparity between the two for me there. I couldn't finish the game on PC and sold the copy as a result, but on Xbox it was much better. But not great. Mostly enjoyable for one playthrough, decreasing drastically thereafter. I would classify most games I've played in this way also, so it's not an Anti-DA2 thing. It was just an ordinary, somewhat bland and repetitive game, saved by humor and terrific party banter. The Grey Unknown (talk) 12:31, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I can't and wont rate them out of 10. But if I could, I'd give Origins the edge over DA2. I love both games a lot, but DA:O did the things that make RPGs great better than DA2, party interaction, weapon and armor options, that sort of thing. Andy the Black (talk) 12:48, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Origins: 10. It's a masterpiece and one of my favourite games if all time. DA 2: 9. I loved the story and the characters and i think they improved the battle system, but it's not as big as Origins and the waves and reused environments drags it down. It's still a fantastic game, just not a masterpiece like it's predecessor.--213.64.251.102 (talk) 12:53, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

DA:0 9/10 Everything was perfect, except the combat was just a bit slow and unfinished.

DA:II 7.5/10 Good game, but the combat was silly and overly violent and the fact that we could barely leave kirkwall bugged me.

Mass Effect 2: 100000/10 BEST BIOWARE GAME EVA!!!! --Cpt. Miller (talk) 13:17, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Mass 2 100000/10. Wow. What would you give the first one? Andy the Black (talk) 13:54, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

DA:O gets a 9.5 out of 10, in my book. One of the (if not the) greatest, most fulfilling, most gratifyig gaming experiences I've ever had. Top to bottom, brilliant.

DA2 gets a solid 8 out of 10. A good game, but, it can't escape the fact that it does not live up to the Origins, that it was hyped as something entirely different from what we got, and that it was so obviously unpolished. HELO (talk) 14:31, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

DA:O I'd rate as a 9.5 - I screamed at getting 'stuck' in enemy corpses too many times during combat to give it a '10'. But in terms of storyline, character immersion and replayability, it deserves top marks. DA2 is tougher for me to rate, because I was so disappointed in its failure to live up to both the pre-release 'hype' as well as the standards set by DA:O. In retrospect, I'd probably give DA2 about a 6.7 or 6.8. While it did some things quite well (character-NPC interaction and some of the storylines) other areas were decidedly mixed (like an 'improved' combat system 'spoiled' by waves of teleporting bad guys that ended up making combat a chore). But the big difference to me was lack of replayability in DA2. Where DA:O gave me six origins and tons of decisions that helped shape who my character was, DA2 gave me one origin and some (largely) meaningless choices that made me feel increasingly remote from my character, rather than immersed in him as I was in DA:O. Qalan (talk) 14:47, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

DA:O A 7/10. It was a good game but in all honesty it has quite a few problems. And DA:2 I would give about a 6/10, The game was too rushed. Both games had their amazing moments, but the combat in DA:O was quite boring aesthetically and some of the spells don't work correctly, there are occasionally invisible walls that keep me from going anywhere, usually at the beginning of the mage/templar recruitment quest. As for DA:2, I found the combat pleasing, but the story and characters felt rushed.

^Sign your posts.

On a first playthrough basis, I'd rate Origins a perfect 10. On a first playthrough basis, I'd rate DA2 an 8.0.

On a replayability basis, I'd rate Origins a 9.5 (I still don't get tired of replaying it...but the Fade part was daunting until I installed the mod). On a replayability basis, I'd rate DA2 5.5 (I can do the prologue infinite times, but have completed only 3 playthroughs, abandoned at least 5 playthroughs as a Rogue at lv. 21 and am finding it hard to finish my 'canon' Hawke for Legacy).

Overall, Origins gets 10, DA2 gets 6.5. Quirkynature (talk) 15:15, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Origins- 9.5, solid gameplay, story and characters, but not very innovative gameplay. DA2- in comparison to Origins a 6 or 7. It was a not a good follow up to the success of its predecessor. But if you look at as a stand-alone game, it deserves a 8-8.5 S BenDev (talk) 15:26, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Origins- 10, one of my favorite games of all time. Great story, great characters, meaningful choices, and tactical gameplay.

Dragon Age 2- 8, A solid game with good characters and a good story. The choices weren't as meaningful and the combat did border on button mashing. I also didn't like the location recycling. But on the whole, not as bad as some are saying.--JackfieldsA113 (talk) 15:44, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

For me, DAO was a solid 9. Maybe even a 9.5. Not perfect, but easily my favorite game of all time. It loses a point for some bugs here and there and some story elements that weren't followed up on as well as they should have been. For example, the Origin-specific dialogue choices were great, but it would have been nice if there were more of them.

I'd give DA2 about a 7, maybe a 7.5. I kind of like how the rogue and warrior skills are very different from one another now, as well as being flashier than they were in DAO. I think the one major improvement that DA2 brought along was the two-path friendship/rivalry relationships, and I'd like to see that further developed in this series in the future. And while it wasn't an improvement over DAO, because it definitely didn't work out as well as they must have hoped, I think that the framed-story game mechanic was a noble effort at trying something new and interesting as far as storytelling goes. And the humor, fun characters, and lore in the series continue to count for a lot.

All of that said, DA2's problems are obvious. The game's main failing is that it was rushed. Recycled dungeons = GODAMMIT NO, BIOWARE. Wave combat didn't bug me at first, but the more I played the dumber it seemed. And I still question some things about the new art direction. I don't like the new Hurlocks, for example. Likewise, while I think the more significant elf characters, like Merrill, Marethari, and Orsino, looked pretty cool, most of the minor elf characters looked like crap. I think that goes back again to the limited development time they had, leading to lack of care when making the models for the background NPCs whom we usually don't see up close anyway.--DarkAger (talk) 15:49, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Origins:10.First off, it had a completely new universe that introuduced new species, thousands of pages of lore, a great story, very nice customization, varied starter stories, and an epilogue that showed the effect of your decisions throughout the game. The gameplay was an antique, but it worked very well, needed strategy to implement, and had no glaring issues other than the the fact that the rogue was a rubbish class(in my opinion). And the characters weren't archtype copies of others(Oghren was the drunken dwarf with an axe, but he was hilarious). And as they grew to like you, you learned more about them, and they evolved in their perspective and opinions. That, and the main enemy was a daunting, innumerable horde led by a tainted god that justified a climactic battle to draw it out.

DA2:8.2.It stumbles right out the gate by completely ruining the inventory system and chucking the enemy that you'd actually be afraid of right out of the window. Who was actually apprehensive about going into battle with the templars? In Origins, you didn't want to face the horde on your own because you would end up getting destroyed under sheer numbers and eaten by a demonic dragon. In Kirkwall, there's a thousand templars led by a psychotic harpy. Xenebeck and Hybris felt like larger threats to the city than Meredith ever did, and she was supposed to be the big baddy.

However, I liked the combat and the fact that the Characters were still likeable, complex characters with unique backstories and personalities. Plus, I've beat it six times so I really can't complain. It still gets docked for the above problems, and others that people have mentioned. P.S. Beat Origins 12 times :)-anonymous