I haven't played a single Bioware game I liked yet.

I thought it was a horrible, horrible game.

I finished it once (with difficulty), but I could never get into a second playthrough. Must have tried to start one about three times. It just was too boring...

Now DA:O, there is a real game, I finished that game about 5 times.

The point is, even though Skyrim does offer very few choices (and I do wish there were more, and that we could make a bigger impact), we still get to decide whether to do a quest at all. Also, some quests allow you to persuade/intimidate/bribe your way around enemies/obstacles, and some allow you to use no violence at all by making use of mage and/or thief skills. And in Skyrim, you don't pick a side in the civil war, only to have it totally invalidated by an inescapable plot twist.
Skyrim does offer more choices; it just doesn't do a good job of portraying the outcomes of those choices. DA2 does offer choices, but they all lead to the same outcome; and your choices in DA2 aren't portrayed in-game, either, beyond a line or two of dialogue and the inclusion/exclusion of an NPC or two in the game-world.


I actually went to check Wikipedia just to be sure ... I had a hard time believing it, myself. Same. Year.



I understand. I agree. However much I like Portal and Portal 2 (and I'm not saying that these aren't good games; they're brilliant), for instance, there just isn't enough content or depth to keep me returning. I've played them once, and I'm probably never going to touch them again.
Flash and hooks aren't enough. You have to be able to add meat to the bones. We'll probably eventually again have what we did in the late 80s and early 90s, because as the gaming market in general gets older, and as advlts start to look for more engaging material someone is going to start to provide it ... but we do have a while to wait yet.


But haven't you heard? According to the wonderful Doctors over at Bioware, they've been moving Bioware in the direction that it's headed now, for a while. Ever since BG2! Bioware is doing exactly what it's always wanted to do; it just happens to have the resources available to it now, courtesy of EA, to implement its strategy properly.


I did enjoy The Witcher 2, but CDProjekt doesn't have the clout that Bethesda has, yet. Also, The Witcher 2, while really well done, actually had very little content and totally screwed up the pacing in Act 3. The Witcher 2 was good, but I'm not convinced yet that CDProjekt know why they're making games the way they're making them. (The way they integrated free DLC into the game was kind of shoddy, for instance.) The Witcher 2 could be a fluke. I think they need more time to learn how to make games. But they're definitely moving in the right direction.

They have been wanting to knife their RPGs in the heart too, that wonderful just wonderful now they have a huge idiot company to back them up on their own idiocy, Perfect.

They need to stick to what they do best action RPGs and leave pure action way out of their line of sight.

It will take awhile to garner the clout Bethesda has. CD Projekt has done enough with the Witcher and the Witcher 2 (despite the screwy pacing in Act 3) that I have faith in them. To be honest, I was not expecting a lot of content in TW 2 because of the incredible and custom game engine CD Projekt made, so the brevity of TW 2 came as no surprise. Shorter gameplay can be excusable under the right circumstances and not in others (Bioware/EA taking 18 months on DA 2, for example, to quickly milk the cash cow of Origins).

Shopping in DA2: click on merchant's table. Buy/sell UI pops up instantly. You buy/sell and exit.

Shopping in Skyrim: "Hi, can I help you?" "What do you sell?" "Hmm.... armor, weapons. Pretty much anything to suit your needs." "Great, can I shop?" "Sure, here you go." Buy/sell UI pops up. Exit. "Thanks for shopping! Come back soon! By the way, I may not be the best smith in Whiterun...."

DA: Origins + Awakening = ~120 hours (finished)

Skyrim = 140 hours (not nearly finished)

DA2 = didn't even finish the freaking demo.

I think DA2 is a rather weak game and Skyrim is definetly better. But I wouldn't call it "proper RPG".
Bethesda just did, what they always do ... sadly. To me Skyrim shows more than ever, that they have a serious lack of understanding how game mechanics work.
They're not lacking passion, but they are almost naive at some points. They always want to create something amazing (and in many regards Skyrim is amazing), but while they do that, they don't notice, how some aspects of the game cancel out other (important) ones.



They should also listen more to their fans.
The UI for example was already criticized, when the first gameplay video came out. Still they have changed nothing. And why?
Well, probably because Tood Howard was so proud about it, that he wasn't able to put a clear view on it.

I know, it's a bad feeling, if you are proudly presenting something new (which you think is amazing) and expecting, that everyone is applauding you for it, but then people tell you, that it's an utter piece of crap.
Still as a game developer you should be able and willing to admit your mistake. You should try to understand, what people are actually saying.
That's what I really miss here.

You admit to playing it once and skipping alot, yet go on about there being no choice even in dialogue comparing it to "your skyrim" where you aren't even given the option to deny and refuse frequently. Your given at least 3 replies frequently, some yeah all will change is the characters reply but sometimes thats all you being negative or positive in an answer will change, which again "your skyrim" will rarely give multiple choice but will reply in the same way bar a word being missing sometimes. Wouldn't have said that about the voice at all, maybe rarely does the VA come across as portraying the characters pain of say losing his entire family, I would say thats a good thing, but maybe it's just me who'd be upset by the murder of thier who nuclear family. It's certain no more lifeless and breaking of immersion then having a choice in what to say but it simply isnt voiced and the choices don't cover negative, neutral and postive responses, even when there 6 of them. The ultimate event has to happen in the game, your choice does decide what side you fall on and whos with you even if people like you or not, if that's what your refering to by "no difference" then the main quest here is equally linear if not more so, and even after it no one notices you done anything, a well recognised problem of skyrim. Yeah the dungeons are repeating not an excuse for the awfulness of how they done that but you see plenty of the same thing over and over in skyrim, 4 of the major cities feel identical and dead, I really liked being stuck in Kirkwall as you watched it grow and the situation change, more enjoyable to walk round the white run and not even the hellos change from a first time introduction.


See you contradict yourself here, by saying they all lead to the same outcome and that dialogue and npcs leaving your is somehow a lower standard then occassionally being able to persuade an enemy to let you pass (which then you mate leaves you forever because they think you sold them), You can be left a very lonely character though your actions in DA II but to be left lonely in Skyrim you'd have to do inaction. I wouldn't have said any of them where plot twists both end of act II which wasn't even a surpise I figured it'd be her doing and Act III although a shock and surpise was all building within the plot and made sense to it. The choice of the side you fight in the end isn't invalidated by anything really, even though there is that one minor plot twist of the lead enemy, if you still choose to side with the mages you have to leave the city because they can't look over anything more then the death of the twisted leader, if you side with them you flee for some peace after all you dealt with, I will say that is partially invalidated by the dire need the game has for an ACT IV, but releasing an incomplete story is no lower a bar then any other game company, tv series, movies or even books, certainly no lower then the just sudden end and lack of results in skyrim. Except pixar with are one of few parts of the world that the business aspects haven't completely taken over the purpose of it being a business in the first place, even politics is all money making and flash.

If Skyrim has set the bar for all future games I'm done with gaming period, shame too it's one for the few distractions I could find myself to enjoy (depending on the purchase). For a sandbox world the bar is no higher then rockstar or other companies, for character interaction its awful, for story borderline, for quality assurance terrible again, theres not one aspect of this game that isn't done better by someone else and could have been massively improved with only a few minor things, some aspects they even done better themselves, but 6 or more years ago. Frankly I'd always choose a game with much less but functions all the time my enjoyment of the story and immersion isn't broken constantly by bugs and stupid design choices, even the perks are just awfully thrown together without thought and Im left RPing a totally moron that has mastered speech/merchentile but can't work out how to give a shop keeper some funding with a gods blessing, even with it's no more the 500 and I forget how to repeat the action. Skyrim has set the bar for nothing, it gets so much more wrong then repeating dungeons, aside from being in a sandbox as an rpg and having an large history build up on nirn (which isn't totally unique but fairly unique to rpg gaming) they are in the stone ages when it comes to any other aspect, when they make TES VI and it has at least 2 things, no leveled unique items because it was a stupid idea in the first place and just added more problem then its worth just like it did in oblivion (including a feeling of when you should be doing quests not forced but it does cost the openess a bit) and quest givers everywhere, not just one, can be given an item you've already picked up then I'd reevaluate the bar, notice I leave out request for better marriage courtship experience, It'd be nice if they could do it right, handle sixuality and personality better but I'd rather see other aspect of the game have the time spent on them then any spent in even putting it in.

uHu, Pride has little to do with admitting theyve made a mistake and released a game unfinished and hugely faulty post release, they could and likely would get sued, I don't condone the lack of fan communication, or just saying something to the people that have paid for a product, nor do I condone how they say things but not say them to avoid "false advertising" to me it's the same thing, but it is where laws need to change.
As for changing the UI, they spent the time on it and it was done, move on to other things, they figured people will change it when it was released and it has been, although why they didn't add a character view at the least is backwards, the way clothing is shown folded doesnt help you get a feel for how it looks on at all, if they kept changing it to complaints that it looked bad too much time would be wasted, but what we can hope for is these improvements to make it into the next game and hopefully they would have learned what is generally a bad idea (wouldn't hold my breath though).

Quiet you fool! If you reveal our existence they'll hunt us down and hurt us real bad!


And that just reinforces my beleive that i'm doing it right by not having any expectations of any game

Though i have to admit, after playing Skyrim i can't wait for Fallout 4: Skyrim with Guns

Riven, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to bother reading a giant wall of text with poor spelling and punctuation. You're free to write that way, and I have nothing against it or you; and I'm free to ignore it because it makes for tiresome reading and headaches.


Even if you went into it with no expectations whatsoever, I don't know how you could sit through the interminable mobs, trite dialogue and nonsensical storyline, unless you're an 8-year-old. (I'm not implying you have the mentality of an 8-year-old.) I really, really can't see myself having played this at anything above that age and having enjoyed it.

'Enjoy it for what it is', is often a phrase associated with DA2, but that's like saying, 'Enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Earth_(film)#Critical_reception for what it is'.


Hahah ... okay, I'll give it that. Interacting with shopkeepers is a lot easier in DA2 than it is in Skyrim. The problem is that those people in DA2 were cyphers, or otherwise the virtual representations of how 6-year-olds probably see other people.

The only improvement Skyrim really needs to make in regard to shopping is: -1- don't make us wait for the dialogue to finish before you open the shop screen; -2- don't make each shopkeeper, from Markarth to Riften, repeat the same things over and over; -3- sort the inventory and present information about items more logically.

DA2, on the other hand, has a few more monumental tasks in this regard: -1- show what items actually [censored] look like; -2- make the NPC shopkeepers sound like real people; -3- fix the star rating system.

DA2's problems with shopkeepers are a lot worse than Skyrim's problems with shopkeepers.

Apples to oranges, it's really a matter of personal preference - story driven vs. open world.

While I really dislike the dumbing down and MMO'ification Bioware did with DA2 it still has better story telling than there is in Skyrim.

Which part of it was a masterpiece?

The Cerberus agent wearing a spandex catsuit in fights that are damaging your Shep's armor? The never being able to change companion's equipment? The inability to actually speak with your crew outside of the scripted events? Being forced to recruit team members you may not want? Not being able to at least pretend you have a choice of working with Cerberus or not [my sole survivor Shep has definite issues with this one]. No matter how many times you hear TIM say "If you don't want to work with me you just say so, Shepard", and never even get the opportunity to pretend to attempt to leave Cerberus and go to the Council or the Alliance. Both would turn you down, of course, since the whole railroad is in effect, but it would have been more effective to prove that you had no choice whether to work with Cerberus. The retcon of suddenly requiring ammo, excuse me, "Thermal clips" in the two years Shep has been out of it. S/He wakes up in the medbay and *knows* the pistol is missing a thermal clip the pistol didn't need two years ago. Okay. Not. The ship Jacob's father crashed on, *ten* years ago, you know, the one that has been missing for the whole ten years? Yeah. The mechs and the pistols from ten years ago are using the new thermal clip/ammo that became the norm in the last two years. Unless a cargo ship like the Hugo Gernsbach had tech more advanced than Shepard's original Normandy, that is a little bit of a hole in the masterpiece.

It was a good game for running around shooting things, but not, imo, a masterpiece.

Drools all over the keyboard.

How did DA2 have better story telling than Skyrim? Skyrim's plot at least makes sense.


Yeah, thanks for that summary. If you'd do the same for DA2's inconsistencies, for Rezar and others' enlightenment, that would be great.

Indeed, it isn't dogcrap, but it is far from what people expected after DA:O.

The fast-paced combat takes away from the tactical fighting(on normal. Hard and Nightmare luckily require more than I kill this guy then that guy).
I didn't like the new artstyle, but even worse: The anime fighting animations were just out of place, and the lack of auto-basic attacks made it more like a Hack-n-Slash game.
I found no reason to care about the story what-so-ever. No motive, no goal, no red mark to lead you through it(you know other than that dwarf). I understand that they wanted to do something else than the typical Hero story, but the result were below expectations.
No race options.
Overdone enemy-waving
Only minor change in the story deending on how you did quests.
Re-using the same dngeon over and over and over.

Of course they did some good things as well.
The leveling system with the different paths was a fine touch.
More developed class specialization, like Templar and Duelist,
The Friendship-Rivalry added the option not to game the dispossition system.

In general the game was dissapointing.

On topic: Yes, it is strange that they released the same year,

You know, so far I've been able to make the characters I want to make in Skyrim, without restrictions. I never had that choice in DA2 really. You can pick your party, or you can pick your character. You can't do both. You can't be a mage and play with your sister Bethany. You can't be a fighter or rogue and play with your brother Carver. You can't be a fighter and use a bow for damage before your enemies get close enough for melee. You can't be a rogue and use a sword and dagger. The dialogue is the least of the issues I have with DA2. As for the "whole family killed", again, it doesn't matter. You decide whether your brother or sister dies when you choose your class. You have no interaction with them; likewise your mother. If it wasn't for the dialogue, you wouldn't have a clue who that woman was and why they were upset because someone you first saw 30 seconds ago just got squished. There was no feeling of attachment or emotion to Hawke's family for me. I could keep going about how you could do magic right under a templar's nose even before you supposedly got rich/influential and untouchable and nothing happens.

Different people, different opinions. There are too many issues that I have with the game to ever consider bothering with it again. I actually regret I bothered as much as I did. Your mileage may vary.

I wouldn't know where to start. Suddenly fighters are too uncoordinated or stupid to use a bow. Rogues can use a dagger that looks like a sword, but they can't use a sword. Blighted diseased looking darkspawn turned into zombie clownspawn with overly pointy armor. Genlocks that should look like blighted disease warped dwarves look like rabid naked gorillas. Emissaries suddenly look like Morrowind era hungers who are into bondage. Suddenly the species that the Codex claims are bronze skinned giants are gray skinned body-painted creatures with horns. The timeline between Origins and Awakening is suddenly not real; there is no time for Anders and Justice to end up in Kirkwall, according to what happened in Awakening.

Yeah, my opinion of DA2 isn't very good. Others will have their own opinions, of course.

Well according to steam i've played Origins over 500 hours, and DA2 less than 200, so apparently i agree


Nope, not 8. I'm a thirty year old thirteen year old But i guess this is some sort of fundamental point of view difference; people don't understand how i can like it, and i don't understand why people hate it as much as they apparently do

I have just started Skyrim (bad computer, problem solved ) and I think it's miles ahead DA 2 in pretty much all the aspects of RPG that I care about: characters, atmosphere, story, freedom, replayability... I just love this game!

You know...choices only matter if the game actually recognizes your choice. Skyrim (all Bethesda RPGs, actually) does *really* bad in that regard. Bethesda does this so bad actually that I think they simply don't care much about the more "social" side to RPGs. Imo, for them it's more about the scenery and the ability of the player to loose themselves in that very scenery. And that's fine, you know. The writing is bad and "choices" are not really on the menue -heck most NPCs don't even recognize your race or six, but it does what I expect from a Bethesda game really well.

...used to be that Bioware was a lot better in the writing and "choices matter" department, but DA2 was really a turd. It still got the more social aspects down a lot better than Skyrim, though.

I actually thought that DA2 did some good things especially in the combat area (With the exception of the over the top animations), no helmet toggle, better graphics and the skill trees are a little bit better no longer linear. It's not as clanky as Origins combat where most of the time I'm trying to shuffle but can't do much due to other party members being dumb. Other areas though DA 2 failed miserably especially the story and the Voiced Protagonist. Nothing kills an RPG faster then a Voiced Main Character, limits the options that you can have in roleplay and silent is just infinitely greater then voiced with the exception of emotion but you can get that in a movie. I also felt like the game should've ended at Act II, although you still get the one WTF moment near the end of the game but that's the highlight of Act III in my opinion which was poor and just basically a rush job and no real choice because the game still ends the same way unlike Origins where you had a whole bunch of choices at the end. Hopefully DLC fleshes Act III out a bit but you shouldn't need to do that in the 1st place.

I wouldn't mind if the game series took a bit from Skyrim although Bioware needs to make a game not a cash cow or rush job. Take the best of Origins, the best of DA 2, fix the flaws in both games, add new stuff that is beneficial and good to the series and you might have an incredible Roleplaying game that people are still talking about years from now like KOTOR.

Probably, I just played the demo a bit and found it way worse than orign. DA:orign was DA2 worst enemy. People except the second game to be like the first but larger, better and fixes all the bugs and annoyances.
A second game who changes or worse simplifying a lot will not be popular even if it's good if it was standalone.
This is also why many dislike Oblivion even through I fond it closer to Daggerfall than Morrowind.

These posts sum up the worst of its problems. Thanks. I just couldn't gather up the impetus to list DA2's problems.


Skyrim is way better in many of these respects. The characters at least don't have the emotional maturity of 14-year-olds (DA2), even if most of them are 2D, cardboard and unmemorable (Skyrim).


It does recognise some choices. Again, it doesn't do it particularly well (okay, let's be honest, it does it terribly), but it does do it better than DA2 does. I think The Witcher 2 more convincingly recognises your actions within the game; but that game has other problems (and its creators don't have the pedigree that Bethesda does), so it's not going to be this RPG generation's defining game.


See my reply to Lozarotsky, above. If you mean that Bioware managed to virtually represent the emotional lives of 14-year-olds, then you're right. But we were supposed to be playing advlts in that game. Skyrim is much more convincing in its characterisations, even if they're (much) more sparse.

Hmm, I kind of see where you are coming from concerning the "14-year olds" remark. DA2 still made me care a lot more about the characters than Skyrim, though. I didn't like many of DA2's characters but they had at least some form of personality and charisma.

Skyrim really doesn't have anything to show for in that regard. I remember the siege of Whiterum where at one point the Jarl was supposed to give that inspiring speech in front of the troops -but that moment felt totally flat. Zero emotion and dramaturgy; zero passion in his voice. It really made me *not* care and got me in a kind of "let's get this over with" attitude.