andrethemoogle wrote:
same with Dragon Age 2. I thought 2 was underrated, and yes I know it wasn't as good as Origins, but I really enjoyed it.
The problem with its rating is that EA made them speed up the process. They spent 5 years or so on Origins, and then shot out DAII in 7 months. There was no way it would be able to be as good as Origins with that amount of time. I think that given the time frame, they did do a pretty good job and I do enjoy playing the game, but without the time, they missed so much potential... the game didn't have very much depth at all.
To me, it felt like I was just playing some character from a story rather than in Origins where the Warden was ME. Sure in Origins you had to go up and defeat the archdemon, but there were so many different ways to do it. In DAII, it didn't matter what I did, the outcome was always the same. Chantry blows up, mages and templars fight, and Hawke eventually vanishes into the Void or something.
And here I'm getting a little off topic. I'm just trying to explain that while it can be a fun game to play, it will remain rated low because it really isn't that good a game. My brother calls me the queen of replaying bad games (considering how many times I've played Ultima IX, I suppose I deserve that title). He couldn't even bring himself to play DAII just because of the dialogue.
I'm hoping that with the extra time they've had for Inquisition, despite trying all sorts of new things, they'll be able to come out with a game somewhat comparable to Origins. Highly doubtful, as it's EA and EA is known for ripping hearts and dreams out and dashing them to the rocks. How many game series and companies have they eaten and destroyed? I think I lost count.
I still think it'll be better than DAII, and even if it isn't, I'll probably still play it into the ground...
_________________
Your Aspie score: 171 of 200
Your Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 40 of 200