Very well written, enjoyed the read.
DA2's combat is certainly an improvement, I agree. Origins had very long segments of subplot exploration that always included substantial dungeon crawling, and the combat, though well designed, became hugely monotonous and unrewarding. DA2 flows much better and still relies on the same strategies of Origins in terms of micromanaging your crowd control effects -- that is, if you play on a harder difficulty as you should. Otherwise the game really is just Dynasty Warriors and is pretty terrible when played on Normal or Easy difficulties.
But like Origins, dungeon crawling is still pretty unrewarding, now it's just much more tolerable and pretty looking. Loot is still rather pointless, it gets a bit tiring picking up 73 different items called "Ring" and "Dirk" in one trip. The dungeons are designed as if were playing some MMO that needs to recycle everything -- you go through the same cave every single time, there's no sense of adventure, of anything really.
I enjoyed Origins and DA2 rather equally and for different reasons, as you stated they both have different philosophies. I think DA2 is on the right path but for whatever reason Bioware has been quite lazy with this franchise in comparison to what they did with Mass Effect 2. Repetitious environments, an embarrassingly primitive loot and inventory system, still the same lifeless towns. As you said, Origins had great lore, but I felt the entire presentation was lacking. Now we have a much better built environment called Kirkwall but the lore is gone.
In a nutshell I'd say DA2 flowed better, but lacked the impact the subplot interaction of the original had. Characters were a bit more interesting, but the cast still contained too many flat personalities.
Neither game reaches the standards of the Baldur's Gate name, but they are making strides in bringing that experience to more casual gamers. So it's interesting people are upset with DA2 for streamlining things when DA:O is the one that started it.
DA2's combat is certainly an improvement, I agree. Origins had very long segments of subplot exploration that always included substantial dungeon crawling, and the combat, though well designed, became hugely monotonous and unrewarding. DA2 flows much better and still relies on the same strategies of Origins in terms of micromanaging your crowd control effects -- that is, if you play on a harder difficulty as you should. Otherwise the game really is just Dynasty Warriors and is pretty terrible when played on Normal or Easy difficulties.
But like Origins, dungeon crawling is still pretty unrewarding, now it's just much more tolerable and pretty looking. Loot is still rather pointless, it gets a bit tiring picking up 73 different items called "Ring" and "Dirk" in one trip. The dungeons are designed as if were playing some MMO that needs to recycle everything -- you go through the same cave every single time, there's no sense of adventure, of anything really.
I enjoyed Origins and DA2 rather equally and for different reasons, as you stated they both have different philosophies. I think DA2 is on the right path but for whatever reason Bioware has been quite lazy with this franchise in comparison to what they did with Mass Effect 2. Repetitious environments, an embarrassingly primitive loot and inventory system, still the same lifeless towns. As you said, Origins had great lore, but I felt the entire presentation was lacking. Now we have a much better built environment called Kirkwall but the lore is gone.
In a nutshell I'd say DA2 flowed better, but lacked the impact the subplot interaction of the original had. Characters were a bit more interesting, but the cast still contained too many flat personalities.
Neither game reaches the standards of the Baldur's Gate name, but they are making strides in bringing that experience to more casual gamers. So it's interesting people are upset with DA2 for streamlining things when DA:O is the one that started it.
Mobius 1, engage...
