@hotaru_firefly: You're right. I don't necessarily find the repetitive dungeons to be "enjoyable", but I do somewhat understand. As I said, the outside areas are just bad design. I think it really does boil down to expectation versus reality. What they did to improve gameplay far outstrips the steps back in design, because it can be justified. I think ultimately, I just want some to remove the rose-colored glasses. Sure you saw man different areas in DA:O, but within that, it was very recycled. Deep Roads 1 looks like Deep Roads 2, and it isn't until the Anvil area that it really changes. Circle Tower, Andraste's Temple, and Ruined Temple function the same way. Some flair is added here and there to give some parts uniqueness. What that also serves to do is add a ton of memory to the game, slowing it down in places. I can recall countless times waiting for bodies to present loot for 20 seconds because of the information overload. I much rather prefer the smoother play to a chandelier that has fallen from the ceiling. Again, it's splitting hairs, but I rather enjoy DA:2. Perhaps it's because I was able to separate the two as two different experiences.
I think DAO is better than 2, so let's clear that mess up right now. But, I don't understand the hatred for this game. I think a lot are complaining over the lack of innovation in dungeon design. As a realist, I have no problem with this. Buildings don't vary too much for cities in this era, so it's not that surprising to see that one looks like another. Why would the architects design shack A better than B? They would just erect the same structure because it's easy and fast. They might have added a few details here and there, but the average player blows past it anyhow. The Free Marches could have been better, but it is still in fact the same city. Second is the side to main quest ratio and that you stay in Kirkwall. In DAO, though fetching the other races to help was part of the quest, it ultimately felt like side-questing to me. Just switch money for treaties, same game. Do you just want to be handed a bag of sovereigns? As for the scope, sure DAO was larger, but less focused. It introduced ideas to give the world character. Now we zoom in more on the microscope. Not really a problem, just not as grand. It's all part of the story; a single person trying to make a name for themselves. It doesn't need to be worldly. Worth $60? Maybe not. But it is by no means a bad game. Understand the reality of the story. One game set up the world, the next set up a story. Intimacy is far more important than seeing different areas just because. Going to get thumbs down, but w/e.
Adwand's comments