Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I can't decide what to get next.

I'm just starting Dragon Age now.. well I got it last week and I'm like 30 hours into it. I'm really enjoying it, and I'm thinking by the time I get to the end why bother trying to get my life back and I can just jump right into part 2 when it's released in a few weeks.

But, I've been looking forward to Killzone 3 for a long time. Really excited about it, but to be honest shooters just aren't my favorite. I just love the theme and storyline, from part 2 anyway.

I'll eventually get both, but the question is, what do I get first? I just can't decide :(

I say Killzone 3. But that's only because I really liked the previous 2, and I'm not that fond of dragon age. Your call though, I heard Killzone 3 would be really cool.

Necros wrote:So, I can't decide what to get next.

I'm just starting Dragon Age now.. well I got it last week and I'm like 30 hours into it. I'm really enjoying it, and I'm thinking by the time I get to the end why bother trying to get my life back and I can just jump right into part 2 when it's released in a few weeks.

But, I've been looking forward to Killzone 3 for a long time. Really excited about it, but to be honest shooters just aren't my favorite. I just love the theme and storyline, from part 2 anyway.

I'll eventually get both, but the question is, what do I get first? I just can't decide :(

Take a break from Dragon Age and play Killzone 3. I have been in the same situation with games before and it never works out. Most recently I played Fallout 3 over the summer and then tried to jump into Fallout New Vegas. It was just too much.

Before that I played Dante's Inferno right before God of War III. GoW III was a superior game but it was too much alike.

I have never played killzone so I would go for DA2. Not only because of the former statement, but also because DA2 offers a massive amount of gameplay, I have not seen any other games that can offer that much except for the multiplayer games like BFBC2 LoL or MMOs.

Gads if it's out as soon as March chances are it is going to suck big time... That's barely over a year development time... A decent sequel needs two at least... Like KZ 3 lol. Loads of RPG sequels that had two full years still felt rushed, look at Kotor II or Fallout: New vegas.

Dragon Age 2 was actually under development before Dragon Age itself was released.

Yeah, I'd imagine they're even working on 3 and 4 right now too. I'm still torn though. Dragon Age has killed my life for the last week or so since I bought it. I have like 70 hours in already. But, I like these kinda games because I really feel like I get my money's worth.. shooters I'll play for a while but once I play through the storyline I'm pretty much done. Online stuff is fun but it gets real old real fast especially when you get used to the maps and nothing seems new anymore except the level grind for that new gun.

So I'm thinking KZ3 would make for a nice change of pace.. But it might also be fun to just jump into DA2 while the whole story is fresh in my mind.. and continue to paint no models for another month or 2... :(

Meh, the reviews of KZ3 have all said it looks exactly like KZ2-- gameplay, graphics, audio, etc. If you liked KZ2, and REALLY liked KZ2 and thought you couldn't get enough of it, you probably should get KZ3. But if that weren't the case you'd probably not be asking here.

Melissia wrote:Meh, the reviews of KZ3 have all said it looks exactly like KZ2-- gameplay, graphics, audio, etc. If you liked KZ2, and REALLY liked KZ2 and thought you couldn't get enough of it, you probably should get KZ3. But if that weren't the case you'd probably not be asking here.

Well that isn't good news. I can let something like Fallout New Vegas slide on something like that, but a true sequel should have updated graphics. Every one of the halo games shown at least some improvement. This doesn't bode well for Crysis 2, since Killzone 3 has been documented to look better than it on numerous occasions.

Well I have KZ2, I will play it again before I play KZ3 to see the differences for myself.

Well I liked KZ2 a lot, but I liked the campaign a lot more than the online stuff... but it only took like 2 days to get through the campaign. Maybe I'd be better off just waiting and buying it cheaper used.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Melissia wrote:Meh, the reviews of KZ3 have all said it looks exactly like KZ2-- gameplay, graphics, audio, etc. If you liked KZ2, and REALLY liked KZ2 and thought you couldn't get enough of it, you probably should get KZ3. But if that weren't the case you'd probably not be asking here.

Well that isn't good news. I can let something like Fallout New Vegas slide on something like that, but a true sequel should have updated graphics. Every one of the halo games shown at least some improvement. This doesn't bode well for Crysis 2, since Killzone 3 has been documented to look better than it on numerous occasions.

Well I have KZ2, I will play it again before I play KZ3 to see the differences for myself.

Do post a review in this thread.

Sure thing. I really liked the second one, so hopefully this one will be good. I am not too sure about it once you said that about the graphics, but there isn't much else coming out till April. I think we have Dragon Age 2 and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, besides KZ3.

Of course I liked the graphics of the second one, but maybe I am spoiled on the notion that games should look better with each sequel.

Necros wrote:Well I liked KZ2 a lot, but I liked the campaign a lot more than the online stuff... but it only took like 2 days to get through the campaign. Maybe I'd be better off just waiting and buying it cheaper used.

You know I have had this problem with a few games. Ever since I have started upping the difficulty of the game past normal and it usually adds a lot more time to the first time you play through it.

Kanluwen wrote:Dragon Age 2 was actually under development before Dragon Age itself was released.

That explains a lot.

@OP: I hate DA:O. Ask anyone. But it sounds like you'd get more out of DA2 than Killzone 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@M: Killzone 2 looked amazing in 2009 and still looks good today (am currently replaying). From everything I've seen of Killzone 3, it looks much better. I can't say too much about the gameplay. First, I haven't played Killzone3 or read much about its mechanics. Second, FPSs all feel pretty much the same to me.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Melissia wrote:Meh, the reviews of KZ3 have all said it looks exactly like KZ2-- gameplay, graphics, audio, etc. If you liked KZ2, and REALLY liked KZ2 and thought you couldn't get enough of it, you probably should get KZ3. But if that weren't the case you'd probably not be asking here.

Well that isn't good news. I can let something like Fallout New Vegas slide on something like that, but a true sequel should have updated graphics. Every one of the halo games shown at least some improvement. This doesn't bode well for Crysis 2, since Killzone 3 has been documented to look better than it on numerous occasions.

Well I have KZ2, I will play it again before I play KZ3 to see the differences for myself.

Bugger updated graphics. Graphics are the least important part of a game.

EA seems hellbent on sabotaging their games in an attempt to get money via DLC, so go with Killzone.

from what I've seen, Killzone3 will look ten times better then KZ2. The graphichs from 2 were pretty good, imo. The sequal will undoubtly have even better ones, though.

Requia wrote:EA seems hellbent on sabotaging their games in an attempt to get money via DLC, so go with Killzone.

Another EXCELLENT point. The difference between ME2 - DLC and ME2 + DLC is night and day. I'd guess this is because ME2 + DLC is a, you know, complete game.

Actually, I like that there's a lot of DLC stuff. As long as it's worthwhile. Yeah, it's just a money maker for them and they prolly have all the DLC for the life of the game planned way back before it's even released so they know they'll get x amt of extra cash from us over the life of the game. But, I think it's cool that you can play through the game, throw it on the shelf and then a couple months and then come back to it and play through a new quest line or something like that. Or get some new multiplayer maps or whatever.

I got the DAO ultimate edition, that came with all the DLC stuff. As far as money goes, it does kinda make me wonder with some games if it's better to just wait a year and get the "full" edition, then get nickel & dimed then feel jipped when they put out the new version with everything, and even cheaper than the original game was by itself. So I guess in this case, I'm glad I waited to get into it. But I'm sure my impulse buying won't allow me to be patient for something I like, which is also why I have shelves full of unpainted and still boxed up miniatures...

I like DLC that expands a finished game. I don't like DLC that has been cut out of a finished game to be sold at a later date.

Requia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Melissia wrote:Meh, the reviews of KZ3 have all said it looks exactly like KZ2-- gameplay, graphics, audio, etc. If you liked KZ2, and REALLY liked KZ2 and thought you couldn't get enough of it, you probably should get KZ3. But if that weren't the case you'd probably not be asking here.

Well that isn't good news. I can let something like Fallout New Vegas slide on something like that, but a true sequel should have updated graphics. Every one of the halo games shown at least some improvement. This doesn't bode well for Crysis 2, since Killzone 3 has been documented to look better than it on numerous occasions.

Well I have KZ2, I will play it again before I play KZ3 to see the differences for myself.

Bugger updated graphics. Graphics are the least important part of a game.

EA seems hellbent on sabotaging their games in an attempt to get money via DLC, so go with Killzone.

Then we should all be playing on the Atari and Nintendo. The least important part of a game may be the colour of someone's shirt or the name of an NPC, but the graphics have always been an important part of a game. Maybe not the most important, but definitely not the least important.


I do agree with you about EA sabotaging their games to get more money. I think they truly wanted to raise the base price of the game from $60.00 to $90.00, but realized that DLC was the better option. Could you imagine getting an incomplete game in the 90's? The Knights of the Round would have been $10.00 DLC for Final Fantasy VII if they would have had it back then.

I don't think they are purposely stripping things out at the last minute, I'd imagine most game companies just have it all planned out.. like they set up a little timeline.. release game x on this date, then on this date we put out DLC 1, blah blah blah. Like, the DLC is all part of the development cycle. hell I bet they have the first few DLCs for DA2 already done and they're just gonna sit on them till the date their market research focus groups say is best.

Kanluwen wrote:Dragon Age 2 was actually under development before Dragon Age itself was released.

How on earth does that explain away my point? Can't believe you fell for that PR crap. It is common to run parrallel development, most teams do it behind the scenes, for example ODST : Reach : Bungie secret project. It does not effect the end result in itself. Dragon age 1 had an incredibly troubled development period hence the 'origins' in the title, they were not confident in the end result. Unless 2 is an incremental improvement that shares some of the, apparently huge amount, of flaws it will be a rushed job... The Dragon Age franchise needed 2 or 3 years for a Mass effect 1 to 2 style revamp.

Perkustin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Dragon Age 2 was actually under development before Dragon Age itself was released.

How on earth does that explain away my point? Can't believe you fell for that PR crap. It is common to run parrallel development, most teams do it behind the scenes, for example ODST : Reach : Bungie secret project. It does not effect the end result in itself. Dragon age 1 had an incredibly troubled development period hence the 'origins' in the title, they were not confident in the end result. Unless 2 is an incremental improvement that shares some of the, apparently huge amount, of flaws it will be a rushed job... The Dragon Age franchise needed 2 or 3 years for a Mass effect 1 to 2 style revamp.

Of course we should actually play the game before we stick to these statements. It might totally blow the first one out of the water and if it does then it will not matter how long the development was.

Necros wrote:I don't think they are purposely stripping things out at the last minute, I'd imagine most game companies just have it all planned out.

That would be six of one or half a dozen of the other. Think of it like this: Besides Allistair and Morrigan, all the DA:O companions could have been sold as DLC. If EA had done so, would it have mattered if they planned to do so from the start or if they decided to do it at the last minute?

Manchu wrote:

Necros wrote:I don't think they are purposely stripping things out at the last minute, I'd imagine most game companies just have it all planned out.

That would be six of one or half a dozen of the other. Think of it like this: Besides Allistair and Morrigan, all the DA:O companions could have been sold as DLC. If EA had done so, would it have mattered if they planned to do so from the start or if they decided to do it at the last minute?

I would have probably paid $15.00 for Leliana.

"Tell me another stor . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Not me.

I liked all the different character backgrounds for the first few stories... now I just don't care anymore I've also never read a single codex entry unless I needed to for a quest I was on. Those books and stuff are just a free 50 xp But, it's cool that they have it there for the folks that are into that kinda thing.

I'm hoping part 2 really is more actiony. I think overall for the kind of rpg/adventure game style I like, Red Dead Redemption did it best.

Red Dead Redemtion an RPG? How?

no not a RPG.. but I meant like a long story driven adventure kinda game...

Ah I don't think you'll find that kind of gameplay in DA2 or KZ3, though.

Red Dead Redemption was at least as much a RPG as Mass Effect 2. Or FFXIII, for that matter. Companies producing RPGs outside of the Bethesda style could/should learn a lot from RockStar. In fact, Necros, you may just want to save your money for LA Noir.