Dragon Age 2: not crap (spoilers aplenty)

[Greatjusticeman]

DA2 is a good game. Just not a good game for Bioware, compared to their last games.

Had some new developer made it I bet it would of had gotten a lot more praise. But everyone treats it like a monster that needs to be killed by fire.

 

[CoffeeOfDoom]

Didn't they say in the first game somewhere that grey wardens couldn't mate with non wardens because of the taint or some shit?

They just can't have kids. Or rather, a warden pairing up with a normal person means the odds are very low to conceive a child, if it's two wardens together it is nearly impossible. This is brought up with Alistair

Spoiler: Alistair romance spoiler

If you romance Alistair, he will dump you if he is made the king because it is his duty to have an heir to the throne, and he knows if he tries to have one with you, it will be far more difficult. If you're human you can talk him into giving it a shot, if you're not human... you're screwed and not in a good way

Even if they do conceive a child it is automatically a grey warden so can't live past 30 anyway.

At the ending of origins morrigans' fetus thing can absorb the archdemon, so apparently all babies are born with the taint if they are conceived. You could say since they didn't go through the joining they wouldn't make it past 5 though 0.o

You forget Morrigan did a 'magical sex rite' (in the words of Alistair), to make the child have the taint, a child with Grey Warden parent(s) won't automatically have the taint.

OT: I liked the game, but the recycling of environments really killed the replayability for me. Overal it didn't feel as good as Origins, which I still play again from time to time.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

The way the narrative in the game was presented did, in fact, at times leave the player with the sense that they were making monumental choices and having to live through the consequences.

But then if you play it again you realize that very little of what you thought you were choosing was actually a choice - the thing with your siblings was, but the way it works is that whatever you choose your family is still going to be fragmented. If you take them to the Deep Roads without Anders in the party, they die, if you take them with Anders they can leave to become Grey Wardens and they're gone, if they stay home they join the Templars or get carted off to the Circle - whatever you do, they basically disappear for most of the game.

Likewise with the big conflicts - whatever you do, you end up fighting both sides anyways, making your choice to help or support either side during the earlier stages of the various quests all but meaningless. Dragon Age 2 is simply relying on the illusion of choice in all but the most basic of ways, and the game undermines the choices it does let you make. Purposely let mages escape after demonstrating the dangers of blood magic? Too bad! They've totally been captured and now hate your guts and bitterly turn to blood magic, making you kill them. Also they kill the guy you saved by being conciliatory earlier, so that binary choice between kill/imprison mages or kill templars that you sweet-talked your way out of? Now they're both dead anyways!

Far too many events play out exactly the same or take contrived U-turns for me to describe the story of that game as anything other than "rail-roaded" - the designers clearly have a specific plot in mind and they don't need you mucking things up by having this pesky "player agency" that might mean having to design an actual branching narrative. What was that game recently that let you completely change the fates of kings, kingdoms, and the outcome of a bloody war simply by choosing different actions along the way, to the point where there's an entirely different second act based on a choice you made in the first one? Oh right, The Witcher 2.

Dragon Age 2 has choices, I'd be a blind fool if I claimed otherwise, but only the ones regarding your companions and how they feel about you actually end up making a difference, and even then there is virtually no impact on the narrative whatsoever - whenever a main quest presents you with a choice, you can be damn sure that you aren't actually making one; whatever you choose, in the end the results will be exactly the same. Turn a particular blood mage "innocent" of the crimes you were investigating in? He gets executed. Don't turn him in? You end up killing him anyways - all paths lead to the same outcome, Bioware had their two final boss fights and you're damn well going to play them and be greatful for it! It's to their credit that they hide that from you well on at least the first time through the game, but the replay value tanks significantly the second time around once you realize that while you can do things differently, it isn't going to matter much.

Dragon Age: Origins also had the over-arching story that no matter what you choose would unfold pretty much the same way each time, but at least the various choices it asked you to make along the way generally changed stuff.

In summation: There is nothing wrong with a linear narrative, but there is definitely something sketchy about designing a game you trumpet as revolving around choices, only none of them actually matter because your overall narrative is a bloody straight line - whenever it looks like something might branch away from the intended path the writers redirect it back to the "one true pathway", oft times off-screen during transitions between "chapters". Coupled with the extremely lazy art asset and level re-use and the other issues people frequently raise when the subject of Dragon Age 2 is broached, and it's easy to see why so many people were bitterly disappointed by it. It's not a "bad game", but it is a mediocre one and probably the worst game Bioware has ever released. People complain so bitterly because they really want Bioware to get the message that they can't phone stuff in and expect us to be happy about it, not because the game is awful garbage that no one should ever play - the problem with Dragon Age 2 is that it should have been so much better, and it definitely could have been, the potential was there.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Gildan made alot of excellent points but I would also like to say;

If you have Dragon Age Origins go back and play it and then you will be gobsmacked at how much better than DA2 it is. I liked DA2 but it's like a 5/10 whereas DA:O is like 9.

Compare the temple of sacred ashes or the werewolf temple in DA:O to the copypasta dungeons in DA2 hell even the starting zone in DA:O was more interesting than the deep roads map in DA:2. They just totally lost that sense of epicness. I'll say it before and I'll say it again, they did the equilvalent of ripping the descriptive prose out of a novel because hey, saves time and money.

 

[Ascarus]

I'm a story whore. This was, in fact, a great story.... so long as you played it out to the end.

can someone please point out the story in DA2? i will save you the trouble because you can't. the game is simply some loosely held together errands (i won't even call the quests) all over kirkwall and the surrounding area.

there was no story. sure you could argue the story was hawke's progression from lothering refugee to kirkwall champion, but that plot is murdered by the sheer banality of the events that surrounded his rise.

one example among many: regardless of your choice at the end of the game you STILL have to fight both factions anyway. so what the hell was the point in forcing me to choose in the first place?!

DA2 was passable, at best. i cannot believe there are actually players who defend it.

 

[DustyDrB]

i find it very odd how some defenders of DA2 try to claim those who didnt like it never played it all the way through; i beat the whole game; every sidequest; beat the main game 3 times. i still think it sucks. if you like the game, fine, but dont make shit up about the opposing opinion.

The only time I get the feeling that people didn't really play it is when they say the combat is like a Hack and Slash game, which is blatantly false. Though I do get that that is just a sort of stock hyperbolic criticism that people like to toss out. The only problem I had with the combat is the enemy waves, which is ad admittedly head-scratching choice from the designers.

 

[SageRuffin]

I honestly believe that I'm probably the only one who'll openly admit that I actually liked how the ending played out. You have to side between two warring factions and everyone eventually goes insane either with paranoia or fear and the only thing left is a massive bloodbath. Sure, it's a little morbid and inconclusive, but life works like that sometimes - sometimes the only outcome is the worst possible one.

The only gripe I have is the way it all was told with the 3 act thing. The Prologue should've been a big tutorial without too much hand-holding, the Deep Roads would've worked better as the prologue, the whole Qunari incident would've been better as a major subplot, and the entirety of the story could've been better spent building up the tension between the mages and templars. once you got to the third act originally, everything prior just felt tacked on and oddly timed.

Of course, to add to that, the game does have it's problems, but it's still a lot better than a lot of other games on the market, which should speak volumes of BioWare's capabilities.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

i find it very odd how some defenders of DA2 try to claim those who didnt like it never played it all the way through; i beat the whole game; every sidequest; beat the main game 3 times. i still think it sucks. if you like the game, fine, but dont make shit up about the opposing opinion.

The only time I get the feeling that people didn't really play it is when they say the combat is like a Hack and Slash game, which is blatantly false. Though I do get that that is just a sort of stock hyperbolic criticism that people like to toss out.

That depends greatly on what platform you played the game - on the PC, a comment like that induces head-scratching and perplexity, but on consoles the original release had "Auto-attack" disabled; you had to keep pressing whatever button it is that made characters attack each time you wanted them to swing at things.

I don't remember whether there was some option you could toggle on to remove that "feature", or if it took patches for that to change, but that is where the "plays like a hack-n-slash now!" claims spring from, and it wasn't just a bullshit complaint with no basis in fact.

 

[DustyDrB]

i find it very odd how some defenders of DA2 try to claim those who didnt like it never played it all the way through; i beat the whole game; every sidequest; beat the main game 3 times. i still think it sucks. if you like the game, fine, but dont make shit up about the opposing opinion.

The only time I get the feeling that people didn't really play it is when they say the combat is like a Hack and Slash game, which is blatantly false. Though I do get that that is just a sort of stock hyperbolic criticism that people like to toss out.

That depends greatly on what platform you played the game - on the PC, a comment like that induces head-scratching and perplexity, but on consoles the original release had "Auto-attack" disabled; you had to keep pressing whatever button it is that made characters attack each time you wanted them to swing at things.

I don't remember whether there was some option you could toggle on to remove that "feature", or if it took patches for that to change, but that is where the "plays like a hack-n-slash now!" claims spring from, and it wasn't just a bullshit complaint with no basis in fact.

I played it on the 360 twice now. They have patched in the auto attack. It still plays nothing like a Hack and Slash game. I've also gone through the God of War series for the first time this year and have recently played Bayonetta, and Dragon Age II never once reminded me of those games. Pressing a button more often does not make it even close to a Hack and Slash game.

 

[Saviordd1]

It's a great game, it's just not as good as it's predecessor. That's why it's hated so much.

This, people always make small flaws tens times worse. It wasn't as good as origins no but it was rushed and not as in depth. I still liked the game to hell but it wasn't as good as Origins. That's all

 

[Saviordd1]

Ignore this accidental double post

 

[Goofguy]

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

I found that your decisions in the game had very little bearing. Siding with the templars or mages at the end only really affected your companions as you still fought Meredith and Orsino. In fact, ANY big decision in the game would ultimately really only affect a companion (ex: You either fight the Arishok or you lose Isabela in favour of the peaceful option. You either side with the mages at the end or you lose Anders).

Sometimes, a choice you made in one act would open up a bunch of side quests in a later act but that's not the type of weight your decisions should carry. In the first DA, you had to decide who would be king/queen, who would rule Orzammar, who would prevail from the elf/werewolf conflict etc. At least there was SOME indication of these choices in DA2 even if they were pretty insignificant.

And I've said this before but the continuity between the two was lacking. I immediately killed Zevran in DA:O when he ambushed me but there he was in DA2, making the moves on my Hawke. Others have said they killed Leliana but there she was in the end cinematic of DA2.

This is the kind of stuff that resonates the most with me. If you are going to build a franchise, take the time to do it properly so that players feel like they invested something in the experience. Nothing breaks immersion better than claiming to give the players meaningful decisions through a series but ignoring them because it's easier to make it your way (or whatever other reason, who knows).

 

[Herbsk]

My enjoyment of DA2 would have been quadrupled if they had introduced a decent variety of maps. You visit the same city, the same three or four dungeons, and the same few outskirt areas repeatedly for the entire game. That is it.

This one thing decreased my enjoyment of DA2 the most. This and the fact that you couldn't change the armor your characters used were my biggest problems with this game. I liked the story, liked the progression of said story, liked the characters and their development with Hawke...heck, I even liked the ending!

But the map thing killed all replayability that this game might have had....I could only manage to sit through the samey dungeons for that one playthrough, and I haven't picked it up since.

Edit: Also, I had a problem with the changes they made to Anders character - in Awakening he was a snarky but intelligent and likable mage...in DA2 he was a whiny borderline crazy mage....quite the difference, and I never got over it enough to like him again.

 

[bombadilillo]

Cut and paste dungeons are...is this 2011? Unacceptable.

The whole game was a toiling preamble to something I would actually want to play. (all out pick a side war between mages and templars.)

Playing a mage makes all the dialog in the game broken. "DEATH TO MAGES THE DIRTY SCUM, AM I RIGHT HAWKE?" as I sit there with a staff and 2 other mages in my party...

Oh how immersive...

Loved the first game. This one was crap. Played mages in both games and didnt see a hint of imporved combat at all. Only change was gimpimg the character choices.

BUILD A MAGE ANY WAY YOU WANT. (but only one guy has healing magic so if you want a healer then he is forced to be leveled a certain way and always in your party) Choices?

 

[ScoopMeister]

Didn't they say in the first game somewhere that grey wardens couldn't mate with non wardens because of the taint or some shit?

No. No they didn't. In case you've forgotten, you can shag non-wardens in Origins as well.

OP: I'm glad you liked it. Origins was a better game, but I still thoroughly enjoyed the sequel, despite it's flaws.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Dragon Age Origins was one of my favorite games ever, and if I tried the second one I know I would be disappointed. I know this because Mass Effect is my favorite game (also made by BioWare), and in the second Mass Effect they didn't just change things up but they actually removed some things like biotic powers which I would use all the time to get through the harder difficulties. So I think I'll just take the opinion of the skeptics and steer clear of this one thanks...

EDIT: Plus, everyone says it sucks compared to the first. That's another reason I'm steering clear of it.

 

[JMeganSnow]

All the other 'flaws' are matters of opinion and different tastes--and by that I mean I don't consider them flaws (I say this because I am well aware of the fact that my one flaw is exactly what I just said above).

Yeah, pretty much. I really enjoyed DA2. I felt I got my money's worth and I'm eagerly awaiting the DLC/next game. (Wasn't that thrilled that the first DLC was just some new armor/weapons though.) However, I can also see some major flaws in the game.

The really funny part, to me, is that a lot of people complained the combat was too easy--but for me, that was actually a bonus. Bioware tends to make enjoyable story-based games with WAY TOO MUCH boring, tedious, repetitive combat. So being easier actually made the game more fun for me because I could just whizz past the combat for the most part.

I still think that Baldur's Gate had the best combat of any game they've ever made, and even then you could cheese through nearly the entire game by giving everyone in your party a bow.

 

[JMeganSnow]

EDIT: Plus, everyone says it sucks compared to the first. That's another reason I'm steering clear of it.

Not everyone. I thought it was better than the first one in many respects--it depends on what you liked about Origins. If you liked the combat in Origins you probably won't like DA2 much. However, I haven't played a Bioware game yet where I actually enjoyed the combat past about the first hour or so, so I was not disappointed or unhappy with the changes in DA2.

It's sad how very little idea they have on how to design fun combat--they focus too much on the wrong stuff. They focus almost entirely on what the CHARACTER can do rather than on what the PLAYER does. You can see this in the info that's come out for ME3. They talk endlessly about all the cool new stuff Shepard will be able to do. I don't care about what Shepard can do. I care about what I can do.

I mean, even basic things in Origins would have been really nice to me, like the ability to BLOCK DOORWAYS with your tank. Instead, the mobs would shove your tank around like he/she was on roller skates and you'd wind up with the mobs surrounding your party no matter what. It was annoying as crap. But instead of fixing issues like this, they give you a ton of new abilities (whatever) and add new problems: it's not possible to control your pulls in DA2, either, for two reasons: groups of enemies are always linked, so if you pull one you pull all of them, and new enemies fall in on top of you in waves.

All the games I've ever played where the combat started out fun and continued on fun have a number of similarities, and being able to pull selectively (if you do it right) is one of them. Being able to do real tactical formations, block doors, set up your group as a trap and lure enemies into it, kite around the terrain, bounce spells/grenades around corners, etc. make the game fun/engaging, because it's you pitting your skill and knowledge against the entire system.