Dragon Age 2: RPG Players "don't like change"

[Twilight_guy]

My only problem with this is that its all so subjective. We can show that one game is different from the other but labeling one as "flashy" or one as "true RPG" is entirely pointless. What there needs to be is some concrete definition that can be applies in order to compare things. Language is a fuzzy thing and sometimes words don't work very well. I think an objective analysis and examining that one game has X while another doesn't and why do we value X more is really more useful then just random hate and then counters to random hate that seem to pop up everywhere. All the arguments I hear are far to nebulous for me.

 

[lazysquirell]

I, unlike the OP, have played DA2 so allow me to rip it to shreds. First and foremost if there was ever, in the history of gaming, a game that was poorly slapped together and rushed out of the studio in the sole attempt to cash in on the success of it's predecessor it's Dragon Age 2. Everything in this game reeks of laziness.

Let's talk about combat and the notion it's "streamlined". Bull shit! It's dumbed down to the point of being damn near a button mashing hack and slash game. Every attack is "press button to make something super awesome" happen. The smart tactics based combat of the first one is thrown out the window in an attempt to dumb down the game to cater to the larger sloping browed console audience.

Next, let's kick a dead horse some, there are the maps. Does anything scream laziness like using the same three (maybe four) maps over and over and over again? This is Bioware, people expect better from them. The person who made that decision deserves to lose their job. That is the kind of thing I would expect from the lowest kind of indy developer not a company like Bioware.

Then there is the decision to have the enemies spawn out of thin air in waves. Really? Really? Compare this, again to the smart tactics driven combat of the first one for a minute and tell me this is anything but an attempt to artificially and needlessly prolong fights.

Now lets talk about items. Oh yeah, items. Laziness rears it's ugly head again rather prominently in this area. Why is the main character the only one I can upgrade to any real degree? The main character is fully customizable but they couldn't be bothered to take the time and apply that to the companion characters as well? Then there is "junk" which reeks of the developer just throwing random shit in to pad out drops more.

Oh and the conversation wheel. I understand that it's made for your typical console gamer and as such having pictures go along with the text can be helpful but for those of us that are literate it's just the same three options for every bloody conversation and it is just boring and repetitive.

For a game that was supposed to a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate it plays and feels more like the love child of Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins if it was aborted halfway through and left to rot in the sun. It was obviously designed by committee and dumbed down to cater to the absolute lowest common denominator and in doing so took what was once a promising franchise and shit all over it.

Bottom line is that Bioware is slowly becoming just another cog in the soulless machine that killed and devoured it. This is the first of what I expect to many upcoming releases that are needless and insulting cash grabs. The Bioware I used to praise heavily is dead and buries and whatever this company is that took it's place can go bugger themselves for all I care.

Oh please. Arrogant much? So I'm illiterate because I like a game and console gaming... I see no flaws in that logic at all. Bottom line is you have an OPINION other people have a different OPINION get over it and stop acting like the judge jury and executioner.

 

[Susurrus]

Lazysquirell I urge you to read OP. Xanthious's point is put in rather disingenuous terms, and I've tried to make it clear in OP that it's NOT some elitist console/PC divide (really), but.. well, read the OP.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I didn't play more than the Demo

Not the exact quote, of course, but what I want to address.

I've argued a lot about this, and have generally tried to distance myself since it was getting ridiculous.

All I see now, is some colossal marketing failure. The game is a pretty solid game, not incredible, and all in all, probably not quite as good as DA:O. But it is noticeably better in some area.

However, for whatever reason, the Demo they put out, and the marketing for the game, seems to have completely PO'd a certain percentage of the populous. So MUCH so that they will write long posts about the reasons for not liking the game, without having played it.

This is insane to me, but I'm not really trying to address that, more than I wonder what it is that the Demo or marketing killed in people so bad. Why is second hand rhetoric so easy to spout in THIS occasion?

These are what I think caused this:

1) The demo was too easy. Since they shifted the difficulties down in the game, the demo ended up getting the ass end of things. The 'fast' gameplay it engenders seems very VERY different from DA:O. In reality, though, most people who played DA:O wouldn't have enjoyed playing it on 'easy' anymore than they enjoy playing DA2 on Normal.

2) Disabling inventory in the Demo. You can't even go through your inventory, or try out different item combinations on Hawke. This accentuates the very real removal of NPC armor items. However, it also likely fools people into think that you do not equip things to NPC's, which is not true. You have a belt, amulet, and two ring slots on each NPC, just like Hawke. You can also equip runes to their armor, and upgrade their armor at certain fixed points during the game. But since we skimmed over this, and there is a demon in the room already, no one cares.

3) Skimming past the story. Other than Varric and the Seeker, the actually story of the game is very VERY quickly skimmed through to get to the Isabela encounter. This is really not a good idea, though I know why they did it. It re-inforces the idea that the game is all about combat, and makes the character interaction feel a bit more shallow. In reality, the pacing of the game is much different. Isabela isn't encountered in the first 10 minutes after landing in Kirkwall. In fact, narrative wise, there is an entire year of game before she shows up. But the Demo makes it feel like a brisk, little interaction, part of the game.

4) Outside the demo, poor Press Management. We all likely know the 'press x to do something awesome' blurb. It is terrible because it gives people the wrong impression. The comment was made in regards to character animations being made more fantastical, it wasn't intended to make the game sound simpler. In reality, the game gives you a lot of tactics slots to use, and contains substantially MORE in depth combat strategies than the original game. This one line, and a few others like it, are just killer.

5) It is different. Say all you want about human nature, but people are very much put off by things they expect to be similar, but find out are different. The art style is different, the animation style is different. It uses a dialogue wheel instead of a dialogue list. When you combine all the other things in here, each difference is an opening for someone's personal bias to show through. Especially for those NOT inundated with the game. By the end, the animations might not feel weird anymore. The dialogue wheel will become rote and you won't care. Or whatever. The point is that because these differences (which ever ones you aren't sure about) exist, they give you addition fuel to throw on to everything else.


In conclusion: I think a poorly scripted demo, and marketing blurbs hurt the game far more than any actual faults it has. I wish they would release a new demo for it focusing on slightly different aspects, to give people who weren't so sure, a better chance to form an educated opinion.

 

[Laxman9292]

SNIP

1) OK, so you're saying there is an objectively bad change with no real objectively good change, so objectively, it's a change for the worse. Where's the argument again?

2) BG2 expanded the world, expanded the classes, revamped the entire UI, and gave us an entirely new story. It doesn't have the number of gameplay changes that DA2 had over DA:O, but it was still quite a different game, and a vast improvement everywhere it innovated.

3) I'm not pretending that my own subjective tastes aren't influenced by stuff I like and react poorly (at least at first) to things I perceive as different in a bad way. But I'm not gonna come and spout off like my subjective opinions are fact without either hard evidence or a completely rational argument behind them. In this case, the rational arguments have already been stated by myself and others elsewhere a myriad of times. If you choose not to listen to reason, you are a fool. If you have your own rational arguments for why you think a change is good, by all means, make them. Just don't attempt to hide behind the red herring of "you hate it because it's change" to avoid having to defend what you actually say.

1) I do not even think it can be called an objectively bad change. It is just different, rather than a sprawling world that provides varied locales but fails to make a real connection with the area, DA2 has limited areas but are highly detailed and the fact that there are few makes the player intimately familiar with each area and makes the location more meaningful.

2)I never played Baldur's Gate (either of them, I have a statute of limitations on games that are over a decade old. Most games that everyon harps on about that are older than dirt are typically dated as hell and are only glittering jewels to the hopeless fanboys that cannot let go.) But it seems to me that those changes did not really make it a different game. While they expanded the universe and polished up the UI those features never affected the core gameplay (i.e. using the same engine and combat (D&D's atrocious 2e system)). And using a different plot to call it a different game is just stupid, although I guess nowadays having a different plot from the prequel is a struggle for some (Mario Galaxy 2 I am looking at you.... grrrrr).

3. I really cannot say much as I hav yet to buy DA2 or play BG 1 or 2, but I can say that there are very few changes that can be empirically or universally accepted as good or bad, Like printing the games on a slice of bologna, and even then your pets wont complain about that. Regardless of what changed you will have fanboys who hate it because "You needlessly tampered with our precious game when we would rather have more and more of the same", and hipster tossers who are quick to assume that "You just can't handle it. You are so behind the times grandpa stop living in the past'.

Point is: Both groups suck. Just play the damn game and if you like it then good for you, buy the next one. If not the oh well, stop throwing a fanboy hissy fit, you do not matter, you will not make a difference, give up. No one likes a fanboy. Regardless of which group you are in, stop trying to ram opinions down each others throat.

 

[The Common Hours]

Here is a solution...
If you dont like it then dont play it.... If you are going to complain about it, the Bioware forums is a better candidate for your voice on the matter to be heard.
I find it so weird that people spend so much time on things they hate/dislike, kinda contradicting themselves.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

What a surprise another i dislike DA 2 topic ... just like the dozen plus we had all before.
Only the OP wants to feel special he/she started a new one and not joined one of the MANY dislike topics around.

You'd think there was a pattern or a reason for so many of these threads popping up... but it can't be, must be coincidence and they're all haters!

http://i.min.us/immPqa.png

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6716182/1

Q: Who are you and what is your job on the DA2 team?

A: Hello! My name is Yaron Jacobs, lead level designer of the game. I'm Israeli and I've been working here at BioWare for 8 years.

Q: Could prolonging development time for the game result in a better variety within the city itself and avoiding reused areas, as seen in the game?

A: Obviously, more time would enable more areas and bigger variation. Honestly, we did not expect this to be such a big deal, but it seems the subject gave rise to a significant number of complaints by both critics and players alike. We listen to the reviews and we will try to address the issue in future games.

Q: Why are the city's streets not as crowded as one can expect from a city as congested as Kirkwall? Is it due to technical limitations?

A: Yes, this is completely due to technical limitation. We had more people crowding the streets in early stages of development but we had to cut the number to be able to cope with the limitations of game consoles and low-end computers.


Q: Does every battle consist of enemy waves? What is your answer for all those people that claim the lack of ability to know the number of waves and where they will pop up causes a battle that consists of reactions instead of tactics and planning?

A: Part of the tactical game is adapting to changes. The waves might feel different, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not agree with those that think the wave pattern is terrible as of itself, but I do agree that there are things it's possible to do in order to improve the use of the waves. We can use them less often and improve the breeding mechanic, for instance. All in all I think the waves are an excellent addition to the game.

Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance.

Looking at that interview, is Bioware's devs that removed from reality? Geez.

 

[Susurrus]

I think that's fair as far as it goes. Unfortunately, none of the reasons you mention are the reasons I disliked the demo - and those reasons that I had seem to have gone to the core of the changes, and the core of the game itself.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think that's fair as far as it goes. Unfortunately, none of the reasons you mention are the reasons I disliked the demo - and those reasons that I had seem to have gone to the core of the changes, and the core of the game itself.

Your reasons reflected your personal experience. They didn't necessarily go "to the core" of anything. This has been an ongoing problem in this thread, and in this debate in general. We have a lot of people saying "Yes, yes, I understand that this is only my opinion, but my opinion is RIGHT!".

 

[Nimcha]

When you call yourself "Dragon Age 2", people logically expect a bit more of the same, but with some additions. When you call it a sequel, people expect the mechanics to be improved upon, they expect a more PC focused game, a long, large story, and plenty of other things.

If they simply called it "Dragon Age: Chronicles of Kirkwall" or something, there would be a lot less hate.

Does nobody see how ridiculous that is? Why does the goddamn name of the game matter so much to people? It baffles me.

People should just stop with trying to decide what a game should be like and then being disappointed when it's not like that. This issue is almost making me angry.

 

[Zeroresistence]

Like it or not, the fact is Dragon Age 2 disappointed many people for many reasons. Said people have chosen to go online to vent their frustrations, probably because their friends/loved-ones aren't terribly interested in listening to them.

Except that almost every hate topic is about all the fans of DA:O hate DA 2. That is NOT the case some fans like DA 2 more or even the same. Thinking your opinion is the same as all the fans in the world is just being arrogant.

Yes many people dislike the game. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. What do are NOT entitled to is speaking like they are speaking for the whole community.

http://www.vgchartz.com/

Dragon age 2 700 k
DAO 3.2 Million

Anything else you wana add?[/quote]
Yes Dragon Age was released over a year age so its pretty obvious that in that time it would have more overall sales than something that hasnt even been out a month. Also don't assume that everyone hates dragon age 2. I liked both Dragon age and Dragon age 2 despite there flaws which they both have. But i respect your opinion because thats what you think.

 

[Susurrus]

I think that's fair as far as it goes. Unfortunately, none of the reasons you mention are the reasons I disliked the demo - and those reasons that I had seem to have gone to the core of the changes, and the core of the game itself.

Your reasons reflected your personal experience. They didn't necessarily go "to the core" of anything. This has been an ongoing problem in this thread, and in this debate in general. We have a lot of people saying "Yes, yes, I understand that this is only my opinion, but my opinion is RIGHT!".

You misread. The reasons I disliked the demo were some of the core design decisions of the game. That's why I don't like it, and that's why I didn't buy it. I didn't say necessarily that those are what is wrong with the game itself, objectively.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You misread. The reasons I disliked the demo were some of the core design decisions of the game. That's why I don't like it, and that's why I didn't buy it. I didn't say necessarily that those are what is wrong with the game itself, objectively.

Ah, I did misread, my apologies.

If we're talking about the same core issues we discussed earlier, though, I still think you're off-base on a couple of them...most specifically the combat. At higher difficulty levels it's not nearly as frenzied or action oriented as you appear to fear.

 

[Irridium]

When you call yourself "Dragon Age 2", people logically expect a bit more of the same, but with some additions. When you call it a sequel, people expect the mechanics to be improved upon, they expect a more PC focused game, a long, large story, and plenty of other things.

If they simply called it "Dragon Age: Chronicles of Kirkwall" or something, there would be a lot less hate.

Does nobody see how ridiculous that is? Why does the goddamn name of the game matter so much to people? It baffles me.

People should just stop with trying to decide what a game should be like and then being disappointed when it's not like that. This issue is almost making me angry.

Yeah, god forbid people think that a game with a 2(or 3, or 4, or whatever) at the end of it would be a continuation of the first game, when 99% of other games with a number at the end are continuations of the first.

 

[Akihiko]

For me it was never ever about the change. It was about the fact it was rushed. We've got reused enemys and dungeons left right and centre. The main story itself was rushed and consisted of only three main events. Waves just felt like a way to extent the game, instead it just made you absolutely sick of the gameplay.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

For me it was never ever about the change. It was about the fact it was rushed. We've got reused enemys and dungeons left right and centre. The main story itself was rushed and consisted of only three main events. Waves just felt like a way to extent the game, instead it just made you absolutely sick of the gameplay.

I'm not going to say much here, but the reused enemies bit got to me.

What game, doesn't do this? Are you telling me you could put two genlocks in DAO side by side and be able to tell the difference between them? Were you looking at each and every zombie and merc in order to find the most minuscule of alterations?

 

[Akihiko]

For me it was never ever about the change. It was about the fact it was rushed. We've got reused enemys and dungeons left right and centre. The main story itself was rushed and consisted of only three main events. Waves just felt like a way to extent the game, instead it just made you absolutely sick of the gameplay.

I'm not going to say much here, but the reused enemies bit got to me.

What game, doesn't do this? Are you telling me you could put two genlocks in DAO side by side and be able to tell the difference between them? Were you looking at each and every zombie and merc in order to find the most minuscule of alterations?

It's the waves that does it. Every game reuses enemys, you're right, but not every game has 3/4 waves of enemys in each battle. I'm quite frankly sick of seeing shades. Besides, to add to that, a lot of the enemys were actually brought in from origins.

 

[mavkiel]

Reused dungeons, reused creatures. Heck compare any area in da1 to da2.

Even if you pick the deep roads, you will find more varied enemies then any location in da1. From spiders, undead, weird animals, to blighted creatures to dark-spawn.

One could argue that the city would limit the types of encounters, true, but Pirates,slavers,mages,thieves, other thief like gangs.. Instead they just pick one of those groups and hammer you with it until you vomit.

Oh and none of them seem to ever attack each other. Except for one scripted encounter in act 3. It was highly amusing to watch thieves swarm all over me and the guards not lift a finger to help.

It was even more amusing when some slavers tormented a mage, and the mage freaked out and became an abomination. Then both groups just ignored each other and focused on me.