dragon age 2 whats with all the hate?

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I've been playing it for two weeks, and I'm guessing I'm about halfway through it. I can definitely understand why some people feel it's weaker than Origins, but the score-bombing that occurred during the first days of release is completely unjustified. A lot of those people probably had that opinion worked out in advance, and are now actually playing through the game as we speak, despite convincing themselves that it's terrible. The entire thing reminds me of Comic Book Guy after the 'Cosmic Wars' movie: "Worst Cosmic Wars ever. I will see it only three more times...today."

Personally, I think it's more fun, but less immersive. And full of a number of astoundingly stupid design and story decisions that are offset by the huuuuuuge number of quests.

 

[Waaghpowa]

--

Game play can, and has, been limited by hardware. As stated by another poster on this thread using the example of persistent bodies, removing them means removing an element of game play, that being the raise dead spell.

Crysis 2 is another of the the most recent games to be hindered by hardware limitations. Things like Field of view and lower player limits in multiplayer (16 player limit, which the original had double or more). Granted I still like the game, but it falls short of what it's original pc exclusive predecessor had.

Alright, but is that really console gamers' fault? You could maybe fault the developer for not being bothered to make the adjustments necessary for the console game, but leave the features in the PC version - I mean this particularly in the example of DA at hand; with the differing tactical control mechanics. Console gamers didn't collectively *ask* the developer to make the PC version 'less functional', or to put it less combatively, the same as the console version - well, I know I certainly didn't. I guess console gamers would be unhappy if the PC gamers got the raise dead spell and they didn't because the versions were different, but all I'm saying is that there must be middle ground, like it seems there was in the first DA? I.e. raise dead unfortunately has to go, but PC gamers still get tactical mechanics that suit the mouse and keyboard, while console gamers get tactical mechanics that suit the controller. If DA: O had this (more or less, which is why PC gamers are complaining about DA 2) then it can't be impossible to do.

I never meant to imply that it was the fault of the console gamers. The fault is part developer for not tailor making a game per platform but rather copy pasting it, and the other part is with consoles themselves by simply being restrictive hardware, therefore limiting certain elements of game play. As fearful as some people are about the PC version of Deus ex, I'm at least optimistic that the fact that another studio is devoting their time to the PC version could actually turn out good because they're not splitting their attention and making a single game to run across all platforms.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

I've played DA2 for a good 6-8 hours now, and I believe I can answer.
- Boring and unengaging story
- Extremely limited and repetitive environments
- Companions that bored me to tears
- Bullshit new combat. Not only is the "wave" system ridiculous "onoes enemies just pop out from everywhere when you think you've taken them all", which once happened like 4 times in one fight. It wouldn't be so bad if everyone above "standard grunt" didn't have insane amounts of HP that, by gosh, my feeble mage just can't widdle down with an Etched staff, 21 magic, fireball and Pyromancy. And I breezed through Origins on Hard.

Those are the main reasons, for me, and I won't be playing it all the way through. Good job, BioWare, making even a hardcore fan hate the game. I really wanted to like it.

 

[justnotcricket]

--

Game play can, and has, been limited by hardware. As stated by another poster on this thread using the example of persistent bodies, removing them means removing an element of game play, that being the raise dead spell.

Crysis 2 is another of the the most recent games to be hindered by hardware limitations. Things like Field of view and lower player limits in multiplayer (16 player limit, which the original had double or more). Granted I still like the game, but it falls short of what it's original pc exclusive predecessor had.

Alright, but is that really console gamers' fault? You could maybe fault the developer for not being bothered to make the adjustments necessary for the console game, but leave the features in the PC version - I mean this particularly in the example of DA at hand; with the differing tactical control mechanics. Console gamers didn't collectively *ask* the developer to make the PC version 'less functional', or to put it less combatively, the same as the console version - well, I know I certainly didn't. I guess console gamers would be unhappy if the PC gamers got the raise dead spell and they didn't because the versions were different, but all I'm saying is that there must be middle ground, like it seems there was in the first DA? I.e. raise dead unfortunately has to go, but PC gamers still get tactical mechanics that suit the mouse and keyboard, while console gamers get tactical mechanics that suit the controller. If DA: O had this (more or less, which is why PC gamers are complaining about DA 2) then it can't be impossible to do.

I never meant to imply that it was the fault of the console gamers. The fault is part developer for not tailor making a game per platform but rather copy pasting it, and the other part is with consoles themselves by simply being restrictive hardware, therefore limiting certain elements of game play. As fearful as some people are about the PC version of Deus ex, I'm at least optimistic that the fact that another studio is devoting their time to the PC version could actually turn out good because they're not splitting their attention and making a single game to run across all platforms.

I wish it could be possible to tailor make games to platforms, but I suppose the developers would say it was too expensive =S We can dream, though, right?

 

[dyre]

I was pretty horrified at the reviews of DA2, and I considered not even playing it, but after completing the game (in about 30 hours or so), I must say I'm confused where all the hate comes from.

A few problems with the game
1. Lack of customization - ok, a bit annoying, but I can get over that. Customization basically only meant a different intro act and a few changes in dialogue in DA:O
2. Lack of character interaction - probably the biggest problem. I like the Mass Effect series over the Dragon Age series, but one thing I've always valued in DA:O is the massive amount of dialogue you could access with each character.
3. Copy/pasta dungeons - yeah, w/e. It's annoying, but it's not too big a deal in the first playthrough
4. Ending - uh, some closure would be nice...I guess that's what DLCs are for?

But otherwise, the story improved (I liked how instead of the typical "go to these 3 cities and deal with 3 problems" sort of deal, DA2 slowly builds a main conflict over the several acts, and the climax was pretty goddamn climactic), the combat was smoother (albeit a bit too easy. Haven't tried nightmare mode, but I don't usually do second playthroughs, so...), and voice acting was a nice touch. The Friendship vs Rivalry thing was interesting, but I'm not sure why being a jerk and being a rival is treated the same way in the game

 

[Nomanslander]

Well, imagine how pissed off most Halo players were when they bought Halo Wars without reading the back of the box to find out it's a damn RTS....0o

 

[justnotcricket]

Alright, but is that really console gamers' fault? You could maybe fault the developer for not being bothered to make the adjustments necessary for the console game, but leave the features in the PC version.

Actually no. Crysis 2 could not keep up hardware wise on consoles. So again this is a hardware issue. But don't worry the PC PVP was ruined by cheating players all using aim bots. I saw a guy not using an aim botthe other day i confronted him about it & he said "oops, forgot to turn it on, LOL."

I guess console gamers would be unhappy if the PC gamers got the raise dead spell and they didn't because the versions were different, but all I'm saying is that there must be middle ground, like it seems there was in the first DA?

Why must there be a middle ground? do i not get to purchase a good car, because you can't afford a good car... An how come you can purchase a good car & when i can't afford to? Or did you not notice that PC gamers constantly get fucked over in console to PC ports. Ghostbusters no PVP in PC, crappy controls (Demonstone, Spiderman Shatter Dimensions, etc), lost content for no reason, no port at all, limited release to the PC version (Transformers: War for Cybertron which still has not been released on PC in Australia).

As i said before if Bioware is going to make a PC game, make a fucking PC game. Do not make a console game on the PC. Its a waste of time & a waste of resources... specifically my resources.

-M

To mix metaphors: if you object to my car budget impinging on your car choices, then don't buy any game that was made cross-platform. If you can't buy the car that I can afford to, then get a console and enjoy whichever version of whatever is better.

I seriously believe there is a middle ground, even if it's some sort of state of each game having advantages and disadvantages that are not dependent on the other versions. Like OK, the PC game can have the raise dead spell because the PC (well, any PC more powerful than a console?) can handle the bodies, but the console game gets some other spell that has the same damage result/benefit to the player but does not rely on processing power. And each game gets the appropriate tactical interface. I guess the developers will cry '$$$..Impossible!...$$$' though, so it looks like we're stuck for the moment.

Believe it or not, I can understand your annoyance at what you feel is a game that has been trimmed to fit another frame. If I could play new games on my PC, I'd probably feel the same way. The only thing I've never understood about this whole debate is the use of 'dumbing down'. People have given me good answers as to why they feel sad and disappointed that their PC game has had corners cut on it to make it fit onto consoles, but not why this in any way reflects on the intelligence or skill of the console gamer. Like you said, it's a hardware issue. Perhaps you don't see console gamers as less intelligent, but this prejudice seems to go had in hand with this debate. Just like console gamers retaliating with 'entitled PC elitist', the whole thing reeks of people blaming and insulting other people for stuff that is not their fault.

 

[Hong Meiling]

Paying 60 bucks for a game without a level of polish expected by bioware? With day 1 DLC? With large parts of the games relegated to DLC?

The reuse of areas? Look, I know PSO was great, but in these days gaming companies might be able to afford more than a handful areas.

They also ever so slightly changed the art direction to something more lighthearted, for some reason...

Look, I could go on for a while, but it's a an average game if it hadn't been made by bioware, where it becomes not that great.
Clearly bioware isn't making RPGs that I like anymore and that's OK. I just won't buy them anymore instead of getting angry and thinking I'm entitled for them to make the games I want.

 

[Zorg Machine]

they start the game and you are awesome and it's fun but then the game tells you "that's not what happened, the game is not this good" and you get launched into the mediocrity of the first game...that's why I hate it.

 

[justnotcricket]

Believe it or not, I can understand your annoyance at what you feel is a game that has been trimmed to fit another frame. If I could play new games on my PC, I'd probably feel the same way. The only thing I've never understood about this whole debate is the use of 'dumbing down'. People have given me good answers as to why they feel sad and disappointed that their PC game has had corners cut on it to make it fit onto consoles, but not why this in any way reflects on the intelligence or skill of the console gamer. Like you said, it's a hardware issue. Perhaps you don't see console gamers as less intelligent, but this prejudice seems to go had in hand with this debate. Just like console gamers retaliating with 'entitled PC elitist', the whole thing reeks of people blaming and insulting other people for stuff that is not their fault.

It's less that console players are dumb, but more about developers greatly underestimating the console gamer. Because there are so many "randoms", people who will pick up a game to just jump in and play but do not have the time/patience to learn a complex set of controls, the Developers seem to get this idea in their head that most people who play on an Xbox are dimwitted mouthbreathers. They then try to cater their games to this nonexistent majority. Then the gamers, who tend to gravitate towards PCs, feel screwed over when they pay 60 bucks for a game that insults their intelligence, which leads them to direct their aggression, wrongly, towards console gamers.

We shouldn't get pissed at the console gamers, we should get pissed at the Developers who think console gamers are retards. That attitude isn't helping anyone.

I guess if you're going to get angry at anyone, then you can really only get angry at the people who are making the games and who might have misjudged their market. But then I'd rather not get angry at all. there are so many angry people on the internet, if we actually sent a politely worded letter to the developers they'd probably be so shocked they'd make the changes immediately ;-P

 

[justnotcricket]

Believe it or not, I can understand your annoyance at what you feel is a game that has been trimmed to fit another frame. If I could play new games on my PC, I'd probably feel the same way. The only thing I've never understood about this whole debate is the use of 'dumbing down'. People have given me good answers as to why they feel sad and disappointed that their PC game has had corners cut on it to make it fit onto consoles, but not why this in any way reflects on the intelligence or skill of the console gamer. Like you said, it's a hardware issue. Perhaps you don't see console gamers as less intelligent, but this prejudice seems to go had in hand with this debate. Just like console gamers retaliating with 'entitled PC elitist', the whole thing reeks of people blaming and insulting other people for stuff that is not their fault.

Its not "entitlement," any more then you feel entitled to be allowed to drive around in the new car you just payed a large amount of money to purchase. I purchased a PC GAME & what i got was a console game... Even though we were told it was a PC GAME.

If the console cannot keep up with the game, then they give up the right to possess it. Or at the very least make a PC version & then knock the corners off for the less powerful console market (like they did with Crysis 2). Its not fair to the people who payed a large amount of money for that product, to not recieve that product. I payed almost $100 AUD for this game (because the American market continue to fuck us over in game prices), only to find it was not a sequel to Dragon Age in any way shape or form.

And thats not cool. But the main problems outside of the game play i listed on the first page & no one has hit on any one of them except the use of the term consolization, which was a throw away statement at the end. Feel free to go back and take a look at what my complaints actually were.

Alright, but from your responses it doesn't seem like you feel that 'consolization' is a throwaway issue here...but whatever, you are allowed to have whatever general objections you like to DA 2 (or any other game), as we all do. My question (for which -sole- purpose I quoted your post) was simply seeking clarification about this whole 'dumbing down' issue. You gave your thoughts, I responded, and I think I understand what you wanted to say with your objection to 'consolisation' and what you see as 'dumbing down'. I don't agree with all of it, but such is life. At the end of the day, I just wish we didn't have to have this schism between 'console gamers' and 'pc gamers'.

EDIT: Oh, and I think if you check which country I'm from, you might find we actually have it even worse than you in terms of pricing...

 

[Gladiateher]

I liked the game, my only complaint is that it feels like it would have been better if they had made it more like kingdom hearts if they wanted it to be all fast paced and involving and whatnot. The combat just seemed odd, a mixture of sorts that just didn't feel right. Kind of needlessly constricting.

 

[darth.pixie]

The game is ...mediocre. At best. It's fun sometimes but had the firm who released it not been Bioware, it wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. The combat started out alright...I mean, it was less tactical for me since I tended to pick spells out of every line and was now restricted to only two branches of spells in order to get the powerful ones...but in the end it got tedious, boring and significantly less fun. And you couldn't really escape it since you were attacked by apostates, assassins and thugs while walking down the street to go to the bar.

The cooling off period was a killer...I could only use heal about once or twice per combat. I just used all of the spells then twiddled my thumbs until they came back again. I know the mage was overpowered but now it's just ridiculous.

Kirkwall was a bore. Complete bore. And the Hanged Man, for reputedly the best (and worst) tavern around...was quieter than society tea party. It was the details that made Baldur, it was the details that still shone, admittedly less bright, in DA:O and it was the details that lacked in this game. Fenris' Mansion still had corpses around after six years which made me inclined to believe he drew people around just to kill them. It made him a bit more interesting than the usual "Bah! Mages! Kill! Bah! Slavers! Kill! *grumbles*" so I went with that.

The characters were there just to hint to you "Yes, mages are nice.Look, I own a clinic / No, mages are bad! Look at Tevinter / Mages are good! I want to restore history! / Bad! Look at the chaos in the city!" ...in the end I just hung around with Varric who was the most normal of them all. The events seemed forced and you were pushed around in order to do them. By act 3 I had no moral, emotional or even need-based connection to what happened.

Also, while the wheel of dialogue was better than the ME one, you were still limited to about 4 answers. Which sometimes didn't say what I wanted to say. Hawke was amusingly snarky and mean but I wish I would have had more than 3/4 answers. And why doesn't anyone age? Or change clothes?! Kirkwall must smell awful...

 

[justnotcricket]

I guess if you're going to get angry at anyone, then you can really only get angry at the people who are making the games and who might have misjudged their market. But then I'd rather not get angry at all. there are so many angry people on the internet, if we actually sent a politely worded letter to the developers they'd probably be so shocked they'd make the changes immediately ;-P

As someone else said, if you don't complain when you are fed shit, don't be surprised when all they feed you is shit. Bioware already knows we are unhappy & now we are just making sure they know how unhappy we are.

Only just saw this to reply to - apologies for not putting it on the previous reply.

If Bioware already knows how unhappy you are, what does throwing tantrums do, except possibly make them less inclined to indulge your requests or listen to your complaints? I agree that numbers are key in swaying a decision, but after that, a clear but calm request is better than an angry one.