Dragon Age 2

Recommended Videos

Cpt. Lozan

New member
Feb 28, 2013
59
0
0
One thing I never understood was the MASSIVE hate for Dragon Age 2. The first time I played through the game I felt it was mediocre, the recycling of stages was pretty lame and the change to the Quani physically was rather jarring, same with Flemith and most of the returning characters,the flow of combat was changed significantly and you could now dodge attacks by dodging the animation but tactics either remained the same or close enough to where you could figure it out with retaliative ease. These changes were numerous, but most were purely ascetic, well done, and had little impact on the game as a whole.

The Qunari looked like a distinct race now, instead of looking like a pale J.J. Watt, Isabella was now attractive enough to be seductive(a trait integral to her character),Flemith no longer looked like a crazy old hermit-witch and now looked like a powerful sorceress which makes scene considering how she is a powerful sorceress and now that darkspawn have pushed as far north as they had she had no reason to keep a low profile. Overall, the game was very visually pleasing, the environments looked very stylized and polished, all the particle effects and battle animations were really elaborate and cool especially the spells and stave's.

You couldn't equip allies with armor anymore but weapons and accessories were still fair game. In lieu of equipable armor, allies had unique armor, which could be upgraded thru hunting down upgrades from merchants or doing side quests. Hawke, however, still had a plethora of arms and armor to choose from, and runes are still around so you can still upgrade the good stuff.

Combat received the biggest change and even then, it was mostly visual. You still had a squad of 4 people and the bare-bones combo system (I.E. Winter's Grasp/Cone of cold + Power attack) was greatly expanded upon and rewarded the player for strategizing beforehand, at the level up screen and the party select screen. Some enemies used stealth now, and they are capable of dealing massive damage to your party, unless you manage to damage them while they are invisible(usually accomplished with a fireball or cone of cold right after they stealth). The largest difference was that you could dodge attacks as a player. Not auto attacks (unless you just kinda ran around or something) but big attacks like a dragon's fire ball or an ogre's rock throw thing. Injury's now only take away HP, which, in my opinion, is a steeper penalty than before (oh no, Morrigan's attack speed has been reduced slightly, whatever shall I do)

Stats are almost exactly the same and spells/skills were expanded on. Now, Spells/skills had levels to them and the trees had paths. So now you had more options when leveling up a character and it required a lot more thinking and planning to decide on which ability to take.

Anders and Fenris were pretty dull as characters, I'll give you that, but the rest of your party had great character depth. Merrill was determined to help her clan by any means necessary, even though those means lead to her becoming ostracized by her own people. Aveline is driven by her scene of honor and joins quite possibly one of the most corrupt city guards in a game and then proceeds to fight,sometimes literally, against the sea of corruption she finds herself in. Isabella spends the whole game trying to decide whether to stick to her easy come easy go loyalty policy or to actually trust in or care for someone and your actions decide the result, and she does this without being whiny about it and wearing it on her sleeve. Normally she just acts like a slutty pirate, but if you develop a relationship with her, she will occasionally drop the facade, allowing you to see past the front. Carver suffers badly from "little brother syndrome" and feels like he's just living in Hawke's shadow, he struggles every step of the way to find his own place in life. Bethany feels strong ties to her family and heritage and deeply wants to reclaim her birthright while keeping her family together. I literally cannot summarize Varric without taking two whole paragraphs. Its good, trust me.


Like I said though, after my first play thru, I felt that the game was extremely mediocre and was honestly dissapointed. But then my roommate suggested that I play the game on Nightmare difficulty. It seemed like an odd remedy at first, but I tried it just to humor him. Holy crap was he right.

Nightmare turns DA2's combat from a dull diversion into a crazy high octane strategy game. All of a sudden positioning, kiting, and map lay out are extremely important. Now, if you leave your teammates on tactics they'll just kill half your team with friendly fire or waste a critical ability at a stupid time,so you gotta turn those off and pause to give orders A LOT. Now, the fact that attacks hit based on the animation is SUPER important and adds tons of strategic value to any move that affects the position of either you or the enemy (whether that be via knock back,leap, slow, stun..etc). Cross class combos are now VITAL and you have to really think at each level up and each time you choose your party.


TL;DR If you didn't like DA2, try it on nightmare. I'm seriously you guys.

Edit: I'm not trying to imply the game is perfect, it's not. I'm just saying I don't understand why people hate it SO MUCH. I just don't understand how it is "an abortion stuffed in a box", so I assembled a list of things I liked about the game to try and support my stance of "pretty good".
 

Mordekaien

New member
Sep 3, 2010
820
0
0
Well, it's a shame that higher difficulty won't fix those copy/pasted rooms all over that game, eh?

I don't think the game was an abomination, but it definitely wasn't the game they were advertising it to be. (But yes, that combat and skill overhaul was great. Combats were enjoyable for the most part).
 

TheBelgianGuy

New member
Aug 29, 2010
365
0
0
I finished Dragon age Origins about 6 times.
I never touched DA2 again after finishing it the first time... Not a bad game at all, but compared to DAO? Pretty mediocre.

I did hate most of the new visuals.
I like Western style RPG's. Crazy hair Flemeth? Swords bigger than the persons holding them? I'm sorry, but what is this, Japan?
I did like the Qunari and the new elves, though.

Repetitive and bland enemies, bandits and mercs mostly (same problem as in ME2, where you're basically fighting three mercenary groups all the time). Story and storytelling took a step down for me as well. Repetitive dungeons, etc etc.
Complete lack of meaningful choices, especially towards the end.

All things that won't improve by changing the difficulty, I'm afraid.
 

Sp3ratus

New member
Apr 11, 2009
756
0
0
Cpt. Lozan said:
Like I said though, after my first play thru, I felt that the game was extremely mediocre and was honestly dissapointed. But then my roommate suggested that I play the game on Nightmare difficulty. It seemed like an odd remedy at first, but I tried it just to humor him. Holy crap was he right.

Nightmare turns DA2's combat from a dull diversion into a crazy high octane strategy game. All of a sudden positioning, kiting, and map lay out are extremely important. Now, if you leave your teammates on tactics they'll just kill half your team with friendly fire or waste a critical ability at a stupid time,so you gotta turn those off and pause to give orders A LOT. Now, the fact that attacks hit based on the animation is SUPER important and adds tons of strategic value to any move that affects the position of either you or the enemy (whether that be via knock back,leap, slow, stun..etc). Cross class combos are now VITAL and you have to really think at each level up and each time you choose your party.


TL;DR If you didn't like DA2, try it on nightmare. I'm seriously you guys.
I like you. I've been saying the same thing on these boards for some time now, but most of the replies I've gotten are that people didn't try it on nightmare, because they never wanted to touch it again. Some of the people who actually did try it on nightmare have told me that it still feels too much like a hack-and-slash, something I quite frankly can't understand, but to each their own. Other people have complained about the waves system, which is a fair point I guess, even if I personally think it adds an extra layer to the combat, since that requires you to think about positions and repositioning during the fights.

I get a lot of the complaints about DA2, I really do, because a lot of them are quite valid. I like the combat more of DA2 though, when playing on nightmare, because it's more challenging and requires more thinking through a fight, than DA:O did on nightmare. Beacon/Gifre, Xebenbeck and Hybris fights were tough as nails.
 

The_Lost_King

New member
Oct 7, 2011
1,506
0
0
I really doubt a higher difficulty will fix the story, you know, the MAIN REASON YOU PLAY BIOWARE GAMES!!!!! The party member, the other(or just the) main reason people play bioware games, are also bland, Anders, Fenris, and Carver are whiny, everyone else is decent. No one charmed me though, in DA:O Alistair was my bro, Liliana was a hot awesome chick, and Wynne is the coolest grandmother ever! Wasn't a fan of Morrigan, Zevran was pretty cool, Dog was funny, Sten was boring, and I didn't really get to know Ohgren because I always did Orzamar last, and shale was funny as well.

DA:O is just leagues better than DA2. The plot was generic in DA:O but how they fleshed it out is cool, and it actually flowed together, unlike DA2 where it is get money, now defeat the qunari oh done with that, stupid ending time. DA2 also portrayed the mage versus templars horribly. They make every single mage go blood mage, that just wouldn't happen, some would turn into blood mages, sure, but not all of them. The combat was probably the only aspect worse than in DA2. The aesthetic was more realistic, which I preferred.
 

Cpt. Lozan

New member
Feb 28, 2013
59
0
0
TheBelgianGuy said:
I finished Dragon age Origins about 6 times.
I never touched DA2 again after finishing it the first time... Not a bad game at all, but compared to DAO? Pretty mediocre.

I did hate most of the new visuals.
I like Western style RPG's. Crazy hair Flemeth? Swords bigger than the persons holding them? I'm sorry, but what is this, Japan?
I did like the Qunari and the new elves, though.

Repetitive and bland enemies, bandits and mercs mostly (same problem as in ME2, where you're basically fighting three mercenary groups all the time). Story and storytelling took a step down for me as well. Repetitive dungeons, etc etc.
Complete lack of meaningful choices, especially towards the end.

All things that won't improve by changing the difficulty, I'm afraid.
I personally really liked the story. It's a great story of the relationship between Templars and Mages and how they both live in constant fear of the other and that both groups might just be too powerful. It kinda reminds me of a civil rights movement of sorts. The mages getting oppressed just because they were born mages, and the templars just grip down harder and harder on them out of fear and tensions mount until a full on riot breaks out with the common citizens caught in the crossfire. I found it alot fresher than DA:O's main plot which felt kinda like Lord of the Rings minus the parts with the hobbits in them. Elves, Humans, and Dwarfs band together to save themselves from the Darkspawn threat(Orcs and what not) lead by the Archdemon (Sauron). It was still a good story with lots of flavor that felt distinctly Dragon Age-y, but the overarching these was kinda similar.
 

The_Lost_King

New member
Oct 7, 2011
1,506
0
0
Cpt. Lozan said:
TheBelgianGuy said:
I finished Dragon age Origins about 6 times.
I never touched DA2 again after finishing it the first time... Not a bad game at all, but compared to DAO? Pretty mediocre.

I did hate most of the new visuals.
I like Western style RPG's. Crazy hair Flemeth? Swords bigger than the persons holding them? I'm sorry, but what is this, Japan?
I did like the Qunari and the new elves, though.

Repetitive and bland enemies, bandits and mercs mostly (same problem as in ME2, where you're basically fighting three mercenary groups all the time). Story and storytelling took a step down for me as well. Repetitive dungeons, etc etc.
Complete lack of meaningful choices, especially towards the end.

All things that won't improve by changing the difficulty, I'm afraid.
I personally really liked the story. It's a great story of the relationship between Templars and Mages and how they both live in constant fear of the other and that both groups might just be too powerful. It kinda reminds me of a civil rights movement of sorts. The mages getting oppressed just because they were born mages, and the templars just grip down harder and harder on them out of fear and tensions mount until a full on riot breaks out with the common citizens caught in the crossfire. I found it alot fresher than DA:O's main plot which felt kinda like Lord of the Rings minus the parts with the hobbits in them. Elves, Humans, and Dwarfs band together to save themselves from the Darkspawn threat(Orcs and what not) lead by the Archdemon (Sauron). It was still a good story with lots of flavor that felt distinctly Dragon Age-y, but the overarching these was kinda similar.
I feel it isn't the plot that makes the game, but the story(I think plot as structure and story is everything else). And yes, the idea of DA2 was good, but the execution wasn't. I don't think every mage would go blood. Sure some would out of desperation, but some would realize how powerful a mage can be without blood magic(like Jedi with Jedi vs. Sith).
 

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
To me the terms "Crazy high octane" and "Strategy game" are mutually exclusive. I like the first in a real time games, I like the second in pausable or turn-based games. And thats basically my main gripe with the DA2 gameplay it could never figure out what it wanted to be.

In a strategy game I like to make high level decisons, not be bogged down in micromanagement. In a pausable game, the longer the simulation can run without the necessity to pause, the better my experience is. In DA2 I had to pause constantly creating a very choppy experience.

Strategy for me is about making interesting decisions. Moving Varric out of the way of an attack because he is too dumb to do it by himself is not an interesting decision - it's busywork. DA2 had a lot of situations where I felt I was babysitting a dumb AI.

These issues were present in DA:O as well, but DA2 made them worse by speeding up the pace slightly and by expecting the player to manually dodge attacks. The AI also seemed to struggle with the way terrain was created in DA2 often gettting stuck on corners or in narrow corridors.

It seemed very obvious that the designers had no clue about what makes interesting strategic or tactical gameplay. There was a BioWare dev that claimed that people expect a tactical game to be very complex and that was why people couldn't accept DA2. I don't think that was the case at all, one of the most excellent recent tactical games was Frozen Synapse and that game is much simpler than DA2. XCOM:EU also has far better tactical battles with a simpler system.

I think the tactical depth in DA2 is comparable to the original Bards Tale series from the 1980s. Distance matters and the timing of spells matter, but thats it. RPG designers were able to create better tactical experiences even before 1990, for instance in the form of the gold box series of AD&D games.
 

Cpt. Lozan

New member
Feb 28, 2013
59
0
0
The_Lost_King said:
I feel it isn't the plot that makes the game, but the story(I think plot as structure and story is everything else). And yes, the idea of DA2 was good, but the execution wasn't. I don't think every mage would go blood. Sure some would out of desperation, but some would realize how powerful a mage can be without blood magic(like Jedi with Jedi vs. Sith).
I'm pretty sure that not ALL of the mages turned to blood magic, a majority of the mages you fought were blood mages, but thats because they were typically the only ones you had a reason to fight. Plus, I'm sure that if the Jedi temple was being overrun but then Yoda used force lighting to fight the foes off then he turns and yells "If to survive, we are, the dark side of the force, we must use", like what Orisino did, that a lot of Jedi order would turn into an army of Zeus's
 

Cpt. Lozan

New member
Feb 28, 2013
59
0
0
Bostur said:
To me the terms "Crazy high octane" and "Strategy game" are mutually exclusive. I like the first in a real time games, I like the second in pausable or turn-based games. And thats basically my main gripe with the DA2 gameplay it could never figure out what it wanted to be.

In a strategy game I like to make high level decisons, not be bogged down in micromanagement. In a pausable game, the longer the simulation can run without the necessity to pause, the better my experience is. In DA2 I had to pause constantly creating a very choppy experience.

Strategy for me is about making interesting decisions. Moving Varric out of the way of an attack because he is too dumb to do it by himself is not an interesting decision - it's busywork. DA2 had a lot of situations where I felt I was babysitting a dumb AI.

These issues were present in DA:O as well, but DA2 made them worse by speeding up the pace slightly and by expecting the player to manually dodge attacks. The AI also seemed to struggle with the way terrain was created in DA2 often gettting stuck on corners or in narrow corridors.

It seemed very obvious that the designers had no clue about what makes interesting strategic or tactical gameplay. There was a BioWare dev that claimed that people expect a tactical game to be very complex and that was why people couldn't accept DA2. I don't think that was the case at all, one of the most excellent recent tactical games was Frozen Synapse and that game is much simpler than DA2. XCOM:EU also has far better tactical battles with a simpler system.

I think the tactical depth in DA2 is comparable to the original Bards Tale series from the 1980s. Distance matters and the timing of spells matter, but thats it. RPG designers were able to create better tactical experiences even before 1990, for instance in the form of the gold box series of AD&D games.
Just give it a try. You'll see.
 

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
Cpt. Lozan said:
Just give it a try. You'll see.
Give what a try?

Yes I tried nightmare, the higher the difficulty level the worse those issues get.
 

The_Lost_King

New member
Oct 7, 2011
1,506
0
0
Cpt. Lozan said:
The_Lost_King said:
I feel it isn't the plot that makes the game, but the story(I think plot as structure and story is everything else). And yes, the idea of DA2 was good, but the execution wasn't. I don't think every mage would go blood. Sure some would out of desperation, but some would realize how powerful a mage can be without blood magic(like Jedi with Jedi vs. Sith).
I'm pretty sure that not ALL of the mages turned to blood magic, a majority of the mages you fought were blood mages, but thats because they were typically the only ones you had a reason to fight. Plus, I'm sure that if the Jedi temple was being overrun but then Yoda used force lighting to fight the foes off then he turns and yells "If to survive, we are, the dark side of the force, we must use", like what Orisino did, that a lot of Jedi order would turn into an army of Zeus's
Almost every mage did. I mean they had to have a reason for why someone would pick the asshole templars and rather than giving them non-racist reasons they just made mages assholes too. Myy problem is a lot of them started go all out with the blood magic like mind controll, raising the dead and all that rather than a some somewhat dark side techniques. If they used the blood magic in moderation like grey knights or what yoda did.
 

UrinalDook

New member
Jan 7, 2013
198
0
0
The_Lost_King said:
Almost every mage did.
Almost every mage in Kirkwall did. It's a very important plot point that events are going to spiral out of control across Thedas because of one event that happened in a place that is almost literally actively conspiring to sew chaos. Yes, the story maybe should have made 'The Enigma of Kirkwall' a little more integral to the plot, rather than leaving explanatory backstory to completionists and achievement hunters. But all the issues about the mages proving the Templars have a point stem from them not really being in control of their own actions, and a lot of people criticise as an awkward plot contrivance what is actually fleshed out within the game world. Namely, centuries of suffering and even the design of the city itself have weakened the veil between reality and The Fade to the point that anyone with a drop of magic in them is a magnet for demons and evil.

On topic, as with all these things, you're never alone. I really enjoyed Dragon Age 2; but then, I never really got into the first game. The story was a turgid mess full of more busy work than the Star Maps in KotOR, and there were very, very few areas of the map I actually enjoyed being in. Not to mention the horrible pacing of most of the major segments. I get that DA:O is loved by so many for the tactical nature of its combat, and I get that you need to provide a lot of opportunity for the player to enjoy that, and actually play the game rather than being fed the story in dialogue. But everything was just such a slog. From the staggering length of Orzammar and the awful, awful Deep Roads to the overdrawn mega-quest to cure the Arl of Redwall, I just never found the combat compelling enough to justify the hoops I was meant to jump through. Particularly given that coming up against mage bosses after hours of health kit exhausting grinding was controller breaking for a sword and shield class.

Dragon Age 2 cut out a lot of the issues I had with the first game, and overall I think I prefer the characters. Certainly Snarky LadyHawke, Varric, Isabela and... well, okay Anders, but the first three make for a friggin' hilarious party. And every comedy act needs its buttmonkey, so I suppose Anders served a purpose beyond being 'team medic'. Mark of the Assassin was an absolute Tour de Force, and one of the few DLCs I have no regrets whatsoever about getting. The story was personal and small in scale, which is how I like them. I know DA:O had more to it than 'save the world from evil, personality-free monsters' but you have to look pretty deeply, and I just don't care for stories where the stakes are so... statistical. The framing device of Varric relating the tale was a very nice touch, and provided more than a few great moments. And if I haven't mentioned it yet, Snarky LadyHawke is one of my favourite game protagonists ever.

BUT, and this is a big, capitalised but, it is incredibly short sighted not to recognise that DA2 had many, many faults. In general, I feel like the combat underwent a big improvement but I can't help but feel that, even on Nightmare, it amounted to at least 75% hammering the A button. The gross recycling of maps is inexcusable, and a glaring sign that the game was badly rushed; and for all the development the characters go through, the city of Kirkwall - arguably just as important as any one character - shows very little visual signs of change over the ten year period. The Act structure is a nice convention, but ultimately feels a little too segregating. Plots do carry through, yes, but I feel in the end that DA2 is three short stories rather than a long, continuous one using a three act structure.

Most damning of all, though, are those fetch quests. The one where you find worthless junk distinguished only by a symbol - rather than a unique picture, or Skyrim's 3D models - and simply click A on highlighted person to receive XP. It's... just awful, and watching its taint spread to ME3 was most disheartening.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I made it past the beginning (end?) action part and saw that combat was very changed. I watched the first cut scene and said, "Okay." Then I got to the character select screen, ejected the game and returned it to Blockbuster.
Had I bought it I would have returned it to the store just the same, accepting whatever I could get.
I can't say I hate DA2 because I played 15 minutes of it at most.
I can certainly say that I hate that Bioware tried to sell me on a sequel to Dragon Age that wasn't really a sequel to Dragon Age. I picked up DA2 because I wanted more Dragon Age, and this was not it.
 

cswurt

New member
Oct 26, 2011
176
0
0
I hate the forced cameo appearances in BioWare games.

It's like every second person you meet in Fereldan in Dragon Age Origins is also inexplicably in the Free Marches in DA2.

And the cameos aren't even good, even for main characters. "Hey, it's me from the first game. Hahah, remember? Okie dokie, I'm peacing out now. BYE!"
 

thetoddo

New member
May 18, 2010
214
0
0
I liked the more epic art style for Flemeth and some of the other characters, I attributed it to the fact that the central premise of the game was that the story was being told by an unreliable narrator who was making things sound more epic than they were, especially the stuff he wasn't actually present for.
 

darth.pixie

New member
Jan 20, 2011
1,449
0
0
Does trying the game on nightmare make the bad characters, bad plot, bad timing of events, bad dialogue and awful combat go away?

It was a chore on normal, playing it on nightmare won't change that.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
I like both DA:O and DA2. Both had really good qualities, and some questionable qualities. Both games could learn from each other. It is sad that because so many didn't like DA2, they didn't get to play the actually quite excellent DLCs made for that game. With enough development time, and learning from both preceding titles, I think DA3 could turn out the be the best of the lot. Presuming EA hasn't completely gutted Bioware by now...
 

Comocat

New member
May 24, 2012
382
0
0
I just thought the story was stupid. The entire plot line seemed to be you rushing to stop a conflict, except the conflict just slightly escalated right before you got there. So you were essentially either killing all the templars or all the (blood) mages. The whole point behind stereotypes is they are untrue- except in DA2 every rogue mage was actually a blood mage, so it made it incredibly hard to be sympathetic to their oppression.
 

JayElleBee

New member
Jul 9, 2010
213
0
0
Overall, I vastly preferred DA2. When I first played DA:O, I really enjoyed it, yes. I played it through a few times. But then I hit a wall and just couldn't bare to touch it any more.

Because it's boring.

I didn't find this problem with DA2. I play it again every couple of months or so. I enjoy every sequence, I love the party members and the other characters and the story is engaging enough to keep me interested even when I know what's going to happen. I'm not saying it's a better game mechanically than DA:O and yes, there are glaring issues with it, but at least it's not boring and stuffy.