Dragon Age : Origins and Dragon Age II

[Frozengale]

So I just finished Dragon Age : Origins a few weeks ago which is quite an amazing feat. I have tried playing it for several years (borrowing a family owned copy of the game) but so many little things just bug me about the game that I would eventually just give up. I finally bought my own version of it (Ultimate Edition) once there was a Steam sale on it. So I finally sat down, modded away many of the annoyances and beat the game plus it's expansion.

After doing that I decided to get me a copy of Dragon Age II. After a little over a week I have completed the game and clocked quite a few hours into it. I remember seeing the Metacritic score of it at some point in time and realized it was quite low compared to the original by both Game Journalists. And it's user rating is 4.2.

So why all the hate? Are there people here who can explain to me why so many had such a horrible time with Dragon Age II? I personally thought the combat system was much more polished, balanced, and fun to play with. The characters had more depth then Origins and added quite a bit of depth to some of the characters from Origins. The story was more compelling then the generic "End of the World" scenario. And my word it even throws almost every single Bioware cliche out the window. Also, and most important, you can hide the stupid hats. Those awful and vile hats that shame the world can be hidden. And actually quite a few of the hats look quite good.

So what was it that peeved you off about Dragon Age II. If you hated it when you played it do you still feel it deserves the hate, have you reconsidered? Are you like me and actually think the second is 10x better then the first?

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Copy-pasted environments to an almost insulting degree. A voiced main character when they REALLY shouldn't have been voiced in the first place. And tell me how in any way there's depth to Tattooed Elf Angst Machine. The only enjoyable characters were Varric and (somewhat) Aveline.

Combat is improved, but it turns into "Lets spawn massive swarms of enemies and have them bum-rush the player" AND THEY'RE NOT SUBTLE ABOUT IT EITHER.

 

[mad825]

Design
-underwhelming art design; no "clutter" to fill the empty environments
-Features/story narrative not living up to the hype (Choices rendered moot, choices made in-game have no impact)
-Restricted party interaction (i.e locked-in party dialogue events and armour load-out)

Story
-Very little relevance to DA's overarching story
-badly written/stereotypical characters (Archmage/Templar commander bent on domination and destruction, both ending-up using Magical WMDs)
-character from previous title revamped (Anders, fucking anders. Needless sexualised anime style Flemeth)
-Cheap,flawed and hypocritical morality messages.

There's more...I don't want to beat the dead horse.

Also, and most important, you can hide the stupid hats.

After people made that one of the most requested features and went as far to there being a mod for DA.

 

[Frozengale]

-Very little relevance to DA's overarching story
-Features/story narrative not living up to the hype
-stereotypical characters
-character from previous title revamped (Anders, fucking anders.)
-Needless sexualised (anime style) Flemeth
-underwhelming art design
-Choices rendered moot; previously dead characters in DA are alive in DA2 i.e Leliana.

There's more...I don't want to beat the dead horse.

Also, and most important, you can hide the stupid hats.

After people made that one of the most requested features and went as far to there being a mod for DA.

1st Point - You do realize that this sets up this main focus for the third title. If anything Origins is the odd duck out in terms of plot.

2nd Point - Wait people still believe in hype and get disappointed by it? How can someone who visits the escapist believe in hype. That's like the big thing Yahtzee talks about and what seems to be frowned upon in these forums. Not living up to what you believe is a fault of you not of the game.

3rd Point - Fenris is really the only stereotypical character if you ask me. He just tends to be a whiny anime trope. But otherwise we have a beardless dwarf enamored with stories, and has a thing for crossbows. A happy go lucky scatterbrain with a penchant for dark arts. A wise cracking mage with a tendency towards helping others who goes completely bananas by the end of it all. A stoic and strong women (that in and of itself rarely happens in any medium). And Isabela....

Not exactly a stereotype party. In fact most of them go against the grain character wise. Which really can't be said for Origins. You got a wise cracking templar who just cracks wise all the time. A dark and brooding mage with a penchant for the dark arts. An overly sweet church girl. A strong a stoic man who prizes strength above all else. A coy rogue. And a drunk dwarf. I'm sure Wynne is also a stereotype but I wouldn't know because I found her so annoying in 10 seconds that I killed her.

4th Point - I wouldn't say he's revamped so much as he's had character development. I mean seriously what traits did he have in Awakening? Cracking wise was his one and only character trait. He may not have been my favorite character in Dragon Age II. But in Awakening he didn't really have a character.

5th Point - I thought it was cool.

6th Point - Because Origins was such a wellspring of good art design. Neither one of them holds much in that department. But at least in Dragon Age II there is more variation besides the color palette of dark grim and boring colors.

7th Point - The choice isn't rendered moot. You kill her. It doesn't take. This isn't anything new in stories. I bet the fact that you try to kill her changes things when she actually shows up again for more then 5 seconds. But saying "MY CHOICES DON'T MATTER" when the whole story hasn't come to a close is just silly. I'd rather they expand on characters from Origins and make them important in other installments then just say, "Well... we did make it so this character can die so we may as well not have them show up ever again in the story."

Copy-pasted environments to an almost insulting degree. A voiced main character when they REALLY shouldn't have been voiced in the first place. And tell me how in any way there's depth to Tattooed Elf Angst Machine. The only enjoyable characters were Varric and (somewhat) Aveline.

Combat is improved, but it turns into "Lets spawn massive swarms of enemies and have them bum-rush the player" AND THEY'RE NOT SUBTLE ABOUT IT EITHER.

I'll give you the environments. I'll give you Fenris. I won't give you that only Varric and Aveline are enjoyable cause that's opinion (personally I find Merrill to be the most interesting of the group). And I'll kind of give you the last one. It's annoying but it keeps you on your toes and makes the battles less predictable. I just wish they were smarter with it. Only have it happen a max of two times, and only in a handful of battles instead of almost every single battle. It's not a bad idea, it was just poor implementation.

 

[Frozengale]

I've noticed the most common way to defend DA2 and its design decisions is to just criticise DA:O.

How else would one defend it?

I mean in comparison to most games DA2 is incredibly good. But for some reason people hold a torch for DA:O and I just found out that people don't like the other one which is much better.

 

[Frozengale]

I've noticed the most common way to defend DA2 and its design decisions is to just criticise DA:O.

How else would one defend it?

By defending said choices on their own merits and how they may improve it as an RPG (snort)

Really it's almost as if the two games were designed for two completely different audiences...

Okay,

It has interesting characters.
Good combat mechanics that create a fast paced yet tactical combat environment.
It gives you a variety of interesting choices to make through out the game.
It's fun.

But people don't care about those things because it's not DA:O

Also as far as your "RPG (snort)" comment goes, what makes it not an RPG? And what even makes DA:O an RPG. Define what you mean by RPG first before you scoff at calling it that. The term RPG gets tossed around more then a ball on a playground. But it's so loosely defined that implying "This game is not an RPG" is a bit silly.

 

[Frozengale]

But people don't care about those things because it's not DA:O

Or you know, because of that list of reasons I provided (all of which are in opposition to your 4 positives)

Also as far as your "RPG (snort)" comment goes, what makes it not an RPG? And what even makes DA:O an RPG. Define what you mean by RPG first before you scoff at calling it that. The term RPG gets tossed around more then a ball on a playground. But it's so loosely defined that implying "This game is not an RPG" is a bit silly.

Oh I'm not denying its an RPG, (the RPG label has been butchered to such a degree that pretty much any game can be considered an RPG) my snort was more at the idea that it was a 'good' RPG and that any of its design choices actually enhanced the RPG experience.

I actually had to metagame to an extreme degree just to roleplay ONE coherent character.

And what pray tell is the RPG Experience? And how does it fail to enhance it? I still don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Ferisar]

I had the same issue. Whilst I didn't DISLIKE Origins, every time I sat down to play it my mind just started dozing off. The fun couldn't keep my attention for long enough to actually play the game adequately. I had finished it about a month ago meself, actually. I enjoyed the ride, but jesus christ it was a slow ride. What bothered me most was just how EVERY ENCOUNTER was tactical but completely un-interesting. The final battle (by the time you get to it) had NOTHING in the way of improving the "here's YET ANOTHER DRAGON" mechanics of engagement I had to see about three or four times previously. Wait, no, that's right, it breathed purple fire. Was the story good? Overlooking the standard high-fantasy "save the world" and putting several billions of gallons of blood on it, and yeah, it was entertaining. The characters were all hilariously stereotypical, but they held interest. Still, I enjoyed talking more than I enjoyed venturing.

Before I finished the first game, I had beat the second about... Two times? I think, and another time recently. It only took me about a week on each of those. I understand a lot of the criticism people throw its way; I totally agree on its "liberal" over-use of the same environments, being more confined to a city that's a bit... eh, the scaling down of textures on objects and humanoid models that "weren't important" and etc. But when it came to actually playing the game? Waaaaay more entertaining, at least to me. Combat is two steps forward and one step back, the back one being the paratroopers in need of a paycheck. The story is opinion, but I preferred a centralized piece that focuses in on a character and his/her "destiny" and which path they'll take to arrive at the final destination (The voiced protagonist helped this, too). The characters were preferable to those of Origins (for me). I didn't hate anyone in Origins enough to just want to kill them. In 2 I -really- wanted Anders dead. I -really- wanted Sebastian dead. I like characters that piss me off and do their own crazy shit while I go "oh they're all probably sitting at their hubs, silly me".

There's more, but I think I'm just droning on. Also veered off the original point I think. People hate it because Origins left an impression, and despite Bioware wanting to expand on their own created universe in a different manner than another faceless protagonist, it wasn't Origins. Franchises always spawn expectations, it's just how they work. Also, notably, it was made in a very short time-frame, which sucks because the game could've been nothing short of amazing if it got more hours put into it, but we can't all be winners. Here's to hoping 3 is excellent.

Spoiler: Concerning Legacy DLC

I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE WHO THEY LET US FIGHT AT THE END OF IT. IMPLICATIONS. ALSO TIES IN -SO- HARD WITH THE ENIGMA OF KIRKWALL EHMEGERD ERHM A FANBOI

 

[endtherapture]

Been replaying Origins recently for the 3rd time. I couldn't' even be bothered to finish DA2.

Everything about the game from the UI to the visual effects to the models and weapons/armour and environments is about 10x uglier than Origins.

 

[Frozengale]

Everything about the game from the UI to the visual effects to the models and weapons/armour and environments is about 10x uglier than Origins.

UI I can see. And some of the visuals I suppose.... but you are aware that many of the models are straight ports from DA:O aren't you? I mean it wouldn't surprise me if the only thing they changed on half of the models were the coding for the shaders. The whole game is just built up from an upgraded version of the same engine that DA:O was built on so it wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[Fell]

I've noticed the most common way to defend DA2 and its design decisions is to just criticise DA:O.

How else would one defend it?

By defending said choices on their own merits and how they may improve it as an RPG (snort)

Really it's almost as if the two games were designed for two completely different audiences...

But that is because it was. They werent even subtle about it.

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/919569/bioware_we_want_call_of_dutys_audience.html

 

[Smiley Face]

The basic reason that a lot of people did not enjoy Dragon Age II was because they expected it to be another Dragon Age game, and in some important ways, it isn't really (But, imo, in other, more important ways, it is). Yes, it's in the same universe and has a storyline and characters that continue on from DA:O and fit right in, arguments about quality notwithstanding (to each their own, I personally liked most of them).

However, in terms of the game environment, the gameplay, and the structure of the story, it's a very different creature, and it suffers for it. Rather than DA:O's pick-and-choose progression of storyline, it has a rigid 3-act structure, which falls flat in many ways because it climaxes in Act 2, then tries to build itself all the way up and climax again by the end of Act 3 - in order for that structure to work properly, the Act 3 climax has to eclipse the one in Act 2 by a substantial margin, which for many it does not - and for a fair few, it doesn't even manage to eclipse the close of Act 2 at all.

Then in terms of gameplay and game environment, there are so many differences from DA:O that it throws people off who saw the II slapped on Dragon Age and expected a game that would play like Dragon Age. You explore every major area before you're halfway through the first act, rather than by the end of the game, and every non-major area is recycled again and again - so exploration and discovery are no longer part of the game. The combat is different, but not by much - largely that comes from differences in leveling options, with the introduction of trees restricting ability choice and putting an emphasis on passive abilities. Then there's the dialogue, which moved away from the more versatile silent protagonist to the Mass Effect-style choose-a-protagonist - which may have its advantages, but has its one major flaw in how it limits your ability and opportunities to talk with your companions - its characters are one of the best things Dragon Age has going for it, and limiting it like that is problematic for some.

That's why a lot of people have problems with it. But then there's other people who can look past that and enjoy the hell out of the characters and the world and look past the flaws which can often come from trying new things with established franchise. I enjoyed it, maybe not as much as DA:O, but then I usually like the first game in a series more, with all the world-building it has to do.

One thing's for sure, I'm looking forward to DA3 with considerable interest.

 

[eberhart]

Everything about the game from the UI to the visual effects to the models and weapons/armour and environments is about 10x uglier than Origins.

UI I can see. And some of the visuals I suppose.... but you are aware that many of the models are straight ports from DA:O aren't you? I mean it wouldn't surprise me if the only thing they changed on half of the models were the coding for the shaders. The whole game is just built up from an upgraded version of the same engine that DA:O was built on so it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Well, it wouldn't surprise me either. That's why, judging from resources used, development time and overall amount of meaningful content, it looks like an expansion. Sold as a full game. Yeah, yeah, I know, story and mechanic is different, so it is a different game...

Then assets were recycled to inflate the size, MMO-ish quests added to act as a filler, embarrassing random quest mechanic looked like that "overheard quests" in ... ME3, and game itself was constructed from several chapters strung together. I am not arguing against the choice to string them itself, but in the "tale" about gaining power you pretty much gain a house. And, I guess, ability to talk to important characters so they can ignore you anyway. The only piece I remember with fondness is Varrick turning into Chuck Norris. SO many places I cringe to remember in comparison...

I appreciated Varric, Avelline (to some very limited extent), the rest of your party was just painful to interact with. At least companion-companion interactions were done better instead. Family had its decent moments, but at some point I was glad I did not have any more siblings or uncles so even more murders or tragic accidents could be introduced. Finished the game and then found a video with Hepler talking about female companions, watched, got slightly depressed, then said to myself: eh, well, now at least I know where all those over-the-top contrasts were coming from. Quality writers after all.

Combat... right, roof-bullshit-ninjas aside, increasing difficulty results in amazing feature - inflating health pools of mobs so much, bosses in particular, that the fight itself takes eternity, while still being meh in terms of a challenge. I ended up switching it to easy during second half of the game only to get that pointless display of Awesome to go away faster. Worked nicely for endless encounters of endless clones accompanied by endless stupidity of having entire city ignoring fireballs exploding on the streets. Party customization? I laughed my ass off when I read how they justified making it so limited by "character choice", when everybody with half a brain knows it was simply about cutting even more development time, costs and workforce. The end. But let's talk about "characters choice" instead, you know, as if the audience you are talking to is the one you are developing DA2 for. But hey, some might still buy it if we keep using those nice words.


Finally - "but this or that was as bad in DA:O" argument means little. DA:O was not Second Coming (of BG), game had flaws, some of them were similar to what DA2 offered, that's about it. But it was also a game that managed to get many things right, even if Bioware's attempt at "mature" was... underwhelming at best. I found it hard to appreciate their efforts at creating "grey" environments after first Witcher, it got more laughable with DA2. But maybe it's simply the best they could do, either by their own limits or thanks to the ever-present mixing in "something this, that and those two focus groups would love too".