Dragon Age - Unpopular oppinons

[Mister K]

I think I played this game for the first time when I was already tired of being all-powerful savior of the world and Ithink it has somethingto do with me liking this game a lot. Also add a fact that I never actually liked fantasy character tropes (you know, ***** witch with quite revealing clothing, drunk angry dwarf, feminine elf, etc.).

As I said somewhere before, I wont rant about why I like this game (In fact more than DA:O), if anyone wants to know why, quote me so that I could reply later. I'll just say that the only real problem with Dragon Age II was Electronic Arts.

 

[DementedSheep]

DA2 was ok. I'm not likely to replay it like I have DA:O.

In DA2 I didn't like the gameplay. I like how there was a lot cross class synchronization but it was wasted on the enemies they give you and "another wave" quickly became one of my most hated lines. I actually like the assassin enemies though because if you weren't careful and didn't catch them quick before they stealthed they could one hit everyone but Aveline (or Merrill if you make her a tank) but most of the time it just feels like a slog. I feel like there were less skills and builds but TBH if I compared DA:O and DA2 properly I don't know if it would be as big a gap as it seems. DA:O has many poorly balanced skills.
The plot was decent, I actually like having smaller goals but I feel like it could have been executed better. I don't need to play the savoir of the world all the time.
With the characters...I enjoyed playing over-protective and abrasive big sister Hawke. The VA dose make a difference and I don't think you really had much in terms of dialogue options beyond be nice, "funny" or a dick in DA:O either. It is very annoying to not know what my character is actually going to say though because you don't get the full line and the shortened version doesn't reflect what is actually said. For companions Varric and Aveline I like. Merril is thick as a brick but I still kinda like her. Isabella I don't really like but she has some decent lines. Fenris and Anders (WHY DID THEY MAKE HIM THE ONLY HEALER?!) can go crawl into a hole somewhere and die but to be fair I don't like Oghren, Sten (he has a lot of funny moments but I don't like his actual character) or Velanna and was on the fence about Morrigan and Leliana from DA:O as well. They just never got as annoying as those two. Other NPC's didn't stand out much to me.
Aesthetically the game was rather ugly and they did reuse assets an awful lot.

 

[zinho73]

It was a good game, with lots of potential, rushed to the point of being disrespectful to the consumer.

Almost like the new one (Inquisition), which was still rushed (technical problems abound and the unfinished combat and PC interface), but with an overall better presentation and impressive in its scope.

Origins is the only one that feels like a complete package (gameplay was slow in some areas but everything seemed to be in place). Both DA2 and DAI had the potential to be much better than Origins - and I know some people prefer the later games but I mean clearly better, undisputed better, but they dropped the ball fierce with their incomplete systems and assets.

It is quite OK to like those games. They are good, but, as I said in another thread, AAA games must be criticized on their level. An editing error in Zombie Strippers is to be expected, an editing error in a Scorcese movie, can taint the whole experience. When I play Dragon Age, I expect the best the gaming market has to offer: a half-assed console interface (which is bad even for consoles) brings the whole package down a lot. A tactical camera that does not work feels disrespectful because it is obvious that Bioware can make better stuff. They know it is bad, they are not dumb. But they also know they can get away with it (at least EA thinks so).

I think we must criticize hard those mistakes and lack of care. Who knows? Maybe we can make them leave the "Good enough" business model and go back to their old levels of excellence.

 

[A Distant Star]

I need to run off to work so I don't have time to craft a proper response, so I will just say...

I to really enjoyed DA2,

and leave it at that.

 

[votemarvel]

The combat mechanics in Dragon Age 2 are just fine. - There another one.

That's because they are nearly identical to those of Origins. This is why I never understood it when people praised the combat in DAII, button mashing on consoles aside, you could play it in near exactly the same way as the first game.

For me Dragon Age II wasn't a bad game, it just wasn't that great of a sequel. Had it been a separate franchise or a spin-off and not 'two' then I think it would have been a lot better received.

The big problem with DAII for me was the time jumps. They always gave me the feeling that too much important stuff was happening off screen.

 

[Las7]

The combat mechanics in Dragon Age 2 are just fine. - There another one.

That's because they are nearly identical to those of Origins. This is why I never understood it when people praised the combat in DAII, button mashing on consoles aside, you could play it in near exactly the same way as the first game.

For me Dragon Age II wasn't a bad game, it just wasn't that great of a sequel. Had it been a separate franchise or a spin-off and not 'two' then I think it would have been a lot better received.

The big problem with DAII for me was the time jumps. They always gave me the feeling that too much important stuff was happening off screen.

I don't understand how the combat can be the same if you have teleporting enemies and wave combat which nullified the tactics from the first game. On nightmare DA2 was a mess, because unlike DA:O there was no capability of planning for the second wave of enemies or teleporting and backstabbing rogues killing all your mages/ranged heroes.
To me this was DA2's worst offense, much worse than the reused assets, the awful third act, the nonsensical party members, the small overall size in comparison to DA:O, and the none imaginative enemy encounter/types.

DA2 is impossible to play without a full party for example while DA:O you could solo most of the game as Rogue simply by going trap path and luring enemies into choke points.

The absolute destruction of tactics and party customization is the worst offense of DA2, I can live with lazy environments if the enemy encounters weren't very much wipe out batch 1, teleport more enemies into fight, kill enemies and than spend 5 more minutes killing sponge boss.

 

[Sanunes]

I never felt Dragon Age 2 was a bad game, it was just a game that was average. Which to me is an impressive thing considering the short development cycle they used for the game. I think my biggest problem with Dragon Age 2 was how combat was done, the waves just grew tiresome after a while and made it seem combat just dragged on. Other then that I don't have much of a problem. Most of the time I say that Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 are similar in that both have elements I like and elements I don't like and that the elements I liked in Dragon Age: Origins was done in a way I didn't like in Dragon Age 2 and the elements I like in Dragon Age 2 are elements I didn't like in Dragon Age: Origins.

What I do find interesting is that people still complain about the story in Dragon Age 2, but that is the time that BioWare changed how the story works. Now you have people saying that the story of Dragon Age: Inquisition is back to the normal "BioWare tropes". Right now I think a lot of the "issues" that people have with Dragon Age: Inquisition is that BioWare is part of EA and they are looking for something to go ballistic on. I am not saying they shouldn't be criticized for their mistakes or missteps, but at the same time it feels that Ubisoft can get away with anything no matter how anti-consumer or horrible release and not get the same level of negativity from the players. Look at all the issues with Assassin's Creed 3 and Assassin's Creed Unity and you don't see people still making threads about how they are betrayed by Ubisoft or tells how "Ubisoft much change" unlike BioWare.

(Edit: Fixed a typo)

 

[TT Kairen]

I don't understand how the combat can be the same if you have teleporting enemies and wave combat which nullified the tactics from the first game. On nightmare DA2 was a mess, because unlike DA:O there was no capability of planning for the second wave of enemies or teleporting and backstabbing rogues killing all your mages/ranged heroes.
To me this was DA2's worst offense, much worse than the reused assets, the awful third act, the nonsensical party members, the small overall size in comparison to DA:O, and the none imaginative enemy encounter/types.

DA2 is impossible to play without a full party for example while DA:O you could solo most of the game as Rogue simply by going trap path and luring enemies into choke points.

The absolute destruction of tactics and party customization is the worst offense of DA2, I can live with lazy environments if the enemy encounters weren't very much wipe out batch 1, teleport more enemies into fight, kill enemies and than spend 5 more minutes killing sponge boss.

It wasn't about planning for the second wave, it was about reacting TO the second wave. It was so you actually had to think about which abilities you wanted to use now, and which ones you were going to save. You can't just make a plan to use all your biggest guns immediately and probably just win the fight right away like in Origins.

The teleport/backstab rogues were only a problem if you gave no regard to defensive talents or spells, which is fine in a game where you can see the entire fight before it happens and enemies cannot do anything in an unpredictable way, but it sort of renders those defenses utterly pointless in the first game.

But my biggest problem with Origins combat is the lack of transparency. Grab attacks (which were broken as hell, btw) could only be broken by specific moves like Shield Bash, and only then if the enemy failed a "physical resistance check". Okay, what is that check? How is it calculated? How can I make myself more likely to succeed? It never tells you. It also never tells you exactly how much a "penalty to defense" or somesuch IS, so you have no idea if it's even worth using.

I believe the lack of ability to solo is intended. BioWare's characters are the best parts of their games, so they likely want to show them off as much as possible. I've never tried a solo run anyway so it made little difference to me.

Lastly, I totally agree about damage sponge bosses. That isn't difficult, it's tedious and boring.

 

[Sanunes]

I don't think they're getting away with anything anti consumer.

Its not that they are getting away with anything, its that they don't see to have the same level of distaste from the community, for I didn't see people using Assassins's Creed 3 or Watch Dogs as a reason to not buy Assassin's Creed Unity. It seems people will look for any negative report about the game and then constantly use it as an example of why people shouldn't buy the game such as with Dragon Age Inquisition they shouldn't buy the game because of how they secured the executable and believe a Russian blog about how it will destroy a SSD.

I guess for me I just see more people looking for the negatives about a BioWare game versus other developers.

 

[Las7]

It wasn't about planning for the second wave, it was about reacting TO the second wave. It was so you actually had to think about which abilities you wanted to use now, and which ones you were going to save. You can't just make a plan to use all your biggest guns immediately and probably just win the fight right away like in Origins.

The teleport/backstab rogues were only a problem if you gave no regard to defensive talents or spells, which is fine in a game where you can see the entire fight before it happens and enemies cannot do anything in an unpredictable way, but it sort of renders those defenses utterly pointless in the first game.

But my biggest problem with Origins combat is the lack of transparency. Grab attacks (which were broken as hell, btw) could only be broken by specific moves like Shield Bash, and only then if the enemy failed a "physical resistance check". Okay, what is that check? How is it calculated? How can I make myself more likely to succeed? It never tells you. It also never tells you exactly how much a "penalty to defense" or somesuch IS, so you have no idea if it's even worth using.

I believe the lack of ability to solo is intended. BioWare's characters are the best parts of their games, so they likely want to show them off as much as possible. I've never tried a solo run anyway so it made little difference to me.

Lastly, I totally agree about damage sponge bosses. That isn't difficult, it's tedious and boring.

You took away things from DA2 which I did not. I found the whole thing a mess. I would have taunt spells on my tank that would be used upon CD, but in DA2 these spells were moot because the whole fight was simply a attrition fight. Focus on pesky rogues, micromanage range and mage away from wave enemies spawning behind them. It was not fun - it's ok to have attrition based combat with little tactics against bosses but literally every encounter was absolutely appalling and there was only one way to play D2.

I brought up the Solo Rogue in DA:O precisely because the encounter design allowed DA:O to have replay value with further challenges and options. I've played DA:O I believe 3 times and my party makeup could be very different depending on how I wanted to play the game. Sure you could say being able to plan for clashes took away from certain peoples enjoyment for the game to me it was what made the game interesting. My last play through as solo rogue took the most time precisely because I had to plan through and lay traps before every clash and this is what made it interesting.

DA2 focused on nonsensical story while dumbing down tactics due to poor design, less customization and enemy design which waves of enemies with one bullet sponge boss spawned in nearly every encounter.

I never thought the characters in DA:O was the best thing about that game, and rarely play any story driven games to begin with.

 

[SecondPrize]

The main failing of DA2 was its name. I don't care if Bioware got rushed by EA and didn't have the time to finish the game, they still shipped it with that name on it.
I spent 60 bucks on that game because of the words Dragon and Age, put it into my xbox and after playing the intro and seeing the combat and then going through character creation to make sure I wasn't stupid and couldn't find the other race options, I was out the door and on my way back to sell that shit for a 40 dollar loss.
Any other name on it and I probably would have picked it up and even enjoyed it later but they chose to go for sales based on the name and good will people held for the first game and on the basis of that choice I haven't touched another of their products since.

 

[votemarvel]

The combat mechanics in Dragon Age 2 are just fine. - There another one.

That's because they are nearly identical to those of Origins. This is why I never understood it when people praised the combat in DAII, button mashing on consoles aside, you could play it in near exactly the same way as the first game.

For me Dragon Age II wasn't a bad game, it just wasn't that great of a sequel. Had it been a separate franchise or a spin-off and not 'two' then I think it would have been a lot better received.

The big problem with DAII for me was the time jumps. They always gave me the feeling that too much important stuff was happening off screen.

I don't understand how the combat can be the same if you have teleporting enemies and wave combat which nullified the tactics from the first game. On nightmare DA2 was a mess, because unlike DA:O there was no capability of planning for the second wave of enemies or teleporting and backstabbing rogues killing all your mages/ranged heroes.
To me this was DA2's worst offense, much worse than the reused assets, the awful third act, the nonsensical party members, the small overall size in comparison to DA:O, and the none imaginative enemy encounter/types.

DA2 is impossible to play without a full party for example while DA:O you could solo most of the game as Rogue simply by going trap path and luring enemies into choke points.

The absolute destruction of tactics and party customization is the worst offense of DA2, I can live with lazy environments if the enemy encounters weren't very much wipe out batch 1, teleport more enemies into fight, kill enemies and than spend 5 more minutes killing sponge boss.

I first played Dragon Age II on the PC and so the similarity to the first game was obvious from the off.

That we knew that another wave was going to be teleported in meant we could plan for it. You couldn't just let all your melee fighters run off, you'd need at least one there to protect your mages/archers or at the very least spec them in a manner that they could protect themselves from people attacking them directly. The tactics required were different but they were there.

It got me at first as well. I tried to fight using my preferred tactics from Origins, I couldn't do that. New tactics were needed for DAII.

Party customisation I agree with you 100%. I loathed not being able to equip my party how I wanted them to look. It's been said about others games but it's the players who decide if a look is 'iconic', not the developers.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Party customisation I agree with you 100%. I loathed not being able to equip my party how I wanted them to look. It's been said about others games but it's the players who decide if a look is 'iconic', not the developers.

At first it annoyed me, but as the years have rolled on I've mostly come to agree with BioWare's choice with DAII. Could they have done it better? Sure, they needed variations at least - otherwise those guys and gals have been wearing the same gear for the best part of a decade...

However, I'd prefer such limitations to DA:O's banal and bland palette swap gear (with a handful of uniques thrown in for each class type), which seemed to just siphon off identity and individuality. When I think of Leliana in Origins I don't associate her with any particular look - just a mishmash of bland rogue-y designs which only ever seemed to change colour as the armour tiers increased.

With DAII? Whilst its ensemble ideally needed ME2/ME3 style 'alt' outfits (maybe five or six unique looks or sets of apparel/armour?), I at least have aesthetics which seem tethered to their character traits and personalities. The Warden dictating the dress sense of their followers actually seems a bit weird... 'Er, Morrigan? Could you slip into this impossibly drab set of Circle robes? That extra Willpower will make all the difference in our next battle!'.

And it is the developers who decide the traits and foibles of the characters they create. And I think it makes perfect sense for them to determine their overall aesthetics, too.

 

[Kerethos]

Funny thing to add to this:

I played through the opening section of Inquisition and, as I said, realized I was no longer as familiar with the world as I was when I last played a Dragon Age game. So I played the Dragon Age 2 DLC, and realized I quite liked that game - despite it's flaws. And really, the DLC's show how good the game could have been if it had been given more time.

So I could not resist the call of Dragon Age any longer, it has sunk it's claws into me again.
And so I've started playing it from the very start now, and intend to go all the way through in chronological order:

Leliana's Song > Origins > Awakening > The Golems of Amgarrak > Witch Hunt and then Dragon Age 2 + DLC. Then, I'll play Inquisition again.

I'll be going mage all the way through, because mage is awesome. But damn, don't they feel lame in terms of animations in Origins?

Standing there, shooting their stick with a bunch of glowing effects on the whole team... But you can go Arcane Warrior! Which makes you an indestructible deathmonster that pretty much breaks the game

Honestly though I think I like the focus on teamwork in later games more, as Origins feels like a really good game of chess, or well, a strategy game, compared to a frantic battles that forces you to change tactics on the fly in DA2. The pacing might even be a decent mix of the two in DAI, but I've not played enough to judge that yet. Anyhow I'm just a lot more engaged and active in fighting in the later games.

I also prefer the animation, armors and general aesthetic changes to make things look more unique in later games. Except for the Darkspawn in DA2, they look scary in Origins and sick and weak in DA2

<spoiler=From this scary beast>http://newbiedm.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darkspawn.jpg
<spoiler=To this poor sick fellow>http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120817020006/dragonage/images/3/36/DA2_Hurlock_face_closeup_cutscene.jpg
Poor Hurlock, so sad. Didn't even get to keep his armor, or his teeth

 

[votemarvel]

And it is the developers who decide the traits and foibles of the characters they create. And I think it makes perfect sense for them to determine their overall aesthetics, too.

They are of course free to give their characters whatever aesthetic they please. However they don't get to decide whether that look becomes iconic or not, that remains firmly in the hands of the paying customer.

Except for the Darkspawn in DA2, they look scary in Origins and sick and weak in DA2

<spoiler=From this scary beast>http://newbiedm.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darkspawn.jpg
<spoiler=To this poor sick fellow>http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120817020006/dragonage/images/3/36/DA2_Hurlock_face_closeup_cutscene.jpg
Poor Hurlock, so sad. Didn't even get to keep his armor, or his teeth

The Darkspawn redesign is just something I don't understand how anyone at Bioware thought it was better than in Origins.

The Ogre especially was a huge downturn.