I get why Dragon Age 2 gets lousy user reviews.

[Project_Xii]

All the negative responses I've read so far have come from people hating on the game because it's different to the original, or for some ridiculously tiny reason, like they changed the way the retarded dward says "enchantment".

face/palm
Good grief I'm ashamed to call myself a gamer sometimes, if it means be associated with people like this. I mean, if they made legitimate explanations for their hate other then "IT'S DIFFERENT!! IT'S A CONSOLE GAME!!", but I think most people just like to be angry about something.

 

[Wayneguard]

8+ hours in and I have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing like what your are saying has happened.

Something like what he's talking about happens to me (xbox 360 version). it seems to only happen if you order your team to hold position. This is very annoying and definitely needs a fix but I've worked around it. And as far as I can tell, this game isn't any more buggy than origins and awakening in which all my specializations became permanently relocked >_>

That isn't broken, they are doing what you told them to do (hold position)

No look, what happens is you tell them to hold position and they do that to the exclusion of everything else, including self defense. They don't respond when they're getting whacked in the face. And the frustrating thing is the inconsistency with which they do this. Sometimes they'll do just fine and other times they'll start attacking and then abruptly stop for no reason and sometimes they just wont attack at all. Like I said before, I can work around this by manually ordering them to attack but also like I said before, sometimes they just stop for no reason. They don't seem to have a problem in free movement mode. So this is really only a problem when your party is on a staircase or something and you want to hold the high ground behind your tank but I guess I can live with it b/c I love the rest of the game.

 

[Jennacide]

I'm sorry, upon rereading my post I guess I should have worded what I said more carefully. I didn't mean that the game was bad or that the reviews were properly done, just that dismissing out of hand the idea that a negative review on day one [i/]could[/i] be an entirely valid reflection of the game's quality seems silly to me. If he had said to begin with that he was talking about scores on Metacritic I wouldn't even have commented at all, since I fully support completely ignoring anything that site has to say at all times.

Again, I was commenting on the principle, not on this particular case. I really don't care at all about Dragon Age, I just check topics about it occasionally because I have a friend who's crazy about it.

I don't disagree with this either. Some people just don't like certain games. I adore Planescape: Torment, while knowing people that have refered to it as a "snoozefest." (Yes, I threated them with violence if they uttered it again.) The problem with DA2 user reviews, and a problem steadily arising for most games, is how unreasonable the user is with thier scoring and completely ignores objectivity. (Both I mentioned already)

Basically, if you want to write a review for a game, love it or hate it, you should know that the point of a review is to pick apart the pros and cons. Not focus on a single con like it's the be-all-end-all. This is something far too many user reviews do. And worse yet, a lot will then spiral into hyperbole trying to justify thier abyssmal rating of a 1 by decrying things they couldn't of even seen yet, but assume are bad.

No matter how much is changed in a game you like, in this era there is pretty much always some redeeming value and some target audience. No game in the past 20 years should deserve a 1. Not even Boogie or Vampire Rain, notoriously bad games.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I'm sorry, upon rereading my post I guess I should have worded what I said more carefully. I didn't mean that the game was bad or that the reviews were properly done, just that dismissing out of hand the idea that a negative review on day one [i/]could[/i] be an entirely valid reflection of the game's quality seems silly to me. If he had said to begin with that he was talking about scores on Metacritic I wouldn't even have commented at all, since I fully support completely ignoring anything that site has to say at all times.

Again, I was commenting on the principle, not on this particular case. I really don't care at all about Dragon Age, I just check topics about it occasionally because I have a friend who's crazy about it.

I don't disagree with this either. Some people just don't like certain games. I adore Planescape: Torment, while knowing people that have refered to it as a "snoozefest." (Yes, I threated them with violence if they uttered it again.) The problem with DA2 user reviews, and a problem steadily arising for most games, is how unreasonable the user is with thier scoring and completely ignores objectivity. (Both I mentioned already)

Basically, if you want to write a review for a game, love it or hate it, you should know that the point of a review is to pick apart the pros and cons. Not focus on a single con like it's the be-all-end-all. This is something far too many user reviews do. And worse yet, a lot will then spiral into hyperbole trying to justify thier abyssmal rating of a 1 by decrying things they couldn't of even seen yet, but assume are bad.

No matter how much is changed in a game you like, in this era there is pretty much always some redeeming value and some target audience. No game in the past 20 years should deserve a 1. Not even Boogie or Vampire Rain, notoriously bad games.

I'm not sure about that last bit. I mean, there was that ant war game on the Wii. Even Nintendo Power gave it a 2/10, and they're usually pretty favorable to their exclusives. If you're limiting yourself just to AAA games (where did that term come from, anyway?), then I guess you're right. Even Front Mission Evolved, the bane of my existence, could have really good gameplay with a few minor balancing tweaks.

 

[Sendura]

I'm not getting it due to the fact that BioWare got rid of the ability to customise your main character. Well done, guys. Put me right off.

Let me get this straight, the only thing you care about when it comes to customization is race?

I mean, that's fine, it just strikes me as odd.

I just don't understand why they'd totally scrap it. I liked Dragon Age Origins more because you could make your character look however you liked. But no. YOU ARE HAWKE. GET USED TO IT.

Because Dragon Age 2 is the story of Hawke, Champion of Kirkwall, just like Mass Effect is the story of Commander Shepard. Dragon Age: Origins was the story of the Grey Warden, but that Grey Warden was never a set plot character (race wise) in the universe to begin with. Hawke and Commander Shepard were. You didn't get to pick your race in Mass Effect either, so why would you in Dragon Age? Also, Hawke's entire family and siblings are all human. It wouldn't make sense for Hawke to be a dwarf or an elf and have that make any valid sense whatsoever.

OT: I encountered absolutely none of those bugs presented, and I've played the entire way through in a 30 hour fest. The only "bug" I encountered in it, however, was a glitch of a certain boss character pinning me through a wall where we were facing off. But even that is a very, very, very rare and almost infinitesimal chance of ever happening again.

Whatever. Say what you like, I don't care. Just voicing my opinion.

Oh and FYI, Commander Shepherd has been in Mass Effect 1 and 2. Dragon Age: Origins starred YOUR character. When I heard the news about DA2, I thought I'd be able to import my character into it, like you could import your own Commander Shepherd from the first Mass Effect to the second. But no, my character has been wiped from the face of the earth and now I have to play as Hawke. That's why I'm not buying the game. You can continue to cry over someone else disliking your new favourite game, OR you can grow up and get used to the fact that not everyone shares your views. Either way, I couldn't care less.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Oh and FYI, Commander Shepherd has been in Mass Effect 1 and 2. Dragon Age: Origins starred YOUR character. When I heard the news about DA2, I thought I'd be able to import my character into it, like you could import your own Commander Shepherd from the first Mass Effect to the second. But no, my character has been wiped from the face of the earth and now I have to play as Hawke.

The Warden has not been "wiped" from the face of the Dragon Age universe. Dragon Age 2 is merely a different story of a different hero's life in the universe, partly while the Grey Warden is making his debut as the Hero of Ferelden as well.

That's why I'm not buying the game. You can continue to cry over someone else disliking your new favourite game, OR you can grow up and get used to the fact that not everyone shares your views. Either way, I couldn't care less.

I said nothing of the sort, but nice strawman there. Your opinion is your opinion, and I am free to voice my own in response to your own. You should take your advice and try to not get so but-hurt over a simple response to a publicly given opinion. That's what grown-ups have to learn everyday.

*Shrugs*

 

[Falcon Stormvoice]

Quite late to this party. I'm doing another playthrough of DA:II and I just got curious as to whether anyone else had noticed the bugs.

If I remember correctly, there were a couple of times in past playthroughs when I had this "allies don't attack" bug. I had to R1+L1 and make them all attack at once to get through fights and it wasn't a tactics or "hold" issue (so the smugness about that was not warranted). That was a long time ago, though.

The bugs that have been most prevalent for me are conversations repeating twice or more after they should end, and relationships glitching, e.g. I make love to Merrill and the game ends saying I lived happily ever after with Anders, even though I killed him. My wife and my oldest friend have also encountered these bugs. The former doesn't matter except as an inconvenience and immersion-breaker, the latter can essentially render your entire playthrough worthless (if, for instance, your main goal in that playthrough was to be a mage who hooks up with Fenris and the game ends up calling you a rogue who hooked up with Merrill).

Now, why are bugs in a game like Dragon Age II more egregious than in a game like Fallout? The answer is simple and reasonable: DAII is smaller and less complex. Think of the games as meals. Dragon Age II is a bowl of ramen and a sandwich, NV is a grand buffet. If the sandwich or the ramen is ruined and that's all you have to eat, your lunch is now ruined. If a couple of items in a buffet of 50 items are ruined, it hardly matters. The ramen and sandwich are also much harder to screw up -- it's easier to understand if someone makes a flat souffle than if they screwed up something much easier to make.

For all of DA2's streamlining and lack of variety, you'd think it would be quite easy to code the relationships correctly. New Vegas, however, makes Origins look simple by comparison -- keeping track of thousands of items and where you randomly drop them or bump into them, not locking you into a class tree and thus not limiting your range of actions in the same way, rendering one massive outdoor location as opposed to smaller, locked down cells, etc.

It's also not as if DA2 has no other problems. Reused dungeons, reused item textures (oh, that's a coincidence, my ub3r-l33t magic dragon-god armor from act 3 looks precisely like my very first rusty beginner armor from act 1!), the mis-labeling of the title as "2" when it's neither big enough (for some people... I think it barely squeaks by as big enough) or related enough to the first game to be a sequel, and a lack of strategy.

It's not bad that they changed these things from DA:O. It's bad that they changed them for the worse. Is anybody going to say that lazy game design is a positive change? Is one of you willing to defend game-breaking bugs, non-universal though they may be?

There's plenty of good in DA2, as well. For me, enough good to put up with the bad points. Of course, I am an avid RPG fanboy. But if BioWare's next installment of the franchise repeats these mistakes, I will drop them. I will not eat funky ramen twice, no matter how hungry I get. Besides, I now have the buffet of Skyrim to feast upon, and they're still adding new courses.

 

[putowtin]

edit: wrong thread!

 

[pilouuuu]

No, it's pretty bug-free. It's simply dull and too dumbed down.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Quite late to this party. I'm doing another playthrough of DA:II and I just got curious as to whether anyone else had noticed the bugs.

If I remember correctly, there were a couple of times in past playthroughs when I had this "allies don't attack" bug. I had to R1+L1 and make them all attack at once to get through fights and it wasn't a tactics or "hold" issue (so the smugness about that was not warranted). That was a long time ago, though.

The bugs that have been most prevalent for me are conversations repeating twice or more after they should end, and relationships glitching, e.g. I make love to Merrill and the game ends saying I lived happily ever after with Anders, even though I killed him. My wife and my oldest friend have also encountered these bugs. The former doesn't matter except as an inconvenience and immersion-breaker, the latter can essentially render your entire playthrough worthless (if, for instance, your main goal in that playthrough was to be a mage who hooks up with Fenris and the game ends up calling you a rogue who hooked up with Merrill).

Now, why are bugs in a game like Dragon Age II more egregious than in a game like Fallout? The answer is simple and reasonable: DAII is smaller and less complex. Think of the games as meals. Dragon Age II is a bowl of ramen and a sandwich, NV is a grand buffet. If the sandwich or the ramen is ruined and that's all you have to eat, your lunch is now ruined. If a couple of items in a buffet of 50 items are ruined, it hardly matters. The ramen and sandwich are also much harder to screw up -- it's easier to understand if someone makes a flat souffle than if they screwed up something much easier to make.

For all of DA2's streamlining and lack of variety, you'd think it would be quite easy to code the relationships correctly. New Vegas, however, makes Origins look simple by comparison -- keeping track of thousands of items and where you randomly drop them or bump into them, not locking you into a class tree and thus not limiting your range of actions in the same way, rendering one massive outdoor location as opposed to smaller, locked down cells, etc.

It's also not as if DA2 has no other problems. Reused dungeons, reused item textures (oh, that's a coincidence, my ub3r-l33t magic dragon-god armor from act 3 looks precisely like my very first rusty beginner armor from act 1!), the mis-labeling of the title as "2" when it's neither big enough (for some people... I think it barely squeaks by as big enough) or related enough to the first game to be a sequel, and a lack of strategy.

It's not bad that they changed these things from DA:O. It's bad that they changed them for the worse. Is anybody going to say that lazy game design is a positive change? Is one of you willing to defend game-breaking bugs, non-universal though they may be?

There's plenty of good in DA2, as well. For me, enough good to put up with the bad points. Of course, I am an avid RPG fanboy. But if BioWare's next installment of the franchise repeats these mistakes, I will drop them. I will not eat funky ramen twice, no matter how hungry I get. Besides, I now have the buffet of Skyrim to feast upon, and they're still adding new courses.

Please check the post dates in the future. This thread had been dead for over a year by the time you found it 0.o

 

[ResonanceSD]

Same rooms over and over again? Ridiculous dialogue? No plot to speak of? Yeah. I can see why.

 

[Harb]

Dragon Age 2 had lousy reviews because:
1) publisher did't "encourage" reviewers enough to provide "desired" opinions
2) it was actually a quite bad game. Not average, plain bad.

 

[Wayneguard]

Lately, Dragon Age 2 have recieved decent reviews by critics, but the players butcher it. I have played the game for a couple of hours and I get why.
IT'S BROKEN!
And I don't mean like poor gameplay, I mean that it is so buggy it's hard to play. Melee-characters that isn't controled by the player dosen't move. Ranged charcters don't shoot. The only character that does something is the one the player is using. This is a flaw that shouldn't exist. Even if they fix this and several other bugs, no game should be released in an unplayable state.
That's at least my thory on why they get lousy reviews.
Also Bioware has recieved tons of complains about this, but have still to fix it.

Dude... turn your party follow on.

 

[Falcon Stormvoice]

Same rooms over and over again? Ridiculous dialogue? No plot to speak of? Yeah. I can see why.

First part is certainly right. Not even just the same rooms, but whole buildings, ruins and caves were copy-pasted ad nauseum.

Dialogue... Love it: "Oh, I thought you shaved your beard off in a fit of broody pique". I can see some parts people might not like, though.

Plot... Extremely plot-heavy game. So strict in the plot that they don't even let you choose your own race. You may not have liked the plot (I do, it's got me 'stoked' for DA3), but a plot there most definitely was.

DA2 has some deep flaws. Perhaps you see some I do not, but let's not paint with too broad strokes in our disappointment.

Dude... turn your party follow on.

Dude, this is a bug I used to get all the time, dude. Dude, my characters would just freeze and not move or attack no matter what. No need to talk down.

Please check the post dates in the future. This thread had been dead for over a year by the time you found it 0.o

Indeed... I said I was quite late to this party. The thread may have died, but after reading all the pages, it didn't seem resolved. Judging by the new replies, however, the flaws of DA:II seem to be more widely accepted now.

 

[Rawne1980]

the flaws of DA:II seem to be more widely accepted now.

Yep.

It we accepted it was a shit game and burnt it at the stake.

 

[ResonanceSD]

the flaws of DA:II seem to be more widely accepted now.

Yep.

It we accepted it was a shit game and burnt it at the stake.

i was going to suggest we destroy every copy except one, and frame it. As a warning from history on how not to make games.

 

[locke]

I noticed that sometimes character's clothing doesn't model around them. They don't look naked, they look like they are wearing purple blocks.

 

[Weaver]

Quite late to this party. I'm doing another playthrough of DA:II and I just got curious as to whether anyone else had noticed the bugs.

If I remember correctly, there were a couple of times in past playthroughs when I had this "allies don't attack" bug. I had to R1+L1 and make them all attack at once to get through fights and it wasn't a tactics or "hold" issue (so the smugness about that was not warranted). That was a long time ago, though.

The bugs that have been most prevalent for me are conversations repeating twice or more after they should end, and relationships glitching, e.g. I make love to Merrill and the game ends saying I lived happily ever after with Anders, even though I killed him. My wife and my oldest friend have also encountered these bugs. The former doesn't matter except as an inconvenience and immersion-breaker, the latter can essentially render your entire playthrough worthless (if, for instance, your main goal in that playthrough was to be a mage who hooks up with Fenris and the game ends up calling you a rogue who hooked up with Merrill).

Now, why are bugs in a game like Dragon Age II more egregious than in a game like Fallout? The answer is simple and reasonable: DAII is smaller and less complex. Think of the games as meals. Dragon Age II is a bowl of ramen and a sandwich, NV is a grand buffet. If the sandwich or the ramen is ruined and that's all you have to eat, your lunch is now ruined. If a couple of items in a buffet of 50 items are ruined, it hardly matters. The ramen and sandwich are also much harder to screw up -- it's easier to understand if someone makes a flat souffle than if they screwed up something much easier to make.

For all of DA2's streamlining and lack of variety, you'd think it would be quite easy to code the relationships correctly. New Vegas, however, makes Origins look simple by comparison -- keeping track of thousands of items and where you randomly drop them or bump into them, not locking you into a class tree and thus not limiting your range of actions in the same way, rendering one massive outdoor location as opposed to smaller, locked down cells, etc.

It's also not as if DA2 has no other problems. Reused dungeons, reused item textures (oh, that's a coincidence, my ub3r-l33t magic dragon-god armor from act 3 looks precisely like my very first rusty beginner armor from act 1!), the mis-labeling of the title as "2" when it's neither big enough (for some people... I think it barely squeaks by as big enough) or related enough to the first game to be a sequel, and a lack of strategy.

It's not bad that they changed these things from DA:O. It's bad that they changed them for the worse. Is anybody going to say that lazy game design is a positive change? Is one of you willing to defend game-breaking bugs, non-universal though they may be?

There's plenty of good in DA2, as well. For me, enough good to put up with the bad points. Of course, I am an avid RPG fanboy. But if BioWare's next installment of the franchise repeats these mistakes, I will drop them. I will not eat funky ramen twice, no matter how hungry I get. Besides, I now have the buffet of Skyrim to feast upon, and they're still adding new courses.

Please check the post dates in the future. This thread had been dead for over a year by the time you found it 0.o

I guess at least he used the search bar?