Poll: Dragon Age 2 was it that bad?
- Thread starter jackpackage200
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Or no name to just the Champion, I sided with the Mages, so I didn't take the throne.theevilgenius60 said:
They could have called it:
Dragon Age: Champion of Kirkwall
DA: The Silly Templar Clown Cart O'Evil
DA: The Zany Mage Rebellion.
DA: Ooooh! Look! Qunari!
DA: Hawke and the Deep Roads of Doom
DA: Varric's Tale.
DA: The Story of Bianca
Oh my god people stop making threads about this every 2 weeks it makes me nerd rage
Was it as good as dragon age origins no
Was it a rushed cash in yes
Was it a bad game no just below average Bioware games (for DA:O fans yes it was a disappointment)
Was it as good as dragon age origins no
Was it a rushed cash in yes
Was it a bad game no just below average Bioware games (for DA:O fans yes it was a disappointment)
Eh. This pretty much sums me up, my one sad point was realizing that Anders' character had been completely rewritten.Bebus said:
So, these are my thoughts on Dragon Age 2:
To start with, the gameplay. I believe the gameplay in DA2 is a big step forward from DAO. In Origins, your characters felt so bloody clunky, they felt like tabletop miniatures being moved around, rather than seasoned warriors engaging vicious eldritch abominations in a fight to the death. It just irritated me to no end when my characters would shuffle around the enemy, or struggle to push past an ally that was in the way as they get into backstabbing range. In addition to that, the way the characters used their weapons felt clunky and uninspired. The dual wielding rogues felt no swifter than your greatsword wielding warrior. The way the warriors use their weapons is just so *meh*, there's no flare. The mages, however were OK, I suppose, nothing to write home about.
Compare DA2. No shuffling, no struggling to push past an ally as they get into position. When my characters fight, the feel like warriors, rather than tabletop miniatures shuffling around. Additionally, the way the characters use their weapons has improved. The dual wielding rogues feel swift and graceful. There's so much more flare in the warriors now, they leap when using mighty blow and the shield bash ability violates a few laws of aerodynamics when used. The mages also feel less squishy, especially when they engage their foes in close combat (that's not to say they aren't squishy, they are, very much so).
The leveling system in DA2 is also improved. Your abilities aren't tied to your stats, so you don't have to wait until you meet the prerequisite stat mark, which took a long time in Origins due to how few stat points were given when leveling up. Skills trees are no longer linear, so you don't have to waste skill points buying useless abilities. Additionally, I must say the Reaver specialisation has been greatly improved. I've always loved the idea behind the Reaver, but due to the way it was implemented in Origins, I just didn't use it. Now that it has been improved, this is no longer the case. No longer is Blood Frenzy a sustained ability, rather it's a passive ability. Devour targets a single enemy, rather than affecting corpses only. The other specialisations aren't anything to write home about (though I am rather saddened that they got rid of the Arcane Warrior specialisation).
Now, I must say that the decision to give Hawke a name and a voice was the right choice. The Warden in Origins felt like a big mass of inconsequential nothingness, he never reacted to anything, EVER (aside from the death of Ser Jory and killing the Archdemon). He ended up feeling like a McGuffin, or a Chekhov's gun, a plot device rather than a character.
Hawke, on the other hand, feels like a character. He reacts to things, he cocks an eyebrow when something puzzles him, he facepalms when something stupid happens and his voice reflects the mood he's in. All of this comes together and makes Hawke feel like a proper character. This, however, has the added result of narrowing down your conversation options to about three. I don't mind it however, I would much rather have limited choice and a proper character as my player character than unlimited choice and a plot device as my player character. I should probably point out that my opinion stems from the fact that I don't like "blank slate" characters.
As for the voice actors chosen for Hawke, I must say, Jo Wyatt, the voice of, Lady Hawke has the better voice actor, her husky voice is heaven to the ears...
*ahem*
Additionally, Jo Wyatt, can emote better then Male Hawke's Nicholas Boulton. An example would be where Hawke's mother goes missing, Lady Hawke genuinely sounded utterly terrified, whereas Male Hawke, not so much. However, that's not to say Nicholas Boulton is a bad VA, he's a brilliant VA, it's just Jo Wyatt is better. However, I must say, the way Nick Boulton channels Brian Blessed during battle makes the fights so much more enjoyable "FOLLOW MY LEAD!", "NEED MANA!".
As for the supporting characters, they're all great in their own special way. It would take too long for me to describe them all. However, one thing ticks me off greatly.
Anders.
In Awakenings he was this snarky, womanising, laid back sort of fellow, a real great guy. Come DA2 he's this whiny, pathetic, little... thing, I half expect him to bring out the Linkin Park any moment. I absolutely hate the change Anders went through. Though I have to admit, all my hate stems from the impotent nerd rage that arose when the writers took Anders in a direction that I didn't like, and I have to (grudgingly) admit there's a strong justification storywise.
I found the storyline very refreshing, it was no longer about a hero saving the world but rather about some guy and the stuff he gets caught up in. It's a more personalised. Some people say the storyline is too segmented, I believe it adds to the story. A real life doesn't have an overarching theme, or a main conflict, or a main villain. A real life is a series of random events that have no relation to one another.
To be honest, I personally think DA2 is better than Origins, it improves everything Origins had, and adds a little more to the mix.
To start with, the gameplay. I believe the gameplay in DA2 is a big step forward from DAO. In Origins, your characters felt so bloody clunky, they felt like tabletop miniatures being moved around, rather than seasoned warriors engaging vicious eldritch abominations in a fight to the death. It just irritated me to no end when my characters would shuffle around the enemy, or struggle to push past an ally that was in the way as they get into backstabbing range. In addition to that, the way the characters used their weapons felt clunky and uninspired. The dual wielding rogues felt no swifter than your greatsword wielding warrior. The way the warriors use their weapons is just so *meh*, there's no flare. The mages, however were OK, I suppose, nothing to write home about.
Compare DA2. No shuffling, no struggling to push past an ally as they get into position. When my characters fight, the feel like warriors, rather than tabletop miniatures shuffling around. Additionally, the way the characters use their weapons has improved. The dual wielding rogues feel swift and graceful. There's so much more flare in the warriors now, they leap when using mighty blow and the shield bash ability violates a few laws of aerodynamics when used. The mages also feel less squishy, especially when they engage their foes in close combat (that's not to say they aren't squishy, they are, very much so).
The leveling system in DA2 is also improved. Your abilities aren't tied to your stats, so you don't have to wait until you meet the prerequisite stat mark, which took a long time in Origins due to how few stat points were given when leveling up. Skills trees are no longer linear, so you don't have to waste skill points buying useless abilities. Additionally, I must say the Reaver specialisation has been greatly improved. I've always loved the idea behind the Reaver, but due to the way it was implemented in Origins, I just didn't use it. Now that it has been improved, this is no longer the case. No longer is Blood Frenzy a sustained ability, rather it's a passive ability. Devour targets a single enemy, rather than affecting corpses only. The other specialisations aren't anything to write home about (though I am rather saddened that they got rid of the Arcane Warrior specialisation).
Now, I must say that the decision to give Hawke a name and a voice was the right choice. The Warden in Origins felt like a big mass of inconsequential nothingness, he never reacted to anything, EVER (aside from the death of Ser Jory and killing the Archdemon). He ended up feeling like a McGuffin, or a Chekhov's gun, a plot device rather than a character.
Hawke, on the other hand, feels like a character. He reacts to things, he cocks an eyebrow when something puzzles him, he facepalms when something stupid happens and his voice reflects the mood he's in. All of this comes together and makes Hawke feel like a proper character. This, however, has the added result of narrowing down your conversation options to about three. I don't mind it however, I would much rather have limited choice and a proper character as my player character than unlimited choice and a plot device as my player character. I should probably point out that my opinion stems from the fact that I don't like "blank slate" characters.
As for the voice actors chosen for Hawke, I must say, Jo Wyatt, the voice of, Lady Hawke has the better voice actor, her husky voice is heaven to the ears...
*ahem*
Additionally, Jo Wyatt, can emote better then Male Hawke's Nicholas Boulton. An example would be where Hawke's mother goes missing, Lady Hawke genuinely sounded utterly terrified, whereas Male Hawke, not so much. However, that's not to say Nicholas Boulton is a bad VA, he's a brilliant VA, it's just Jo Wyatt is better. However, I must say, the way Nick Boulton channels Brian Blessed during battle makes the fights so much more enjoyable "FOLLOW MY LEAD!", "NEED MANA!".
As for the supporting characters, they're all great in their own special way. It would take too long for me to describe them all. However, one thing ticks me off greatly.
Anders.
In Awakenings he was this snarky, womanising, laid back sort of fellow, a real great guy. Come DA2 he's this whiny, pathetic, little... thing, I half expect him to bring out the Linkin Park any moment. I absolutely hate the change Anders went through. Though I have to admit, all my hate stems from the impotent nerd rage that arose when the writers took Anders in a direction that I didn't like, and I have to (grudgingly) admit there's a strong justification storywise.
I found the storyline very refreshing, it was no longer about a hero saving the world but rather about some guy and the stuff he gets caught up in. It's a more personalised. Some people say the storyline is too segmented, I believe it adds to the story. A real life doesn't have an overarching theme, or a main conflict, or a main villain. A real life is a series of random events that have no relation to one another.
To be honest, I personally think DA2 is better than Origins, it improves everything Origins had, and adds a little more to the mix.
True, but you have to admit that any of those names, even the silly ones, describe the game better than Dragon Age 2. Well, maybe not the clown cart o'evil, but who's counting?Sonic Doctor said:
Overall I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 very much. There are a lot of issues which everyone seems to have pointed out already. I will admit that it was harder to go back through the game for multiple play throughs, compared to the first where I played through about 20 times now.
So overall Dragon Age 2 was a good game, but compared to the other games Bioware have made it was lacking but that does not mean it should be as hated as it is.
So overall Dragon Age 2 was a good game, but compared to the other games Bioware have made it was lacking but that does not mean it should be as hated as it is.
Didn't enjoy it, played demo for half an hour and was dissapointed. However I wasn't really a fan on number 1, characters weren't very likable for me.
True true, I guess not all the Templar's are evil, just the one and the rest are just misguided.theevilgenius60 said:
Besides, I'm most partial to "DA: The Story of Bianca", other than Varric and Merrill, she was the most interesting character of all. =P
One thing I have been meaning to ask people that have a stance like yours, what was the demo like?Electric_Sunshine said:
The reason I ask is that from experience, demos of late aren't a good measure of what the game will be like.
What was in the demo, what did you do in it?
I didn't get around to playing the demo before my pre-order copy arrived.
You say you weren't really a fan of DA:Origins. I am in the same boat, I still haven't got hardly anywhere in my first play through. But with that said, I loved DA2 and have set up two more play throughs and have been playing them.
Edit: If you have a console, give it a rent.
Combat was really the only improvement for the game. Characters were just as god as in the first one. While the story wasn't as good it set it up for a series (which is good or bad depending how you look at it). But the problems were big, lack of customizing your people. I couldnt change what anyone expect for me looked like in my party. Also there werent many areas to explore. It made the game drag and feel longer then the 40 or so hours it took to beat
You left one important factor in your variable, a person like me. A person who sees DA: Origins as a slow moving clunky hulk of a game that was poorly handled, while I see DA2 as 10 times better and fixes all the problems(dialogue, combat, and the leveling system), though I understand that it had the dungeon problem(which can be blamed on EA's rushing).Jake Martinez said:
I would rather have another game like DA2 with the one problem it had, then another game with the world size and variety of environments with all the clunky brokenness still in it.
a game that can I can play for 6 hours in one day and still come back for more tomorrow is alright in my book
a vast improvement over the unrelenting deluge of tedium from the first Dragon Age
a vast improvement over the unrelenting deluge of tedium from the first Dragon Age
I didn't hear that many people hear they hated it, the only thing that made it bad for me was that party members couldn't get new/different armour, it could only be upgraded.
I liked the new combat
I liked how my own character spoke
Lots of other things I enjoyed in the game but those were off the top of my head favourites.
I liked the new combat
I liked how my own character spoke
Lots of other things I enjoyed in the game but those were off the top of my head favourites.
I played them both on the console, but that is besides the point. The only thing that might come into play between platforms is the controls.Kahunaburger said:
But unless on the PC version of Origins I could have control on where my special attacks hit(not just meaning the one I target) and they are performed faster, and I would have control of my normal attack, then my clunky complaint still stands.
The not being able to control how fast my character attacks in battle was the biggest problem.
My warrior in Origins: The normal swords attack was out of my control. My warrior did this: Swing sword......swing sword......swing sword.
My warrior in DA2: Swing, swing, swing. I don't even have the time to say "Swing sword".
Keosegg here puts best what I mean by clunky.
keosegg said:
I thankfully managed to get the game for only twenty bucks, and I'm glad I didn't pay more. I wouldn't go so far as to call the narrative an insult, but it felt overall unimportant. Part of the appeal of the original Dragon Age was in how you became a hero and had interesting adventures in different lands. The problem with Dragon Age 2 was that it felt less like an adventure, and more like a tale of a minor/side character in a bigger narrative. It was way too easy to die in DA2, even on easy, and doing everything in Kirkwall go boring really fast. It wasn't a terrible game, but I expect way better from Bioware, and it felt like an experience that was deliberately dumbed down for console players, especially the beer/Mountain Dew drinking Halo/Call of Duty players.
Don't get me wrong, DA2 could have been something great, and if there's going to be a DA3 I'd welcome it, but it needs to focus more on the big picture and less on the tale of one city.
Don't get me wrong, DA2 could have been something great, and if there's going to be a DA3 I'd welcome it, but it needs to focus more on the big picture and less on the tale of one city.
LOL , you think COD " changes it up"Kungfu_Teddybear said:
OT: It was incredibly disappointing, especially after the orgasm-in-disc-form origins was, and I fucking hated how everything looked the exact same