Poll: Is Dragon Age 2 a bad game?
- Thread starter LobsterFeng
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a good game as it stands. It's not a very good sequel or follow up to DA:O.... if you can try not to compare them, it's stands up well.
I would give it a LOT more points if the maps weren't so repetitive, I hope Bioware doesn't do that again to such an extreme level..
I would give it a LOT more points if the maps weren't so repetitive, I hope Bioware doesn't do that again to such an extreme level..
The conversation wheel doesn't really make it bad, but the format of how its built, with good>snarky but still good>bad options allways laid out the same way, with icons even to tell you which is what, that DOES feel dumbed down (and I'm not one to throw that around, I don't think the combat was dumbed down here, I just preffere the isometric view).Cowabungaa said:
I would much rather have severall diaoulg options with a neat ordering so you dont even have to read them and think about their consequences
I thought it was overall excellent.
It was unpolished and tried to strike out in many new directions at once for the genre, and I admire the latter and quite capable of tolerating the former if I get a good experience out of it (Troika and Obsidian have made a large amount of my favorite games). I understand why lots of people felt underwhelmed, disappointed or even hated it, but for me and what I like from my games, it was great. Hopefully Bioware takes a reeeeal good look at the feedback from everyone and puts a year or two extra into DA3 to make sure it stays a good series.
My .02 dollars.
It was unpolished and tried to strike out in many new directions at once for the genre, and I admire the latter and quite capable of tolerating the former if I get a good experience out of it (Troika and Obsidian have made a large amount of my favorite games). I understand why lots of people felt underwhelmed, disappointed or even hated it, but for me and what I like from my games, it was great. Hopefully Bioware takes a reeeeal good look at the feedback from everyone and puts a year or two extra into DA3 to make sure it stays a good series.
My .02 dollars.
I hate it because it's apparent EA is forcing Bioware into shitty releases, and even more so that people don't mind this.
Not at all, it's a good game. It just is in the unfortunate position of being a sequel to Dragon Age: Orgins, a better game. We gamers expect our sequels to be an improvement, this one wasn't, but it is still very worth playing.LobsterFeng said:
Ps. Please excuse my bad English, I am not a native speaker.
Your English is great, I wouldn't have known you weren't a native speaker unless you told me.kayisking said:
I really enjoyed it, but it's got quite a few flaws.
I liked that the story breaks from the traditional: you're the chosen one, here's your quest, get to it. Some of the characters were great, others sucked, par for the course for Bioware. I wasn't a huge fan of the combat, but I didn't like the combat in the first game either. I wasn't a fan of how small Kirkwall felt, or the lack of unique locations.
Still, my love of the story and the characters outweighs the average combat and boring locales.
I liked that the story breaks from the traditional: you're the chosen one, here's your quest, get to it. Some of the characters were great, others sucked, par for the course for Bioware. I wasn't a huge fan of the combat, but I didn't like the combat in the first game either. I wasn't a fan of how small Kirkwall felt, or the lack of unique locations.
Still, my love of the story and the characters outweighs the average combat and boring locales.
Ugh i knew my big mouth would get me in trouble. Let me respond in to a couple different points. My apologies for i did not mean any offense in my post and 'dumbed down' was probably a bad word choice.Cowabungaa said:
First is the voiced protagonist idea. Spoiler alert here, this game had nothing to do with the champion. The game's importance rested on Anders and how he destroyed the chantry causing a uprising of mages against the circle or whatever. That is what the game was about. The protagonist did not have to be voiced at all, but let me explain why i feel the voiced option is a bad one. DA:O did not have a commander Shepard clone as its main character and neither did Awakening, so they completely departed from the status quo of the series to give the audience something it didn't need. Also, a voiced protagonist means less dialogue options, because EVERY dialogue involves the main character to some extent, so instead of having a more branched dialogue tree you get a very narrow path you are allowed to take.
The dialogue wheel is just a garbage tool to streamline the choice system (for consoles perhaps i dunno) and the one DA2 had was even worse. It went so far as to add little stupid symbols just in case the player was too stupid to figure out what the response was implying. So instead of choosing a dialogue based on the actual words, without knowing how the NPC will react, you choose based on which reaction you want from the NPC. Someone whom can't read a word of english could romance any of the NPCs by simply knowing what the heart symbol implied. That in my mind is weak.
So that covers that the story was not about the Champions life or influence, which is my main complaint about the games bad writing of a plot that you seemed to skip over, and also the horrible implication of the wheel. As for the combat, I concede that i shouldnt have said 'dumbed down' but the combat is very different than that of DA:O. It is streamlined to feel better on the console (imo) and the dynamics of the game are changed so that combat is much faster paced and much more action/adventure than the first game. This did not bother me as much as the bad writing, but i didn't like how they changed it. For example, in DA:O when you killed someone there was a chance you did a short in game animation of the final blow, sometimes slowing the game down if it was a bigger guy, and left the body on the battle field to feel more realistic. This game took out all the in game death animations interactions and when enemies died, they blew up. That is a major indication in the tone and direction they took, which in my opinion was a shitty one. Also, in the first game, Normal felt like hard, but in the second game normal felt like easy.
Use the forum search, and then you can see which threads have been done to death.LobsterFeng said:
I kinda liked the story. If nothing else it was original. Too bad it had the same to be continued bullshit at the end. Gameplay was fun, but the way they presented their good story and the way it all ended made the game lose my admiration.
4?????Shepard said:
First off I don't count Kirkwall as one location.
Main places:
Hightown
Lowtown
Darktown
The Docks
The Gallows
Sundermount
The Wounded Coast
The Bone Pit
The Deep Roads
Sub-places:
The Hanged Man
The Blooming Rose
Viscount's Keep
The Chantry
The Arishok's area at the Docks
Under the Docks
The Templar/Circle area near the end.
Main houses:
Hawk's Lowtown house
Hawk's Hightown mansion
Merrill's house
Fenris's mansion
The dungeon/instance skins:
4 different caves
2 side section areas of the Wounded Coast
5 house types 3 Hightown, one Lowtown, one docks.
1 Docks instance
1 central alleyway
1 Darktown instance.
1 warehouse
Hightown
Lowtown
Darktown
The Docks
The Gallows
Sundermount
The Wounded Coast
The Bone Pit
The Deep Roads
Sub-places:
The Hanged Man
The Blooming Rose
Viscount's Keep
The Chantry
The Arishok's area at the Docks
Under the Docks
The Templar/Circle area near the end.
Main houses:
Hawk's Lowtown house
Hawk's Hightown mansion
Merrill's house
Fenris's mansion
The dungeon/instance skins:
4 different caves
2 side section areas of the Wounded Coast
5 house types 3 Hightown, one Lowtown, one docks.
1 Docks instance
1 central alleyway
1 Darktown instance.
1 warehouse
If you just count the main places, yes there are just 9 locations. But once the rest is added there is a lot of stuff to see. Yeah it was bad that they had few dungeon/instance areas, but it wasn't that bad. For me it was enough that it didn't bother me. If it was just 4 dungeon/instances, I would have been pissed, but 15 with some clever placements of blocks to change paths was good enough for such a rushed game.
Besides, what people seem to forget is that this game wasn't meant to be of the same size scale when it comes to land and places. Dragon Age: Origins dealt with an entire country/continent, Feraldan. DA 2 only dealt with a small area of Thedas, and that small area was a small city-state section(Kirkwall and the surrounding area)of the Free Marches. So logically, one would expect that the game wouldn't have a vast amount of places to go.
For me the game was just the right size and length. I got 50 hours at least out of my first play-through and after I find the time to start and finish Mass Effect 2, I will go back and play-through at least twice more to go through it as a warrior and then a rogue.
So the reason why you didn't like him being voiced is because what....he didn't blow up the chantry himself?...because he wasn't the one who made the big "world-changing" event? Sorry but thats really weak, it doesn't change the fact he's the hero and protagonist, and does have a major affect in this world.Juggern4ut20 said:
I agree about the conversation wheel tho, like I said in my post above, that IS a part that has been seriously dumb down.
And as for the battle, well its a matter of opinions. I kinda liked it, but I did miss some elements from the DA:O combat like you said. But in DA2 enemies dont always explode when they die, only if its ciritial/explosion/magic ability that kills them. And if you're a warrior there's a talent in one of the trees that lets you do those finishing moves, dont remember which one tho