Poll: The Dragon Age 2 hate

[Biosophilogical]

I've never played the Mass Effect games (I have ME2 from the DA2 deal thing, but I haven't really played it much), but from what my friend has told me, the transition from ME to ME2 is similar to that of DA:O to DA2. In other words, it was very much streamlined.

I think that the rush job of the environments was a major let-down (they did it a fair amount in origins, but it wasn't noticeable because they'd either make one huge map and have different encounters on different halves (using the other as scenery), or use huge white boulders to cut you off from certain areas, or throw in some caravans and stuff and run you through it differently) because even though they re-used environments they didn't put much effort into making them feel different.

But yeah, apart from the environments, I think DA2 works as a stand-alone example, because all of those stream-lining thing they did (like class-specific weapons, fewer specialisations, faster-paced combat, limited companion customisation, etc) all worked together. I mean, it would've just been jarring if you had Origins crafting with the rest of the streamlining, or Origins auto-attack animations (and speed) with the new fast-paced combat.

The one thing that I miss the most is the tactical approach to battling. These 'mid-battle spawning enemies' means that strategies from origins where you'd block a doorway and thrown in all your AoE and CC spells doesn't work, because the moment you kill something, an abomination or a rage demon spawns behind you and suddenly your choke tactic is useless. You can't plan for an upcoming battle, or stealth-scout your way forward to lay a billion traps so you can go back, shoot an arrow and watch as the warriors throw themselves at a wall of explosives and sleeping gas. I really hope they keep the option for button mashing combat in DA3, but apart from that (and ability trees, because I like upgrading abilities) I think most of the stuff from DA:O should come back. The bigger story, wider range of environments, party customisation ...

Actually, you know what else pisses me off!? The way they took away all those odd builds you could make. I loved my strength shape-shifter, and my archer-warrior-champion, and my 2-handed[footnote]When I say two handed, I actually mean using giant swords and hammers. I'm not saying 2-handed but getting confused and meaning dual-wield. I actually mean 2-handed.[/footnote] stealth-trap-bomb-ranger-strength-rogue.

Sure, nuke mages, or 2-handed warriors are all fun and games, but where origins really shone was in letting you decide how you play, even if your choice was counter-intuitive or weird. They put all the options in front of you, and the only thing that made something unplayable was if it was just a bad build.

... This went a lot longer than I thought it would. I'm getting DA2 back today, so I'm going to play it, but I'm thinking of playing a force/blood tank/mage. High fortitude, grave robber for health, a rogue to put all the aggro on me, high magic and constitution, with 18 willpower for the Champion's armour. I'd see if I could use Void's hammer, and make a warrior-mage, but I'd probably just end up abusing it.

I'm pretty sure this (if it works) will be one of the oddest builds you can make without abusing glitches or developer-screw-ups.

 

[Korey Von Doom]

Boring characters, world, story, simplified combat. With Origins I actually started to care for the characters, and I teared up when Alistair left because I chose to forgive Logan(spelling?)

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

I have only just started playing DA2, after finishing DA:O not too long ago, and i find it good, i like how the story is conveyed

 

[FuzzyRaccoon]

I liked it. I don't play on the PC, so it wasn't that much of a "screw you!" moment for me when I started to play it. I actually liked that they reused the areas because IT MADE SENSE. THINGS HAPPEN IN THE SAME PLACE. THIS IS A CITY. I just didn't like that it was so small. In AC:Brotherhood you also pretty much do everything in one city: Rome, but it's so huuuuuge and large places open up over time and such that it makes you feel involved.

The things that disappointed me was the lack of an overarching story. I also wanted to be more involved in Kirkwalls economy, and it bothered me that I couldn't shape it that way. If I can't be viscount, can't I be a merchant prince like Varric at least?

I found playing as a rogue to actually be fun in DA2, and I found the combat fun too. Sometimes I got tired of it, and sometimes I had so much fun. I actually found the High Dragon fight people whined about to be pretty straightforward. Not easy but not hard.

I also liked how balanced the abilities were. In Origins, I played with Sword and Shield. Then I played as a mage. You have no idea HOW MUCH ANGER I felt when I saw how laughably easy it was as a mage. I found that to be so stupid.

Something I wish they'd work on a little more that I felt was lacking in both games though, was that I wanted them to work on those naturally important moments that much more. In Origins, my character had been with Alistair. In my playthrough, he sacrificed himself for me. And then afterwards everyone pretended like I picked Anora to be queen all along and seemed to forget entirely about Alistair after one line. It MADE NO SENSE.

Or in DA2, stuff that happens with your family, other than a few comforting scenes, it really doesn't shape anything. I felt like they really dropped the ball there, they could have made it way more meaningful without beating me over the head with it.

So yeah, in short, I don't hate DA2. I have some gripes about it, but I actually liked certain things about it.

 

[Curlythelock]

On its own DA2 wasn't a bad game. However it served as an extremely poor sequel to DAO.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I played the demo, and it was actually worse than Dragon Age Origins, which is saying a lot considering DA:O was the absolute worst game I ever actually finished.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Did I like it? No.

Did I hate it? No.

Did I finish it? No.

Make of that what you will.

It just felt rushed, shallow and mediocre. The relationships felt forced, the combat was alright, the Plot was subtle to the point of being nonexistent. The action was alright, Varric was funny, Merril was cute, Fenris was interesting in a dark brooding emo kind of way (shut up, I liked him as a character). The Conversation wheel was somewhat nicer than Mass Effect...yet at the same time worse. There was no true plot linking the three sections other than Hawke and it being his life...yes, I get it, but no...that's not really enough for a game. The only plot I can divine is a nebulous 'Hawke and his interaction with Magic' kind of thing. But it was just so nebulous that I felt there was no point to keep playing after I killed the Qunari.

I think the best critique I can give is that the writers used the 'Hero's Journey' as inspiration...but didn't quite grasp what it was about.

Was I disappointed? Yes.

 

[Extasii]

To me, Dragon Age 2 is now only good for the credit I'll get for it when I sell it at Gamestop and put it towards Skyrim.

I've only had the 2 Mass Effect games for about a month and I've put in about 6-7 times as many hours into them as I have DA:2.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

/pokes head in to vote for the "I didn't hate it" crowd.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I thought the gameplay was at least twice as well-done as Origins. Combat was many times better, more visceral, more enjoyable. The story was rather bland in DA2 though, and I hated all the repeated caves and running around the same city for hours on end.

I think DA2 is a more enjoyable game than Origins, if only because the actual gameplay is WAY better. Yea it has a lot of holes in the story and it cuts a lot of corners with the environments, but those are only minor blemishes I think.

 

[TastyCarcass]

The fact that none of the choices you make create any difference to the story except who's Hawke's boyfriend and girlfriend.

How regardless of which side you are on, you get the same battles and the same ending, just different dialogue.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Ah, DA2. I never get tired of pointing out your flaws.

The reused environments were plain inexcusable and should have knocked a full star or point off of any review, anywhere. When a dev with plenty of money and support makes a conscious decision to cut an exceedingly obvious corner, it is every responsible critics' duty to call that shit out. This, incidentally, is why the Escapist reviewer rightfully catches so much flak about his bullshit perfect mark. When the devs do something very objectively wrong, you don't get to bypass it on account of personal preference - at least not if you want anyone to bother reading your reviews anymore. The reused environments were especially egregious given the game's attempt to reconcile them with an admittedly smaller scope.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun did a fantastic job pointing out the many narrative faults of DA2, including the "in media res" intro failure (this is supposed to be exciting, but it's just obnoxious), the ineffective deaths of relatively unknown characters for "dramatic weight" (I guess I was supposed to care about that person, but I'm still not 100% sure who the fuck he/she was), the intense sense of detachment resulting from multiple time leaps (how did I end up being this/here, and why didn't I get to enjoy that development in person?), and the overriding suspicion that none of your decisions actually impact the final outcome (they don't).

You can find plenty of write-ups on the flaws of the revamped combat system, but chief among them are: the limitations in party setup (only one real healer and only one real tank); the spawning or waves of enemies (aesthetically idiotic because they involve roof ninjas, mechanically idiotic because they turn the game from one of measured tactical deployment to "spam my cool downs right away so they're ready for the next wave of roof ninjas"); the animefication of combat (my dark and gritty fantasy game turned into a bunch of spiky haired super saiyans flying all over the battlefield with 10-ft swords); and, last but not least, a reduced emphasis on healing magic, crowd control, and other support functions (which would have been difficult to coordinate without the now-absent overhead view anyways, right?).

The gulf you're seeing between those who hate the game and those who like it can be drawn right between PC and console gamers. Those who played Origins on a PC had a vastly different and objectively superior experience compared to the console crowd. DA2 was a marked improvement over console Origins but a fairly massive downgrade from PC Origins. As a group that is pretty continually shafted by publishers, the PC gamers decided to make an example of DA2. They tried to sink the game with tons of negative feedback, and (judging by sales figures) it actually sorta worked. Here's hoping the next DA won't cut corners or leave a typically ignored (but obviously vocal and important) demographic out in the cold.

Edit: just an addendum: I see a lot of people saying DA2 just has way more visceral and exciting gameplay. For the record: Origins had mediocre *tactical* rpg gameplay. DA2 just switched the tactical bit to *hack-and-slash action*, but the mediocre tag is still there. There are plenty of action rpgs with loads better combat than DA2, just as there were a number of tactical rpgs that offered better gameplay than Origins. Thing is: they make plenty of action games every year. Adding one more, and a mediocre one at that, to those ranks isn't exactly what I'd qualify as an accomplishment. Robbing the world of a tactical rpg, though? In a world severely lacking for them? Yeah, that's the kind of bullshit that gets you hate.

And the hate isn't just bellyaching. Games have been transitioning to more streamlined, simplistic, and, well, auto-piloted experiences for years. This is happening because publishers think this is what people want. The only way to convince them otherwise is to raise sufficient stink and back it up with disappointing financial support. The supposedly extinct old-school demographic wised up, stopped taking its lumps, spoke out, didn't buy, and hopefully affected some change. If you think that's just bellyaching, you should probably try to separate your mouth from that corporate ass-gasket.

 

[GiantRaven]

After having played Alpha Protocol my opinion that some da2 hate is deserved is reinforced.
Alpha Protocol is an me2 type game that puts the choices and interactivity with bioware games to shame, they even share a similar intro-3 act-end structure. For all its flaws (and oh god, is there flaws, this game was released too soon) AP is a far worthier game with more creativity and worthiness then da2, even in the interesting characters department, it did not deserve to get sunk when da2 still achieved strong sales and extremely positive reviews it really didnt deserve due to it being a bioware game that was nicely hyped.

Yet there will be a Dragon Age 3, but no continuation to the Alpha Protocol franchise.

There is no justice in this world...

DA:O had a good story:
Big evil things comes back and tries to kill everybody, the only people that can stop are dying off and help is unreachable.

If by 'good' you mean 'most hilariously dull and generic story you could choose for a videogame', then I agree completely!

 

[Buccura]

I only say yes because I really hope Bioware learns a lesson from the game and makes the third one better.

 

[Mausthemighty]

I loved DA2. But compared to DA:O it's mediocre. If I compare it to the depth of Baldur's Gate 2 it would be horrendous.
DA2 had better combat and better graphics than Dragon Age Origins.
It did a whole lot of things wrong however:
- The story was too short, and was too open ended.
- The spawning of enemies was awful. You can't use any strategy against that. Enemies appearing from thin air really broke the immersion.
- The blatant reuse of the same dungeon designs.
- The fact I couldn't even equip another armor or skimpy outfit or undress the other characters.
- The overuse of blood and gore. I dig blood and gore, but it gets old really quick when everytime my rogue backstabs an enemy with two daggers, he explodes in a cloud of flesh and blood.
- No modding allowed.
- No nudity whatsoever.
- Everything that isn't money, potions or equipable is designated as trash. I find something wrong with that.

 

[LordRoyal]

I loved DA2. But compared to DA:O it's mediocre. If I compare it to the depth of Baldur's Gate 2 it would be horrendous.
DA2 had better combat and better graphics than Dragon Age Origins.
It did a whole lot of things wrong however:

- No nudity whatsoever.

Baldur's Gate would never sell well in today's world. It sold well back in the 90's because it's target demographic was D&D players, and that was largely when it was very popular with PC gamers.

Dragon Age Origins was Bioware's attempt at compromising with Baldur's Gate players, but along with people who enjoy more modern rpgs.

Compared to something like say Neverwinter Nights which was more of a multiplayer title Origins had enough depth that most PC RPGs have.

Also the graphics were largely just different models, the hair was the same just with different textures and the user interface was different. Beyond this I did not see very much difference in the graphics. But then again I played both games on max on the PC and the graphics weren't exactly Crysis if you catch my drift.

But one of the reasons you dont like DA2 is because it doesn't have nudity? Really? Thats just... wow. I don't like Dragon Age 2 for many reasons but a lack of nudity is not one of them. Mostly because it sounds immature when I just type it out.

If by 'good' you mean 'most hilariously dull and generic story you could choose for a videogame', then I agree completely!

You've obviously not played very many rpgs

*badum-tish*

Dragon Age Origins's plotline was and still is a very large staple for games even today. The only reason people constantly mention it was because of it's attempt to be story driven. But other games like for instance Diablo which features a very similar "Save the world from evil" plotline people ignore since it was more focused on gameplay. Even though they feature largely the same storyline.

Are there good RPG stories? Yes, I like Planescape Torment as much as the next guy. But just picking on Origins because it kept it's story simple and not mentioning the better parts to it such as it's characters or it's stylistic choices isn't as fair.

Plus Mass Effect features a similar cliche, the only reason people don't notice it that much is due to the individual planet's stories and all the latin based alien names. Besides "Reapers" of course.

I personally preferred Origins's characters to it's plotline. Unlike most PC rpgs it featured character development, which whilst slight was still prevalent.

 

[Mausthemighty]

I loved DA2. But compared to DA:O it's mediocre. If I compare it to the depth of Baldur's Gate 2 it would be horrendous.
DA2 had better combat and better graphics than Dragon Age Origins.
It did a whole lot of things wrong however:

- No nudity whatsoever.

But one of the reasons you dont like DA2 is because it doesn't have nudity? Really? Thats just... wow. I don't like Dragon Age 2 for many reasons but a lack of nudity is not one of them. Mostly because it sounds immature when I just type it out.

No I was not really serious about that one. I was serious about the no-modding part, though. I loved how in Origins I could get a better looking Morrigan and Leliana armor and better looking teeth (the originals looked yellow) by downloading a few mods. I miss that in 2.

And there's nothing wrong with nudity. Embrace your inner pervert!

 

[LordRoyal]

I loved DA2. But compared to DA:O it's mediocre. If I compare it to the depth of Baldur's Gate 2 it would be horrendous.
DA2 had better combat and better graphics than Dragon Age Origins.
It did a whole lot of things wrong however:

- No nudity whatsoever.

But one of the reasons you dont like DA2 is because it doesn't have nudity? Really? Thats just... wow. I don't like Dragon Age 2 for many reasons but a lack of nudity is not one of them. Mostly because it sounds immature when I just type it out.

No I was not really serious about that one. I was serious about the not modding part, though. I loved how in Origins I could get a better looking Morrigan and Leliana and better looking teeth(originals looked yellow) by downloading a few mods. I miss that in 2.

And there's nothing wrong with nudity. Embrace your inner pervert!

I just don't really consider a lack of nudity a valid criticism in a PC RPG, especially when it's put in the same sentence as "The story was too short". In fact a profuse focus on nudity is a reoccurring selling point in today's marketing.

Also there are texture mods for Dragon Age 2 on Nexus. Not all that many good ones, and not all that many equipment mods but they do exist. I still believe the only reason Origins had modding support was because Bioware was trying to appeal to the Baldur's Gate 2/Neverwinter Nights crowds which all had and still do have massive modding communities.

 

[GiantRaven]

Dragon Age Origins's plotline was and still is a very large staple for games even today.

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

But just picking on Origins because it kept it's story simple and not mentioning the better parts to it such as it's characters or it's stylistic choices isn't as fair.

I'm not just picking on Origins, it's just that the topic of discussion here is based around the Dragon Age franchise.

Also, I know this is more of a personal point, but I didn't really like any of the characters/stylistic choices in Origins apart from the sections in Orzamarr.

Plus Mass Effect features a similar cliche, the only reason people don't notice it that much is due to the individual planet's stories and all the latin based alien names. Besides "Reapers" of course.

I agree completely. The main plot of Mass Effect is by far the least interesting part of the game. Unlike Origins though, I actually really liked the characters and sub-plots. A lot.

That being said, you're probably right and I'm probably being overly harsh on Origins. It shows that I just plain couldn't get into it like I could the second game.

 

[Frankster]

When a dev with plenty of money and support makes a conscious decision to cut an exceedingly obvious corner, it is every responsible critics' duty to call that shit out. This, incidentally, is why the Escapist reviewer rightfully catches so much flak about his bullshit perfect mark. When the devs do something very objectively wrong, you don't get to bypass it on account of personal preference

Agree ten fold with this, and didn't like it when said reviewer (and a defensive screen of pro da2 people agreeing with the guy so as to support their own stances on da2) then hid behind the defence of "its my opinion" "oh well you and i have different opinions, doesnt mean either are wrong" and all that hippie BS in the aftermatch. It's possible to love a game and recognize its flaws and even if game hits your personal sweetspots, as a professional reviewer it's still possible to give it a lesser score then you'd like if you at least try to remain objective. The guy failed hard in that department.

Yet there will be a Dragon Age 3, but no continuation to the Alpha Protocol franchise.

There is no justice in this world...

This causes me no small amount of rage, sales of AP and Da2 should have been reversed if there is a gaming god. Evidently there isn't.