Poll: Was I the ONLY one who actually liked Dragon Age II?

Recommended Videos

Lenvoran

New member
Apr 29, 2010
106
0
0
Condiments said:
-snipity-
I hardly found any of the encounters in DA:O all that memorable or interesting. The dragons were all soloable by any character that could use a ranged weapon. Because they were turrets with a little dead zone and in order to change their facing they did a massive and slow leap which gave you plenty of time to casually stroll into the dead zone again.

Meanwhile, the final boss in the dwarven ruins in DA2 was a very cool fight, at least for me, and I actually had encounters where the solutions weren't one of the following:

A) Charge in and kill everything.

B) Stand in front of a doorway as the tank and set up a Storm of the Century in the room and watch everything melt.
 

Dr. wonderful

New member
Dec 31, 2009
3,260
0
0
Saladfork said:
I mean, seriously. You'd think it was Sonic 2006 from the amount of complaining I've seen about it.

I liked combat a LOT more than the first one. I also liked how the dialogue tree is now similar to Mass Effect (Which is my favourite series ever).

I will admit the plot itself is a bit disjointed, and the three acts have little to do with one another, though.

Also, there's the fact that we stay in Kirkwall for 90% of the game, but really, I didn't mind that at all while I was playing it. I really like city settings in games anyway.

Edit: Since my poll seems to be broken, I'll just tell you that the answer is apparently no.
...I actually Love the game.


I just hated the dissappearing enemies. I want to see ther bones.
 

Continuity

New member
May 20, 2010
2,053
0
0
Saladfork said:
The original was fairly poor, weak story, clichéd theme, simplistic mechanics... It was a pig with lipstick IMO.
DA2 took that pig and wiped the lipstick off so that everyone could see it was just a pig.

OK poor metaphor, but I really didn't like the DA series, bioware make some great games (kotor, mass effect) but in my experience they balance it up with awful games... (jade empire, DAO) >.<
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
Saladfork said:
I mean, seriously. You'd think it was Sonic 2006 from the amount of complaining I've seen about it.
It ain't that broken, but it sure as hell isn't acceptable. The environments are sparse, lazy, and underpopulated, which is a notable hallmark of Sonic 2006. Kirkwall feels like anything but a city to me; more like a shopping mall, and not a very well-put-together one. So little detail, so many repeating textures. Then there's the characters, who're much more detailed... but in a weird uncanny valley territory, with doll-like complexions that're just... too clean.

Far be it for me to call a game out on graphics, but Jesus this game looks ugly and inconsistent. It's not Sonic 2006 levels of un-finished, but... it's definitely unpolished and under-developed, aesthetically. It's like they literally took a map from Mass Effect and just shoved it into the Dragon Age universe, maybe spending a week making any given portion of Kirkwall.

I liked combat a LOT more than the first one.
Alright, I don't mean to call you out on liking this game, that's your right. But I've got to ask: what about the combat is there to like so much? I don't get it at all. It feels to me like Bioware was trying to combine Diablo-style hack-and-slash action-RPG mechanics with traditional Black Isle-style top-down strategy, and it managed to deliver the worst of both instead of the best. The only thing I can say in its favor is that the interface is clearer, cleaner, and easier to use, but the combat's still distant and slow and the "strategy" is insanely over-simplified; every fight feels really tedious and repetitive to me.

Are you playing on console? Because I played it on PC, and everybody I talk to who played it on gamepad controls seems to enjoy it a lot more.

Nulmas said:
I liked it, but only because I didn't buy the hype.
I didn't either. I didn't enjoy the first game much, myself. Didn't hate it, mind, but it wasn't really lighting my world on fire. General attitude I hold towards Bioware games tends to be that sort of casual indifference. I just sorta' picked this up on a whim because I was in the mood for a Bioware RPG, not really expecting to be blown away but figuring I'd get a decent distraction, and I was disgusted. I don't recall ever in my life going through such a quick transition to unmitigated rage, or such a loud one.
 

ServebotFrank

New member
Jul 1, 2010
627
0
0
You're not the only one of course. However a lot of people on this site are elitist PC assholes. I like Mass Effect 2 but the amount of hate that game gets on this site (OUT OF NOWHERE) is astounding. No one complained about this game when it came out but suddenly it's cool to hate it.
 

Purplecoyote

New member
Feb 10, 2010
232
0
0
I liked it. It wasn't as good as Origins but that would have been impossible, Origins is amazing.

I had a lot of fun with it, I loved all the characters and the art design was wonderful. Yes, almost every area was copy pasted but I didn't really mind.
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
The thing that really killed me on this game was the quest structure. It's basically doing WoW "Quest Marker" style questing, except a lot less structured and in a single-player game where you're expected to do every quest. The big problem: they don't tell you what the reward is before you do it, so you don't know if it's going to be worth your time or advance any of the goals you've set out for yourself. They just assume you're interested in doing everything in the game. And of course that's true--God knows I did everything there was to do in Mass Effect 2--but they assume you don't care about setting goals for yourself or that you might want to take certain elements of the game at your own pace, in an order of your choosing.

To give you an idea of what I mean, here's the specific scenario that killed me on this game: I wander mindlessly from one NPC to the next gathering up quests, trying to find the one I looked at in my journal that sounded interesting and profitable. It takes me like ten minutes of scouring bandit-infested streets to find an NPC, find out they're the wrong one, then another ten minutes to find the NPC I'm actually looking for.

It's a Dwarf, wanting me to retrieve some goods that he had some smugglers running, but they decided to "keep" them. I arrive at their hide-out, fight endless waves of bandits--the only thing the game seems to throw at me--and then I find out there wasn't really even any cargo, it was this Fenris guy, who deus ex machinas me out of another fight (as if I needed it) and tells me, "sorry, there isn't really any reward for this quest--but if you meet me elsewhere I'll give you a real quest, and that'll probably have a reward. Probably. Or it could just be me in your party."

Mind you this is after I've had the same thing happen three times in a row, literally about five hours of quests with no actual reward and an increasing cast of annoying, needy party members who I don't know (shit, I'm still not convinced Carver is actually my brother), promising more quests with no guaranteed rewards. That's about the point where I'd had it and did a rage-quit. Some people will call me impatient, but I don't think it's too much to ask that the game have a sense of structure and not jerk me around like this. Some people will say I want the game to hold me by the hand, but it's just the opposite: I want the freedom to reliably be able to pursue my own goals and to do shit on the side if I'm bored with main story quests. I want the game to be clear in communicating what's what.

I think it's fair to make a comparison with Mass Effect, since that's what DA2 is trying to imitate. In Mass Effect, story quests are well-differentiated from side-quests, and in fact there's clear structural differences between different sub-categories of side-quests. There's the random stuff you find exploring planets, there's the side-quests in major settlements, and then there's the clear mission goals that have been set out for the story, usually tied to major contacts in particularly important set pieces. When you go to do something you know exactly what it is you're getting into.

Shit. I can even draw comparisons with Final Fantasy 12--a game I despise to its core for poor systems design and an incredibly dull story and cast of characters, but even that has better quest structure. You have the main story, which has a clear progression and an environment structured around that progression; you have "Marks," which are special monsters you can hunt on the side; and you've got tons of optional segments to dungeons, which contain special, powerful summoned monsters you can acquire.

With DA2 and Kirkwall, though, it's just a crap-shoot. I don't know, maybe after you've passed the ten hour mark it's clearer what's going on and what quests are what, maybe you get to know the neighborhood a little better, but so far I've seen very little differentiation as to what's an hour-long slog through hordes of bandits for advancement in the story and what's a simple fifteen-minute quest that'll get me some quick gold.

The kiss of death on it, I think, is that the city's environment design itself does very little to support what structure there is. It's just one big environment with one mode of exploration of content, so all you do is wander around looking for odd jobs. It's like living in a Mass Effect city and never leaving that type of environment, which is monotonous aside from everything else. Meanwhile Mass Effect and FF12 both had different kinds of environments for different kinds of activities, and you always knew where to go for them.

Bottom line: SHITTY QUEST STRUCTURE. I could forgive the disjointed storyline, I could forgive the inconsistent art direction (God knows I gave Deadly Premonition that much credit), I could forgive the shallow combat system, but... this just pushed it too far, from "meh" game to "garbage."
 

Nokterne

New member
Aug 27, 2008
79
0
0
Both Dragon Age games are mediocre imo. I prefer the second one over the first because the combat is actually fun to an extent.
 

OceanSapphire

New member
Mar 17, 2010
43
0
0
Saladfork said:
I liked combat a LOT more than the first one. I also liked how the dialogue tree is now similar to Mass Effect (Which is my favourite series ever).

I will admit the plot itself is a bit disjointed, and the three acts have little to do with one another, though.

Also, there's the fact that we stay in Kirkwall for 90% of the game, but really, I didn't mind that at all while I was playing it. I really like city settings in games anyway.
Same. And since I love hearing my character rather than imagine their voice in my head.
 

natster43

New member
Jul 10, 2009
2,459
0
0
What I saw of it it looked fun, but I never played it. Though the same 2 dungeon layouts looked annoying.
 

Centrophy

New member
Dec 24, 2009
209
0
0
I liked it too, far better than the first one. The storytelling was deeper, the character development was deeper, the combat system went more actiony... though it was still too much like the interface from DA:O, aka WoW Lite. The loot system was less fussy. They didn't go as far as they did in ME2, but it was a pretty good balance.

Now the bad.... The ending left a lot to be desired, I think it's shitty ending a game like that. The obvious repeating dungeons, the combat system (still not that great, do I use move a that looks different than move b but does pretty much the same thing? A better option would have been going closer to Jade Empire.) The occasional bugs that broke quests, though some might have been fixed... I only played it on release.
 

Nokterne

New member
Aug 27, 2008
79
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
This poster speaks the truth.

Pfft, the illusion of choice. How does each of those options differ? It isn't hard to have eight different dialogue options in a game when the consequences of each option are indistinguishable from one another.

Not to mention that each dialogue option in DAII has unique recorded dialogue for both Hawke and the person he's speaking too.

Three good choices are better than eight indistinguishable choices, at least in my opinion.
 

Lexodus

New member
Apr 14, 2009
2,816
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
No. I loved it it. It had its problems, but so did the first game. I liked the characters better in the second game actually. Well, all except for Anders. Otherwise, I enjoyed it. Have to replay it soon so I'm ready to go when the DLC hits.

Um...I don't see a poll option...
Dude, I hated Anders on my first few playthroughs, until I'd played Awakening, and subsequently sided with the templars in DA2 with Anders on full rivalry. That's also the only way to keep him alive if you side with them, but apart from that the characterisation is just radically improved.

OT: I loved it, and I'm currently on something like my sixth playthrough. I loves me some saucy piratical wench :D
 

Alpha Maeko

Uh oh, better get Maeko!
Apr 14, 2010
573
0
0
I liked everything except for the ending. I think siding with the mages and subsequently winning every round against the templars should change how the First Enchanter reacts to the situation.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Nokterne said:
Kahunaburger said:
This poster speaks the truth.

snip
Pfft, the illusion of choice. How does each of those options differ? It isn't hard to have eight different dialogue options in a game when the consequences of each option are indistinguishable from one another.

Not to mention that each dialogue option in DAII has unique recorded dialogue for both Hawke and the person he's speaking too.

Three good choices are better than eight indistinguishable choices, at least in my opinion.
Read those dialogue options for Planescape: Torment again. The point is that they *aren't* indistinguishable. Unlike, say, Dragon Age 2's system where you frequently do the same thing no matter what dialogue option you pick and get to decide to do it nobly, grumpily, or while trying to be funny.
 

AlternatePFG

New member
Jan 22, 2010
2,858
0
0
Nokterne said:
Kahunaburger said:
This poster speaks the truth.

Pfft, the illusion of choice. How does each of those options differ? It isn't hard to have eight different dialogue options in a game when the consequences of each option are indistinguishable from one another.

Not to mention that each dialogue option in DAII has unique recorded dialogue for both Hawke and the person he's speaking too.

Three good choices are better than eight indistinguishable choices, at least in my opinion.
That might be a good argument if Dragon Age 2's dialogue options were any more significant on the game other than +10 Friendship or +10 Rivalry. I think BioWare kept the illusion going pretty well till Act 3 where it shattered like glass. You are just pretty much picking the tone of what your character is saying.
 

blasmeister

New member
May 30, 2011
23
0
0
I really liked the game, the flaws have been stated ad nauseam already but they weren't obtrusive to my enjoyment of the game, and especially the interplay of the characters. Was it quite as good as the original, no, but it wasn't that far off, and I;m still looking forward to more sequels.
 

DSK-

New member
May 13, 2010
2,431
0
0
No you aren't. I know people who like it a lot. I am not one of those people. I have yet to do any more on my second 'renegade' playthrough because of a lack of motivation playing the game gives me.