So i finally got around to Dragon Age II, not very happy with Bioware.
- Thread starter Gankytim
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Thats the worst thing about the game for me. I feelt almost insulted. Everything else like story, combat and other issues are at least somewhat subjective, but this is unacceptable. To just make one cave, one poor hut, one mansion and so on and then resuse them to death and then some, is just completely and utterly unacceptabl for a full price AAA title.Gankytim said:
I disagree, I think that quite the opposite would have happened. If a new studio and IP would have delivered this insulting level of reused maps and overall bare-bones-paint-not-even-dry unfinished game at a full AAA price they would have been burned at the stake.tippy2k2 said:
Chris Tian said:
Gankytim said:
I've had a few people questiton this so I just wanted to clarify my "Under another name, it wouldn't have been (as) hated" commentHappyninja42 said:
First, in my hypothetical situation, Bioware would still be the name behind it. It would just not be called a Dragon Age sequel.
Second, I know a lot of the hatred wasn't because it was so different but I do think that a large part of it was that whether people admit that or not. Origins to DAII was a completely different combat style (with Origins being a more traditional tactical RPG and DAII being almost hack and slashy). I think people point out the other flaws (which do deserve to be pointed out, more on this in a sec) but the big change in game-play irked people who didn't like it more than they realize.
Third, the game is very flawed. I did enjoy it anyway despite these flaws but I don't think changing the name is going to get people to shout on the roof of their home in excitement for the game under a different name. I just think that the name gave people one expectation and the game gave them something else (in the same way Final Fantasy VIII received a ton of backlash because those who were new to the series with VII didn't realize that Square made big changes every Final Fantasy).
I suppose we have no way of knowing for sure if a rose by any other name would leave the same rotten smell in people's nose but I do think it's a bigger factor than people give it credit for.
I'd rather play all the Mako stuff and have a new game based soley on the Mako stuff than play a horrible game like DA2....
It really wasn't an improvement as you only had one choice in combat: overpower the enemy by spamming the most destructive moves you had or die. When it first came out, God forbid your Rogues or Wizards got hit; there was a stat keyed to Strength that kept you from getting staggered when hit. Except that Strength is and was COMPLETELY USELESS FOR ROGUES AND WIZARDS. If you wasted points in that, your offense suffered and then they weren't pulling their weight. Back to the point, if they got hit they would get staggered then they'd get hit again and then they'd be stunlocked into oblivion. It was a rage inducing mechanic that only got worse when the enemies came in waves literally dropping in your head before you had a chance to re-group and change positions.votemarvel said:
You couldn't play a defensive game in this either, since higher ranked enemies got automatic bonuses against your defenses regardless of their level. Boss enemies cut through your Warriors like butter and hit everyone they struck with normal attacks regardless of defense. Stats were streamlined to the point that you had no choice in how to raise your characters. And enemies would scale with you all the time, no matter how powerful your characters got they WEREN'T because enemies would scale with them and then the gear you had would not. It would be obsolete as soon as you gained a level with extremely diminishing results.
Another major issue I had with the game was the character assassination of Anders. They destroyed the poor guy inbetween DA 2 and Awakening, they made him into a constantly whining, whinging, self-made matyr but he was the ONLY HEALER IN THE GAME IF YOU DIDN'T MAKE HAWKE A MAGE!. And healing in this game was horrible, you got 10 health potions, that was IT. And they all had massive cooldowns so if you suddenly took a massive hit and just used one to keep your mage from biting it from dropped in reinforcements your tank is going to bite it.
The only reason for DA 2 was setting up the Mage/Chantry Civil War that is the setting of Inquisition, but Hawke just isn't as memorable or charismatic as Shepard in comparing the two. The story premise was okay enough but the execution was an utter mess. And the timeskips, inexcusable. So you're telling us NOTHING interesting happened inbetween finding the Red Lyrium Statue and the next chapter? NOTHING AT ALL?
I can never bring myself to play it again, ever. I just...it becomes a chore as soon as I start it up. I've replayed every other Bioware game I've bought at least a half-dozen times but this one I can't do it.
There were honestly only three major complaints I had with Dragon Age 2.
-The heavy asset reuse
-Waves of spawning enemies in combat. Other than that the combat was similar to Origins, just flashier and with no isometric camera.
-Not being able to talk to my party members whenever I wanted to. I hated how you could only talk to characters after certain events, they refined it a bit in Mass Effect 3, but I still didn't like the system there.
The game isn't nearly the abomination against nature that people make it out to be, but it definitely wasn't close to being as good as Origins, nor was it worth the $60-70 price tag it had at release.
I do recommend Origins though, it's one of my favorite games. I'd recommend getting the PC version because of the mods you can install, just play it without mods your first time through.
-The heavy asset reuse
-Waves of spawning enemies in combat. Other than that the combat was similar to Origins, just flashier and with no isometric camera.
-Not being able to talk to my party members whenever I wanted to. I hated how you could only talk to characters after certain events, they refined it a bit in Mass Effect 3, but I still didn't like the system there.
The game isn't nearly the abomination against nature that people make it out to be, but it definitely wasn't close to being as good as Origins, nor was it worth the $60-70 price tag it had at release.
The majority of the hate the game got was because it was titled "Dragon Age 2" and developed by BioWare, so it had a lot to live up to. If it were titled differently and came from a different studio, it would have been considered a decent game.prpshrt said:
I do recommend Origins though, it's one of my favorite games. I'd recommend getting the PC version because of the mods you can install, just play it without mods your first time through.
Well, my theory is based on "great by association". Basically I think that people thinking "Bioware is awesome/DA:O was awesome", more or less subconsciously makes them judge DA2 in a more favorable light, and lets them make excuses for the game because they like BW/DA:O so basically defending the game before themselves, than they would a new IP from an unknown Studio. I know you said in your theory DA2-byanothername would still be from Bioware, I just haven't thought about that possibility too much so I'm just stating my original thoughts.tippy2k2 said:
Of course you are completely right with failed expectaitions, that is of course something that makes some people judge the game more harshly than they would a new IP. I just think that under the line, the "great by association" would outweight the "failed expectaitions" in the cumulative opinion of humankind about DA2.
We will never know
Which is sad actually because knowing that could really be usefull to devs. and publishers. If they want to take a franchise in a different direction or pander to a different market they would know if its best to try to set it apart from the original and market it more like a spin off or make it a new IP alltogether, or not.
I think Dragon Age: Origins has the most garbage combat system ever created and much prefer DA2. I couldn't even get far enough in DA:O to get a hand on the story, the combat was just so fucking terrible. Even the greatest story ever written cannot carry DA:O. Thus, DA2 is the clear winner here because at least its combat system worked well enough.
But this is precisely my point, it wasn't an improvement. Yet because you can hammer a button on the console to do basic attacks, people seem to think it is better.otakon17 said:
As I said I first played Dragon Age II on the PC and there I was playing it in exactly the same way as I did Origins, minus being able to pull the camera out of course.
Don't get me wrong the combat certainly looks better in DAII but it is the same combat system, just with zerg rush combat encounters at times.
I have to say, I don't get the "stripped right out of the game" argument either, because that is just objectively untrue.Witty Name Here said:
On the other hand, I hatet the rivals thing. That makes just less then zero sense. Why would somebody follow me into very dangerous situations, risk their lifes with and for me and obey my every command to the letter, if they don't even like me? Its not like they are soilders or anything, or have some sort of duty towards hawk. It's just completely nonsensical.
Because they respect you.Chris Tian said:
Rivalry paths are all about having a different way of interacting with a character. Taking the rivalry path doesn't necessarily mean the character and Hawke don't get along, just that they disagree on some issues and have a relationship that reflects that. Many people who are passionate fans of a character will tell you they prefer the rivalry paths because those are often about addressing the characters flaws while still being close to them. You can even still romance someone you are rivalling. It's just different, and i love that.
In Origins, it was be close to Morrigan or call her out on her bullshit. You had to choose. In DA2, you can disagree with a characters political views, morality or life choices without that meaning you two hate each other.
Witty Name Here said:
Well that are nice explenations but they would only make sense in a rather specific relationship between Hawk and lets say Anders. Anders sworn goal is it to protect mages and work against the Templars, he is ready to die and kill for that. If you let him tag along and go mage hunting he will kill them on your command watch you sell them out, help the templars, fight alongside templars and so on and so on. His rivalry meter will fill up and nothing else happens. You are actively working against his lifes goal, against all his belives and everything he works for and has sacrificed so much for, but he continues to tag along and activly supports you in destroying everything he trys to accomplish because he respects you? Or because otherwise Hawk yould call him a coward?AntiChri5 said:
You two seem to forget that the companions are not working with Hawk but for Hawk. He leads them like a Spec Ops Team Leader woul lead his patrol or squad. They do what he says, kill who he says and do nothing without his permission. I just think this kind of devotion makes very little or better no sense at all for rivals.
Anders is the most obsessively fanatical character in the series, but even in his case, there are justifications.
Your first meeting has you agreeing to take on the Templars for him in return for his aid. So for Act 1 he is repaying his debt. By the time Act 2 rolls around, there has been enough time for any anti-mage freedom leanings Hawke has to come to light, but Hawke has risen to become the third most influential person in the city and is either a mage or has spent years protecting a mage sister so clearly has some mage sympathy. Anders is using Hawke for protection, hoping to convert Hawke and genuinely likes Hawke and enjoys hanging out together, all at once. By Act 3 Hawke has become even more powerful but Anders has become more deranged and his "issue" has become the centre of the cities political troubles. And so Anders attempts to manipulate Hawke into helping him blow up a church. He succeeds, but whether or not he is able to manipulate hawke into helping is up to the player.
Anders DOES turn on Hawke.
Your first meeting has you agreeing to take on the Templars for him in return for his aid. So for Act 1 he is repaying his debt. By the time Act 2 rolls around, there has been enough time for any anti-mage freedom leanings Hawke has to come to light, but Hawke has risen to become the third most influential person in the city and is either a mage or has spent years protecting a mage sister so clearly has some mage sympathy. Anders is using Hawke for protection, hoping to convert Hawke and genuinely likes Hawke and enjoys hanging out together, all at once. By Act 3 Hawke has become even more powerful but Anders has become more deranged and his "issue" has become the centre of the cities political troubles. And so Anders attempts to manipulate Hawke into helping him blow up a church. He succeeds, but whether or not he is able to manipulate hawke into helping is up to the player.
Anders DOES turn on Hawke.
This is very, very wrong. Fenris will go against your express wishes at one point without hesitation, Merril's entire character arc is her doing what she fucking wants regardless or what anyone else says or does and if you piss Avaline off enough she eventually tackles you to the floor and starts belting you in the face.
What I mean is, every quest turns out how Hawk, the player, wants, even their personal ones. You are right that merryl does what she wants in her arc, but you still get to make alot of big descisions for her. I get it that the rival system makes sense in some cases, and in other it doesn't. So I totally see your point.AntiChri5 said:
I just always felt like: "Well if he is my rival, why is he taking direct orders from me without hesitation for 90% of the time?"
I thought the party banter while out in the field was great in both games, DAII was by no means lesser in this regard. I laughed out loud at some of the banter between Isabella/Varrick and Merrill.
As to the rival system, it never really bothered me. Most of my party hated me in Origins half the time, so I never expect better for Hawke.
As to the rival system, it never really bothered me. Most of my party hated me in Origins half the time, so I never expect better for Hawke.
No coherent story, randomly connecting three events together at the end just feels unsatisfying as there was no major plot goal. I'm actually shocked at the plot here, is this actually Bioware?
Yes it is: but fear not: Bioware learned their lesson: since a plot where the protagonist fails to stop History's inertia pissed so much people, the next episode will feature a Properly Overpowered Mary Sue protagonist who will Zlatan-Jesus the carefully crafted backstory so their audience gets rewarded with an appropriate power fantasy
Yes it is: but fear not: Bioware learned their lesson: since a plot where the protagonist fails to stop History's inertia pissed so much people, the next episode will feature a Properly Overpowered Mary Sue protagonist who will Zlatan-Jesus the carefully crafted backstory so their audience gets rewarded with an appropriate power fantasy