So I've been playing Dragon Age 2 for the first time recently.

[fdbluth]

if you had played the game on anything above normal difficulty then the comparison to anime is pretty damn accurate. You literally see hawke do animation upon animation yet there are still people around him because of increased health pools and reinforcements.

Boss fights also are drawn out and retarded unless your resort to abusing bombs and poisons.


I put the fast "paced" in quotes because of health pools and knockbacks the only fast paced aspect is the overly animated animations taken directly from power rangers and there is no denying that some anime have overly complex moves that do jack for damage.

Ah, okay, gotcha. Still don't agree with you, though, on the fact that it's a bad game.

 

[kaioshade]

Why is it that mass effect gets a pass for recycling areas but dragon age 2 gets ripped apart? i have asked this many times and have yet to receive a compelling answer.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I enjoyed it very much. Not a fan of the repeated environment (who is really?) but everything else I liked. Except for Anders suddenly being gay. He was such a player and ladies man in the first game that it just doesn't fit with his established character. It'd be like if The Duke was suddenly gay.

Oh. And you can avoid having your sibling die in the Deep Roads. Either take Anders with you along with your sibling, or just don't take your sibling at all. You will still lose the sibling to other events beyond your control, but they'll be alive and will return at the end of the game.

 

[Nimcha]

I play BioWare games for the story and characters. They are the only games out there that place the narrative above everything else, and it shows. So I'm willing to forgive little things like copied environments (pretty much my only fault with the game). I have no idea if you've finished the game or not, so everything else I want to say, I'll spoiler.

Spoiler: DA2 Ending

I think a large part of the reason why the game got so much hate was the way it ended. This wasn't a save-the-world kind of story. It was about a man or woman who got swept up in events larger than themselves, tried to make a difference, and ultimately failed. It's about being ineffectual in the face of larger problems. When the entire system is broken, sometimes it takes more than just one man to put it back together.

That's what I found so endearing about the narrative. Red Dead Redemption also put you in the position of failing--to an even larger degree, really. Yet because John Marston was not crafted by the player and thus didn't have to be viewed as an avatar (which is still a mistake in RPGs, IMO), I think more gamers were willing to go with the tragedy. But so many people don't want to feel like failures, like they lost. And that's the point of the game. Sometimes you can't win.

That and Anders' character arc was amazing. Love him or hate him, he was handled exceptionally well to the point so many people sympathize with him despite and even because of his actions--no matter what real world connotations they carry. He's a very layered and nuanced character and would be as good a subject for interpretation as any character in literature. It's not often we get games this deep.

I liked Origins. I've been a BioWare fangirl since the Baldur's Gate days. I know DA2 played with the conventions of the RPG, but I liked that. The story was far more personal than epic in scope, and thus I cared so much more what happened to my character.

And yes, Bethany (or Carver) doesn't have to die in the Deep Roads. But it's definitely a great tragic moment when they do.

Ah yes, finally someone who sees the story the same way I do. I like that Bioware went for something different this time. I see a lot of people complaining that no matter what you choose, you will lose in the end. There's no winner. And that's kinda the point of the whole story.

This isn't about one person saving the galaxy or the country or whatever from a big evil. It's a story about tensions in a society that eventually exploded. And the role of one person in the developments that led up to that. The ending is set in stone, but you as a player get to decide on the details. It gives you a framework for a story, and you can fill it in. Even though that is pretty much standard in every RPG (but usually with some variable endings) this game really put the focus on that. And I think that's a bit new for some people. And I'm not saying they pulled it off perfectly, because in my opinion they didn't. But at least it's somewhat original.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Ah yes, finally someone who sees the story the same way I do. I like that Bioware went for something different this time. I see a lot of people complaining that no matter what you choose, you will lose in the end. There's no winner. And that's kinda the point of the whole story.

This isn't about one person saving the galaxy or the country or whatever from a big evil. It's a story about tensions in a society that eventually exploded. And the role of one person in the developments that led up to that. The ending is set in stone, but you as a player get to decide on the details. It gives you a framework for a story, and you can fill it in. Even though that is pretty much standard in every RPG (but usually with some variable endings) this game really put the focus on that. And I think that's a bit new for some people. And I'm not saying they pulled it off perfectly, because in my opinion they didn't. But at least it's somewhat original.

Yeah, I can definitely sympathize with bioware's desire to tell a story on a smaller scale than they've told before - less like Dragon Age: Origins and more like Planescape: Torment or a Witcher game. The problem was the execution, but the core idea was good. Hopefully this doesn't turn them off trying to tell similar kinds of stories (although why would they - the game was a commercial success, after all haha.)

 

[darth.pixie]

For every person who actually liked it, there was one foaming at the mouth over it. And then there's those who thought it "blah".

I think it was blah in the sense that it was bad but after stressing myself with it before its release, there wasn't any bile left.

My problems with the game outside of the stated obvious above is that the game is really bi-polar, there is no role playing choice (you can say that there is but there isn't or else I would have gone after the killer during the second act like I wanted going so far as to search the entire maps twice over another clue) and it changes its theme and main enemies so often you might as well be playing a sandbox. By the time I was out of the Deep Roads and Varric said something about his brother, I had already forgotten about him and thus didn't really care about just revenge.

If they would have shown the possibility of vengeance right after instead of trying to stretch it to last longer, I would have been more involved in it and that counts for all the quests that had sprinkled here and there. You never even learn what that idol was and if in a game like Baldur, NWN, Divine Divinity or Origins you could have had an entire quest of raiding a forgotten library to find out, they don't even give you the possibility of learning more. It felt like a hack and slash, on the railroads Bioware set us on without even trying to mask them, shallow characters with only one personality trait that they explore and no options to actually learn about the world.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Personally, I enjoyed DA2 for what it was, but as far as quality goes, it wasn't good. There are so many things about it that were simplified from the original. Not to mention obvious flaws in level design and most of the characters weren't nearly as interesting. Not to mention obviousness of the changes made for hardware limitations that comes with consoles.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Ah yes, finally someone who sees the story the same way I do. I like that Bioware went for something different this time. I see a lot of people complaining that no matter what you choose, you will lose in the end. There's no winner. And that's kinda the point of the whole story.

This isn't about one person saving the galaxy or the country or whatever from a big evil. It's a story about tensions in a society that eventually exploded. And the role of one person in the developments that led up to that. The ending is set in stone, but you as a player get to decide on the details. It gives you a framework for a story, and you can fill it in. Even though that is pretty much standard in every RPG (but usually with some variable endings) this game really put the focus on that. And I think that's a bit new for some people. And I'm not saying they pulled it off perfectly, because in my opinion they didn't. But at least it's somewhat original.

Yeah, I can definitely sympathize with bioware's desire to tell a story on a smaller scale than they've told before - less like Dragon Age: Origins and more like Planescape: Torment or a Witcher game. The problem was the execution, but the core idea was good. Hopefully this doesn't turn them off trying to tell similar kinds of stories (although why would they - the game was a commercial success, after all haha.)

You know what would've made the DA2 story better?

Spoiler

MOAR DAKKA!

 

[ultrachicken]

It wasn't just the environments that were incredibly repetitive. That on its own I could forgive if the combat wasn't so incredibly easy/repetitive/dull/non-strategic. It was a HUGE step backwards from Origins, which didn't quite live up to Baldur's Gate as advertised, but dammit at least it was TRYING. DA2 just gave up on that premise entirely. Hell, it was one small step away from giving up on being an RPG. You could sail through that game spamming AoE attacks and never once needing to change equipment on normal. On hard, the difficulty I played on, the same applied minus the equipment thing. Lastly, both endings were just an advertisement for the sequel with no real closure. Unlike Origins, which did a good job wrapping things up. Made it feel like a whole game rather than just part one of two.

So yeah, shall I recap?

- Bland, lifeless, repetitive environments
- Easy, non-strategic combat
- Virtually non-existent/unneeded inventory
- Terrible ending

Basically, everything that could possibly go wrong in the game's design, did. They churned this one out in about a year, and it really shows. I don't think Bioware could ever present truly BAD characterization, even if they tried. But that one aspect is not enough to carry DA2. It's a bad game. Compared to any other Bioware title, it's a REALLY BAD game. As a movie, I'd give it a 6/10. As a game, 3/10.

Why would you rate a game as a movie? That makes no sense, like rating a book as a video game or something.

 

[Kahunaburger]

You know what would've made the DA2 story better?

Spoiler

MOAR DAKKA!

Tragically, the Escapist doesn't have a "like" button.

 

[Klepa]

I figured I'd throw a few more cents in...

DA:O, to me, was basicly a streamlined Baldur's Gate. The gameplay was the same, but they cut out a lot of the useless aspects of the Infinity Engine era games.

For example, having a cleric around in BG1&2 didn't really bring much to the table. Most people just had him/her standing out of harm's way, throwing buffs, debuffs, heals and resurrections. The healer didn't bring much in the way of tactics into the gameplay, it was basicly a healing dispenser that needed to be managed. Getting rid of a pure healer class in DA:O was a good move, in my opinion. It streamlined gameplay in a way that kept the tactical elements intact, but removed the micromanagement and extra hassle.

The turn-based combat seen in Infinity games was a relic from D&D rules. If you have the option of tailoring a combat system to suit your real-time game, only a madman would try to rig a turn-based D&D system in it. They made their own combat system in DA:O, and even though it needed a bit of fine-tuning, it didn't hamper the tactical gameplay at all, and made the combat feel a lot more responsive than it was in BG1&2.

But I wasn't happy about all the streamlining made in DA:O. The numbers side of the combat system wasn't very informative, and many people (including me) would've preferred a more transparent approach, where the numbers and formulas would've been visible for players. DA:O is pretty vague when it comes to calculating armor, base attack damage or spell damage.

The decisions BioWare made for DA2, are pretty much the opposite of what I would've made. The number side is more vague than it was in DA:O, not telling the player much beyond the very basics of each skill. The game's combat was also much less tactical, and the inventory and itemization people like me enjoy, had been cut down to a minimum. I played through the game once, and it had very little to do with tactics, and very much to do with Hawke waving a big axe, annihilating everyone within five meters.

Basicly the stuff that made BG1&2, and DA:O so great for me was gone. BioWare took the game to a place where I could not follow, I wasn't their target demographic anymore. Of course there's nothing wrong with me not being the target audience, it'd be ridiculous for me to demand that they make a game especially for me, but it doesn't change the fact that DA2 was a disappointment for me.

Also: If you're making the game a hack and slash, why the target rings and clunky UI? I'd make the hacking and slashing fun, like Dynasty Warrior or God of War. If it's so action paced, why not let me go all-out with my 2hander, why the MMO controls? It's hardly the best control scheme for an action oriented game.

rant over, time to sober up.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

Why is it that mass effect gets a pass for recycling areas but dragon age 2 gets ripped apart? i have asked this many times and have yet to receive a compelling answer.

Well, there were complaints about it.

But Bioware fixed that problem in ME2 where all the side quests are different maps. None re-used.

 

[Mathak]

They should have done more with the whole 'story-as-told-by-Varric' thing. The part where he suddenly goes all Frank Castle on his brother was awesome.

 

[Rapamaha]

Dragon Age 2 is a good game, but a bad sequel

 

[Lenvoran]

Dragon Age 2 is a good game, but a bad sequel

Agreed. I think part of the problem that people don't like is the lack of continuation from Origins. People wanted a continuation of the story from Dragon Age 1, and it wasn't. So it doesn't really matter what the game is about, people will hate it for not being a true sequel.

Personally, I found the combat no more or less strategic than Dragon. Faster paced? Possibly. I like having my abilities doing different things, but to be very blunt (and potentially over analyze things), let's compare some of the things directly. Only using active abilities here. I know there are modes and passives and what not that change things, but those are almost identical between the two games.

Weapon and Sheld: Warrior

Dragon Age 1:
Shield Bash:
-Damage
-Knockdown
-20 second cooldown

Shield Pummel:
-Damage (Two strikes)
-Stun
-20 second cooldown

Overpower:
-Damage (Three strikes, third hit crits)
-Knockdown
-20 second cooldown

Assault:
-Damage (Four strikes)
-20 second cooldown

Dragon Age 2:
Shield Bash:
-Damage
-Stagger (with Pummel)
-15 second cooldown (10 seconds with Pummel)

Assault:
-Damage (Three strikes; Bonus damage vs Disoriented with Battery)
-Knockback
-20 second cooldown (15 seconds with Battery)

Scatter (Area of Effect):
-Damage (Bonus damage vs disoriented with Disperse)
-Knockback
-25 second cooldown

Mages are a bit more complicated, but generally all the abilities are there, with some new added ones. Admittedly spell combinations are gone, but I'd rather have some of the unique abilities of say, the Force Mage from DA2, than Storm of the Century (which really just made fights rather trivial. You could cast it from another room and just have your tank sit in the doorway, just outside the edge of the combo).

As for the assertion that Dragon Age 2 has more abuse of AI than the original. That's just plain not true.

Every Dragon encounter in Dragon Age 1 could be solo'd by anyone with a ranged weapon and health potions. Dodge back and forth just outside the area it could spit fire when it was turning (they couldn't move from their perch and it would do a big dramatic leap to change directions) and fire your bow.

Or play an Arcane Warrior and activate all of your modes and AFK for a few minutes.

Neither game is anywhere near perfect. I'd say both were rather flawed. Dragon Age 2 isn't worse than Origins. Just different.

 

[Valdus]

Dragon Age 2 is a good game, but a bad sequel

This - they took a mediocre fantasy game (IMO) and slapped a Dragon Age title on the cover in the hopes they could squeeze money out of the fanboys. Hype works both ways and in this case it backfired. What's annoying is that if they just used some original IP for this game and sold it as something different it probably would have been better.

The reasons I don't like it are pretty small but they all add up - I don't like the change in art style
I feel the classes don't have as many options (archer or two-weapon warriors)
I feel the specialisations aren't as good (you actually had to make a deal with a demon in the first game to be a blood mage)
it does a poor job of immersion (using blood magic in front of templars being a good example)
it's far more rail-roady than the first and assumes you automatically made certain choices in the first game (such as choosing to kill Flemeth, not killing Anders or Lelianna).
There are many contrived elements as well such as

Spoiler

Flemeth somehow being all knowing that Hawke would make it to the Dalish, yet somehow doesn't know to simply not be at the camp when the party goes to slay her in the first game? That is assuming you even go to slay her.

Not to mention all the cameos. It's as if half of Ferelden decided to move into this one city.


May seem petty but they all add up.

 

[psicat]

I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 as well, it was a great game with more intuitive controls, more enjoyable combat, a more personal story and interesting companions than the first in my opinion. It does have it's flaws as well such as the heavily recycled dungeons and too many bugs at release, but I would have said it was a 7/10 or 8/10. Unfortunately the game got allot of misplaced hate from fans of the first who just wanted more of the same, and PC fanboys who raged over the fact they got the superior release with Dragon Age: Origins but just a console port with Dragon Age 2.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Snip

Ooh you just reminded me of another thing I find annoying: The fact that you can't change the armour/ appearance of your party members, only yourself.