The Things I Hate, Part One: Dragon Age II

[infohippie]

I had pretty much the same reaction to DA2 as the OP. It's what happens when your lead writer of ten years quits because he doesn't like where the company is headed, one remaining writer thinks characters like Merril are the greatest thing ever, and another doesn't like games and thinks that gameplay is just what you have to suffer through to get to the next bit of story. And your publisher is pushing you to get it out the door in less than half the time it should take to make, and simplify it because they don't believe the FPS generation likes having to think in their games.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Morrigan is a stereotype, not an archetype. She consistently advises or approves of the 'evil' decisions in every situation regardless of context and whether they actually benefit her in any way, down to siding with the Templars, of all things, because she inexplicably hates the circle mages for being 'weak' enough to be imprisoned by the Templars. Add to that that she's sexually aggressive and beyond bad character design is clearly meant to be 'the hot one' and she's actually a little offensive.

Wait. What? No, just no.

Morrigan grew up in the swamp with no human contact besides Flemeth. Flemeth was a powerful mage who made a game out of killing Templars. Morrigan doesn't hate Templars she just has no respect for them because ever since she was a child they've been nothing more than game pieces. only fit to be lured out into the swamp and killed. Flemeth is also the only mage role-model she has, and she would never let a Templar control her. Even knowing that there are other mages that bow to Templars make her think less of herself and her mother, just knowing that something that weak uses the same magic as her. Of course she hates them. As for advising the "evil" options (Was saving Sten an evil choice? Was not killing Jawan an evil choice?) Again I say she grew up with Flemeth in the swamp. She didn't grow up with human friends, her friends were animals. She didn't develop empathy for suffering, she grew up only knowing survival of the fittest. There's a good reason she doesn't think the merchant in Lothering should lower his prices. To her saving Redcliffe is a waste of time, they're too week to defend them selves so they get wiped out. It's the circle of life, it's what she understands.
And she's sexually aggressive. SWAMP! It's survival of the fittest. She sees something she wants (The sexy warden) so she's going to take it. It's what she understands.

And she's ridiculously sexy. Uh... There's noting I can say to that. I have a bad reason for that. Flemeth is her mother. but as you well know Flemeth's only use for daughters is to find a new host body when her original dies. She probably goes through a ton of daughters and only keeps the sexy ones just because she wants a sexy new host body. It sort of makes sense in a way.

Well there goes me again, pointlessly defending a fictional character to a fault.
Did I sway your opinion on the matter at all or did I just waist your time?

 

[The_Waspman]

Oh come on now, be fair. DA2 is a good game. Not a great game, but a good one. It is a piss poor sequel though. But as has been noted, its a different type of game. Its not a 'hero saves the world from an all powerful evil' kind of game. I enjoy it.

Yes yes, like everyone else I think the reused dungeons is cheap, the waves of enemies is - as a game mechanic - cheap, but understandable as a story element. If you remember that the whole game is a story being told by an unreliable narrator, who often exaggerates the details, then it sort of starts making sense ("and then we got jumped by 50 guys, but we wiped them out, easy") but the thing that most annoys me is the pacing. The forced pacing I should say. Three years between acts is ridiculous. Because its like everything has just been in stasis for that time. Particularly in those encounters where someone is like 'hey, remember me from 3 years ago, when you saved my life?' This is most jarring between acts two and three. 3-6 months, yes, I can understand, but 3 years? No, that strains credulity somewhat.

So yes, it has flaws, but taken as its own story, on its own merits, and something that is merely set in the same world as the original dragon age, then its not bad. Unfortunately we are constantly reminded that its set in the same world because of all the frigging cameo's. Yeesh.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

While I don't share your fiery hatred of Dragon Age 2 I do agree with everything you said about it. The Best Part of Origins was that the Warden wasn't voice acted so everything he or she said was completely up for interpenetration. And DA2 did manage to fuck up everything that worked in the first one.

With Half of Bioware working on The Old Republic and the other half (presumably) working on Mass Effect 3 you'd think that a handful of interns and people who stopped by the Bioware office to use the bathroom made the entirety of Dragon Age 2.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Flemeth was a powerful mage who made a game out of killing Templars.

Which she reflects on as a way of teaching harsh lessons about survival to a child. As an adult, she has no need of the game.

Even knowing that there are other mages that bow to Templars make her think less of herself and her mother, just knowing that something that weak uses the same magic as her. Of course she hates them.

Except that's not really what she says. She says that Mages shouldn't allow themselves to be controlled, and this drives her to advocate killing them all when many of them are actually rebelling against that control and/or trying to escape.

It's even worse if your character is a circle mage, because then you have her on one hand being sympathetic to you if you show a desire for freedom, and then telling you you should side with the people who denied you that freedom to kill all your friends.

As for advising the "evil" options (Was saving Sten an evil choice? Was not killing Jawan an evil choice?)

Sten is a serial murderer and is outside the Qun. In his own words, he caged himself.

Morrigan's desire to free him actually makes no sense. He outright explains that he allowed himself to be captured, so why does Morrigan not regard him as weak? She also seems to know about and have a problem with the treatment of the saarebas (Qunari mages), so it's not due to any sympathy with the Qunari as a species. Since every other character also advises the warden to free Sten, one can only assume her endorsement exists for gameplay purposes.

In fact, now I think about it, the thing about the saarebas makes no sense either, why would she support the Templars in killing the circle mages, yet find the Qunari treatment of the saarebas unacceptable?

The only explanation is that she's ridiculously petty and doesn't understand her own point.

As for Jowan, that's even weirder. He's a self-hating mage locked in a prison whining about how bad his life has gone, and she has no problem with that? He's also a blood mage.. considering how invested Morrigan seems to be in dispelling the illusion that all apostates are blood mages or soon-to-be blood mages, why is she tollerant of that?

Oh but wait.. Jowan is a blood mage and a murderer, that makes letting him go without demanding he face any consequences kind of.. evil, doesn't it? Yeah, it's evil enough, she'll do it!

Did I sway your opinion on the matter at all or did I just waist your time?

Neither.

I disagree, but it's interesting to hear nonetheless.

My main issue is that her personality is not consistent at all. She claims to dislike physical intimacy and dependence, yet gains positive approval from being treated as a friend or from the player initiating a romantic advance with her. She claims to be all about survival of the fittest, but applies it so selectively that it basically just comes across as 'be nice to people as long as they are being dicks', for example, wanting you to side with Kolgrim despite the fact he's a clearly a religious zealot (something she claims to hate), she doesn't even know he's a dragon cultist and his men have been attacking you on sight.

Also, it's a cheap shot but her own romantic advances aren't like someone who grew up watching animals, it's like someone who grew up watching dodgy porn movies.

I'm exaggerating, of course.. I just think a lot of people are rose tinting Origins, it's a great game with good characters but it's not the guiding light of the RPG gods come to lead us to the promised land.

 

[TPiddy]

Here's where I agree with you....

1. The game should not have been called Dragon Age II, but perhaps, Dragon Age: Fall of Kirkwall or something else, to indicate that while it takes place in the Dragon Age, it's not a sequel.

2. Recycled dungeons and lack of armor options. To me this just screams about restrictive character design.

3. Meaningless choices, as most of them were, and the tepid romance angles that I didn't care to pursue.

4. The transformation of Anders as a character. I did not like the new Anders.

Here's where I disagree with you....

1. While the combat mechanics were changed up, underneath it was still basically using a D & D style damage system, they just removed the 'turn' style so that it didn't look like the you were taking turns hitting each other. I had no problem with actually playing the combat that way.

2. The story lines were interesting. A LOT more happens than what you describe and if you bothered to explore you would have easily run up to 40 hours. I was particularly intrigued with the Arashok and the eventual crumbling of trust that occurred that led to the inevitable battle.

3. I liked that the characters were in their own homes when you weren't using them. In the context that most of the game takes place in a large city, this just makes sense and gives more of a flavour to the characters that you wouldn't otherwise have seen. Varric and Isabella were two of the more interesting of the group.

So, in summary, I don't think it was a bad game. I enjoyed my two playthroughs, but I didn't bother with a third as I lost interest. This is a good indicator that the game was too repetitive and the choices didn't matter enough to warrant a third playthrough.

Not nearly as good as Origins / Awakening, but I don't think it was even developed by the same team of developers, and I think that, as many people have said, your hatred of it lies largely in it's inability to hold a candle to its predecessor, something that could have been remedied by renaming the game.

 

[Dracowrath]

snip

We were in the process of having an actual discussion, one that I think was very stimulating and possibly even philosophical, with a bent towards the dissection of literature as it applies to video games. If you do not wish to take part, that is your right, but I think you could at least respect myself and the others that would like to discuss by not disrupting or posting a needless remark.

If you have actual contention with my opinions, I would gladly discuss, but I think I'm deserving of just a bit more consideration than that.

I tried to read through your original post to see if there was anything to it. I got halfway, and every last complaint was nothing but whining about how this game wasn't exactly like origins. And as such, I felt you weren't deserving of any consideration.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

While Dragon Age II does have several noticeable flaws to it, both in story, characters, quest design and map (I preferred the fast paced combat of Dragon Age II, but the tactical side of Dragon Age: Origins was the better of the two).. you have to come to the realization at some point that Dragon Age II is a "sequel" in terms that it shares the Dragon Age name, and that part of the game occurs after the Hero of Ferelden from the first game defeats the Darkspawn and the Archdemon. It was never meant to continue the story of the Hero of Ferelden in any way, shape or form, but rather expand upon the universe of Thedas and the characters whom influenced it the most over it's history (albeit granted, exploration and locations could have been a little more spread out over the area).

Dragon Age as a trilogy is not the story of the Hero of Ferelden, but rather the story of Thedas and the characters whom molded it. Not to say that this negates any of the legitimate criticisms of game mechanics and slight story plot holes here and there with the game itself, but judging Dragon Age II for not being a clone of Dragon Age: Origins plus addition plot is rather missing the point.

Oh, I've come to accept that. I find it somehow unwise to go on a different tangent with the sequel when, again, there were very visible sequel hooks and cliffhangers left at the end of the first. However, as a successor, this game fails. The story aside, all the gameplay changes, many frivolous and we can see ineffective - or outright bad - have nothing to do with being a separate tale in the world. Basically, if it ain't broke it don't need fixin'.

Though, I did enjoy the magical combat much more.

Yes, as a successor to the original story Dragon Age starts out with in Origins, Dragon Age II fails. However, as an expansion-of-the-universe sequel (sharing the same name and lore), it does what it set out to do - albeit, it could have been much better in execution. Also, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't mean you can't ever make changes here and there when you want to try something new in trial and error. Otherwise, that is just sticking to tradition/familiarity because it is familiar, which is rather naive and circular logic that inevitably leads to stagnation - not a good thing for the industry to get into (more of) a habit of doing.

Honestly, if you are looking for a more direct sequel to Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age III is probably going to be a lot closer by virtue of re-including the Hero of Ferelden into the plot, and not just Hawke. Just setting up potential sequel hooks and cliffhangers at the end of a game, after all, does not automatically mean the very next game is going to be based majorly upon the other end of those hooks and cliffhangers.

 

[StarCecil]

snip

I find that I can immerse more with a silent protagonist, because I generally impose myself onto him. It becomes more like a "choose your own adventure" rather than a standard video game. If you take a character like Shepard from Mass Effect or Hawke, and immediately my attention is elsewhere. I mean, no matter what I do this character is going to at least be fairly defined outside of my own input. Just do away with the pretense and give me the character you want me to play.

Anders is a dick in the sense that I don't like him. His Awakening appearance was standard dickery and I didn't like him (I swapped his ass out for Velanna as soon as I could). However, his appearance in Dragon Age II was a bit of a... dirty trick. He's not at all like his previous incarnation, and even though they give an explanation it falls short because, from a writing standpoint, that's just a no-go. It isn't character development if you skip the development. I really got the feeling that they were just trying to soak up some good will from fans of Anders by including him in the loosest sense of the word. He could very well have been named anything else and it wouldn't have affected the plot one iota. He was billed as "the same ol' Anders, with one blind spot!" However, he turned out too have the one foci and didn't shut up about it.

And the game kept trying to get me to flirt with him, and he'd flip the fuck out if I said "no, thanks".

I know that it's an Eluvian, however that is never made apparent in the game. If I hadn't played Witch Hunt, as many didn't (and I have to strongly recommend they never do. Fuck that shit.), then I wouldn't have known what it was or what it could or what Merrill thought she could accomplish. I didn't really expect her to get it to work, and I didn't really think Bioware had the testicular fortitude to really make a solid statement about the previous game and its relation to Hawke's story. I feel like the Eluvian, just like Anders, was Bioware desperately nudging me saying, "'Member? You 'member!"

And it's pretty well implied that she gives up on the mirror and chucks it in the Friendship ending as well.

I had pretty much the same reaction to DA2 as the OP. It's what happens when your lead writer of ten years quits because he doesn't like where the company is headed, one remaining writer thinks characters like Merril are the greatest thing ever, and another doesn't like games and thinks that gameplay is just what you have to suffer through to get to the next bit of story. And your publisher is pushing you to get it out the door in less than half the time it should take to make, and simplify it because they don't believe the FPS generation likes having to think in their games.

I think that EA is largely responsible for the problems this game suffered, but not from a cackling Bond villain type of way. I think that they really, honestly, wanted to make a new standard of Bioware games (Origins conforms more closely to the old standard of games) but didn't quite realize that part of the appeal of the first was its throwback to old games. And a rushed development cycle just exacerbated the problems.

I want to say it now: many of the problems with this game would have been okay if they had been given the proper polish. And, my personal preference, in a different video game.

snip

My vitriol for the game is exaggerated. I really do think had it not been labeled "Dragon Age" and not been a Bioware game, it would be a pretty decent game burdened by a rushed development cycle (something like KotOR 2).

But, as I've said, the game - from a plot standpoint - can call itself a sequel or an addition to the setting, or whatever. But when you change up all the mechanics so that it's less of sequel (in terms of the gameplay itself) to Dragon Age, and more of a spiritual successor to Mass Effect, some wires have gotten crossed. I can accept the whole "this is a big, breathing world" but I don't appreciate the writers insulting my intelligence by shoehorning in some references and saying "See? See?"

The Best Part of Origins was that the Warden wasn't voice acted so everything he or she said was completely up for interpenetration.

Freudian slip?

But seriously, I think EA just rushed it out the door. Not to say that they're the bad guys - they are businessmen, not gamers - but it was something that they misjudged. Also grievous is the promised two years of Origins DLC cut down to one so resources could go to Dragon Age II.

Here's where I disagree with you....

1. While the combat mechanics were changed up, underneath it was still basically using a D & D style damage system, they just removed the 'turn' style so that it didn't look like the you were taking turns hitting each other. I had no problem with actually playing the combat that way.

I didn't really have a problem with the combat per se. I played as a mage, though, and when I'm waiting for my mana to recharge (and can't take another bloody potion, because it has a long-ass fucking cooldown!) I get a bit bored tapping X to the same three fire-y slash-y animations. I'd rather them have made it a bit more hack 'n' slash if they wanted to go this route, something like the Lord of the Rings games. That would have been pretty cool.

2. The story lines were interesting. A LOT more happens than what you describe and if you bothered to explore you would have easily run up to 40 hours. I was particularly intrigued with the Arashok and the eventual crumbling of trust that occurred that led to the inevitable battle.

There were interesting parts to the story. The Qunari thing was my favorite. But there were so many things that held it back. Not only were the cool parts decidedly not "the point" of the tale, but it was structured in such a shambolic manner. Take for instance the entire second act. You're suddenly introduced to the Viscount, told of the growing problems with the Qunari, and asked go to save the day.

My reaction was "who the fuck are you and why should I care"? Then, most prominently in the first act, most of the quests are related in a "so I guess I'll go ever here" kind of way. Where in Origins the quests were really straightforward in a "my mission requires that I do this" way. If there had been an overarching goal then it would have made much more sense.

Plus, the final two bosses are introduced at the God damn end of the second act, and at the end you have to fight BOTH no matter who you picked...

Basically, it seemed like they were so intent on this mage storyline that they plastered over or outright ignored certain interesting stories, and completely forgot about the "story of Hawke" aspect. It doesn't become the story of Hawke's rise to power so much as it's about how wrongly the mages are treated, so on and so on.

3. I liked that the characters were in their own homes when you weren't using them. In the context that most of the game takes place in a large city, this just makes sense and gives more of a flavour to the characters that you wouldn't otherwise have seen. Varric and Isabella were two of the more interesting of the group.

I don't hate that the characters have homes - not by itself. It was nice to have them centrally located in Origins, but whatever. The main problem with them having homes is that I don't like many of them and so didn't want to go root them out to go talk to them, and didn't get the "full" experience. I ended up losing half my party at the end because of it. And I couldn't be bothered to care about it either.

What really rankles, however, is how little dialogue they have. They have tons of banter with each other (which goes far to explaining the lack of actual dialogue with them) but you can't have the long, interesting conversations with them as with the previous game's characters.

Not nearly as good as Origins / Awakening, but I don't think it was even developed by the same team of developers, and I think that, as many people have said, your hatred of it lies largely in it's inability to hold a candle to its predecessor, something that could have been remedied by renaming the game.

Here's the crux of the issue. I picked up the game because I loved the first (I pre-ordered this *****) and was solidly disappointed. Had it had a different name (or a subtitle) I wouldn't have picked it up because it just isn't the game I'm interested in.

I tried to read through your original post to see if there was anything to it. I got halfway, and every last complaint was nothing but whining about how this game wasn't exactly like origins. And as such, I felt you weren't deserving of any consideration.

You should have read further and or read for content. If you had, you'd see many of my complaints are general things that any game could suffer from. And I didn't even touch upon the cheap combat, rehashed environments, the reduced specializations...

I am, however, curious about that unique state of mind that exists between "I don't think you're deserving of consideration" and "But I will post..."

snip

Oh, certainly, in lore terms it does the whole "expansion" thing. But execution is key here. My main problems with it, once I got past that difference between it and Origins, are that all of the flaws could have been fixed with some spit and polish. They were largely executed poorly or unfinished.

And I'm all for making changes if it means making the game better. However, when the aspects of Origins were designed specifically to be as older Bioware games are changed because, as the devs said they were, they're "obsolete" and "broken", I'm understandably miffed. I don't see the point in changing something that worked absolutely fine (especially when your new execution is so poor).

I understand that not including the plot hooks was a decision made with a "big picture" in mind. But I feel personally insulted when the developers treat it as though I shouldn't be concerned about their conspicuous absence on the basis that "it's about Thedas, not the Warden". I would ask, then, why they bothered with the Eluvian, the baby, the Warden disappearing...

And why in the name of all that is Holy did they sell the fans a five hour long advertisement for Dragon Age II in the form of DLC?

I wouldn't yet take it for granted that the Hero and Hawke will have anything to do with Dragon Age III. At all.

 

[Bebus]

I don't actively dislike Dragon Age 2; the whole game has the feel of something that could have been truly epic but fell flat on its face half a mile before the finishing point.

They should have taken an extra year to create it, using the time to do the following:

Allow proper party interaction. This was a massive turn off for me. Your companions live their own lives, why can't you find anything to talk about for 2 minutes aside from repeated, prompted one liners?

New dungeons. No need to elaborate.

'better' encounters. The combat itself could do with a little tightening up, but the newest patch has done a lot of good. Also, the 'better combat' mod really improves things with regards to making CCCs more practical and balancing power trees. But the actual encounters were just boring; mob standing there, first wave, second wave. Every time. Have enemies pop out of ambushes if need be, but not like this!!

More rounded stories. All the missions felt like they could have been powerful and moving, but just didn't reach the mark. They were rushed out before the writers could properly refine them, or something.

Make the plot flow better. I really liked the idea of one person's struggle to power in a city. What we got were 3 mostly unconnected stories set in the same 5 set locations. If the city was a huge, open, free to roam metropolis with events happening in 'real time' and it being the player's prerogative to take advantage of them, it could have been brilliant.

Oh, and think of a new name. This was not a sequel to DA:O. It was an entirely different game,and should have been marketed as such. Dragon Age: Kirkwall, or something.



So basically, if they made the entire game better, it would have been something brilliant!!

But still, I enjoyed it. I don't know why, but I loved Kirkwall, I loved the Wounded Coast, I loved Isabella arguing with Aveline, and when

Spoiler: late game spoiler

Hawke's Mum died

I may have begun to tear up a little. The combat was fast, fun and interesting (try playing on the harder settings without tactical pausing if you want to know what I mean!) and the stories solid if not properly imagined.

It is probably one of the 'saddest' games this generation for pure, unrealised potential.

 

[StarCecil]

Make the plot flow better. I really liked the idea of one person's struggle to power in a city. What we got were 3 mostly unconnected stories set in the same 5 set locations. If the city was a huge, open, free to roam metropolis with events happening in 'real time' and it being the player's prerogative to take advantage of them, it could have been brilliant.

That's an interesting statement. I couldn't quite put to words exactly why the plot was as shambolic as it was, but I think this sums it up. The story comes across as several disparate plots that are not connected.

But even that is inaccurate because that implies that the developers were intending to go for some sort of vignette style. And they weren't.

 

[Mikeyfell]

The Best Part of Origins was that the Warden wasn't voice acted so everything he or she said was completely up for interpenetration.

Freudian slip?

But seriously, I think EA just rushed it out the door. Not to say that they're the bad guys - they are businessmen, not gamers - but it was something that they misjudged. Also grievous is the promised two years of Origins DLC cut down to one so resources could go to Dragon Age II.

Stupid auto-correct, You knew I meant interpretation right?

But I digress.

I played through Origins 11 times and each time felt like it's own unique experience.
I played through DA2 twice (Once siding with the mages once with the Templars) and both times felt pretty much the same.

Especially because they retcon'd most of the people I killed back to life.

 

[StarCecil]

The Best Part of Origins was that the Warden wasn't voice acted so everything he or she said was completely up for interpenetration.

Freudian slip?

But seriously, I think EA just rushed it out the door. Not to say that they're the bad guys - they are businessmen, not gamers - but it was something that they misjudged. Also grievous is the promised two years of Origins DLC cut down to one so resources could go to Dragon Age II.

Stupid auto-correct, You knew I meant interpretation right?

But I digress.

I played through Origins 11 times and each time felt like it's own unique experience.
I played through DA2 twice (Once siding with the mages once with the Templars) and both times felt pretty much the same.

Especially because they retcon'd most of the people I killed back to life.

I have to agree with you on that. I've lost count of how many times I played Origins, and the weird thing is I played it as a Human Noble Warrior every time. I just like the journey so much.

I tried to do a second full play through of Dragon Age II as a rogue, but I couldn't make it past the introduction stage.

 

[Mikeyfell]

My main issue is that her personality is not consistent at all. She claims to dislike physical intimacy and dependence, yet gains positive approval from being treated as a friend or from the player initiating a romantic advance with her. She claims to be all about survival of the fittest, but applies it so selectively that it basically just comes across as 'be nice to people as long as they are being dicks', for example, wanting you to side with Kolgrim despite the fact he's a clearly a religious zealot (something she claims to hate), she doesn't even know he's a dragon cultist and his men have been attacking you on sight.

This is where a lot of our disagreement stems from.

Think of Morrigan less as a mature responsible adult with the presence of mind to purposefully make the dick choices because they're dick choices. Think of her more like a selfish little kid who is determinately trying to live in her own little world

She learned everything she knows from Flemeth who already has a pretty warped world view. So her views are just like Flemeth's except skewed even harder. Even worse Morrigan hates Flemeth

She's never met a circle mage. She hates them because Flemeth hates them. Yeah she has reasons like they're weaklings, They're insults to all mages, they shouldn't let the Templars walk all over them. She learned all that from Flemeth and Flemeth is only pissed off because they stole her book. She never got possessed by a demon, so she thinks it's easy to avoid getting possessed by demons. She doesn't understand incompetence of fear because she got all that beaten out of her by Flemeth. She has no reference frame for other people

She's immature, she gets embarrassed at her own feelings so she hides behind her tough ***** mask. She's not being serious she's lying to make the warden think she's cool

Or I could just be reading too much into things. You see a poorly written evil stereotype, I see a very well written immature child who doesn't even fully understand her own biases. That's one of the cool things about art you can look at it any way you want.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I have to agree with you on that. I've lost count of how many times I played Origins, and the weird thing is I played it as a Human Noble Warrior every time. I just like the journey so much.

I tried to do a second full play through of Dragon Age II as a rogue, but I couldn't make it past the introduction stage.

Was it because of the difficulty?
I got stuck at that level on my warrior play-through.
I had a really hard time with DA2 as a warrior to the point where I had to play on easy difficulty 2 thirds of the time. (Until I learned about the Shield glitch)

That's another problem I have with DA2 the game is completely broken if you don't play Aveline, Anders, Verric.

I'd love to play Fenris or Merill but I can't fucking use 'em.

Or was it because you were bored? I can't start a third play. Mostly because the only dialog I haven't tried is the goody two shoes options.

 

[StarCecil]

My main issue is that her personality is not consistent at all. She claims to dislike physical intimacy and dependence, yet gains positive approval from being treated as a friend or from the player initiating a romantic advance with her. She claims to be all about survival of the fittest, but applies it so selectively that it basically just comes across as 'be nice to people as long as they are being dicks', for example, wanting you to side with Kolgrim despite the fact he's a clearly a religious zealot (something she claims to hate), she doesn't even know he's a dragon cultist and his men have been attacking you on sight.

This is where a lot of our disagreement stems from.

Think of Morrigan less as a mature responsible adult with the presence of mind to purposefully make the dick choices because they're dick choices. Think of her more like a selfish little kid who is determinately trying to live in her own little world

She learned everything she knows from Flemeth who already has a pretty warped world view. So her views are just like Flemeth's except skewed even harder. Even worse Morrigan hates Flemeth

She's never met a circle mage. She hates them because Flemeth hates them. Yeah she has reasons like they're weaklings, They're insults to all mages, they shouldn't let the Templars walk all over them. She learned all that from Flemeth and Flemeth is only pissed off because they stole her book. She never got possessed by a demon, so she thinks it's easy to avoid getting possessed by demons. She doesn't understand incompetence of fear because she got all that beaten out of her by Flemeth. She has no reference frame for other people

She's immature, she gets embarrassed at her own feelings so she hides behind her tough ***** mask. She's not being serious she's lying to make the warden think she's cool

Or I could just be reading too much into things. You see a poorly written evil stereotype, I see a very well written immature child who doesn't even fully understand her own biases. That's one of the cool things about art you can look at it any way you want.

I think she puts on the tough persona because it was how she was raised. She reacts negatively because Flemeth taught her to (and she herself isn't a source of love or nurture) but responds to friendship because she genuinely wants it. If you befriend her, she outright says that she knows she might not be worth it, but she appreciates it.

Was it because of the difficulty?
I got stuck at that level on my warrior play-through.
I had a really hard time with DA2 as a warrior to the point where I had to play on easy difficulty 2 thirds of the time. (Until I learned about the Shield glitch)

That's another problem I have with DA2 the game is completely broken if you don't play Aveline, Anders, Verric.

I'd love to play Fenris or Merill but I can't fucking use 'em.

Or was it because you were bored? I can't start a third play. Mostly because the only dialog I haven't tried is the goody two shoes options.

I play on easy mode because I'm a punk like that. And my party is a first-come, first-serve affair. Aveline, Merrill, Carver/Varric (depending on how long it takes until Carver pisses me off).

I got all the way to the Ogre fight, then said "fuck it".

 

[m0ng00se]

origins was boring as hell in so many gameplay aspects it's not even funny. somewhere around 45 hours i had to just put it down because as compelling as the story was, i couldn't bring myself to work through it anymore. my guy was the most boring character in the whole game, spouting useless crap like "idle time is wasted time!" and every fight was the most boring nightmare of my life after a point.

since i couldn't be bothered to write a lengthy fanfiction or psychological profile to explain my warden's behavior, it really became about what i wanted to happen to the other characters, and not what i wanted my warden to do, if you can understand the difference. i loved alistair but i never cared about how he got along with my warden. if i was nice to him it was because i thought it was because that was the path i thought alistair would be most interesting on, not because i wanted alistair and my warden to be bros.

da2 tried to go the other way with characterizing hawke, but never really offered any compelling characterization behind each type of response. hawke felt really bipolar if you didn't just pick the same type of response every time. i'm not sure what was missing from da2 that let me flip flop between being renegade and paragon in the mass effects without feeling like shepard was crazy, though. maybe cos shepard would explain the value behind it, so if you were consistent with your value systems you'd see a guy who reacts violently in some situations and diplomatically in others, but never without rhyme or reason.

plus, the gameplay didn't really take off for me. i hated the origins gameplay but i could at least respect what it was doing. if they want to just make fantasy political drama adventure mass effect they should make the hackin and slashin a lot tighter.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Or I could just be reading too much into things. You see a poorly written evil stereotype, I see a very well written immature child who doesn't even fully understand her own biases. That's one of the cool things about art you can look at it any way you want.

I'd love to be able to read that into the character, but at certain points it just falls apart. The Kolgrim thing just made me go 'wuuh', the inconsistent attitude to mages rights was baffling to say the least, and the idea that someone raised in that condition would actually find happiness is 'twoo lurve' is kind of insulting to me.

Just my opinion though.

That's another problem I have with DA2 the game is completely broken if you don't play Aveline, Anders, Verric.

I'd love to play Fenris or Merill but I can't fucking use 'em.

I don't play Nightmare, but I haven't had to set the difficulty below hard yet.

I think a lot of my earlier problems actually came from assuming that the game was like origins. In DA2 you don't need a full time healer (which is actually good, I couldn't play Origins above normal difficulty without Wynne) even with Anders you should be alternating him from heal mode to nuking mode as needed. You should be aiming to win battles quickly, not drag them out into battles of attrition.

Merrill is what was called a 'bloodstain' in Origins, raise her constitution as high as possible, use her mana pool solely to activate her modes and whatever you do make sure she has rock armour. In the early game it might be difficult, but if you give her all the blood mage items you can find she'll become completely overpowered after a while. Heck, I had more trouble killing her in the fade than I did with most of the bosses.

Fenris can tank. Heck, Sten was a much better tank than Alistair in origins, and while two handed has taken a bit of a nerf he's still better than Aveline in many ways because he can deal a lot of AoE damage (which makes people hate him) and he has an extremely high defence relative to other warriors. Key things he needs are giants reach, whirlwind, cleave (and the entire vanguard tree, preferably), bravery, lyrium ghost, spirit pulse and veneer of calm. Have him use cleave just before he uses whirlwind or spirit pulse, it's not disappointing.

Don't think that you need a dedicated tank or healer all the time. More aggressive characters can be much more useful in DA2 than in Origins.

I understand that not including the plot hooks was a decision made with a "big picture" in mind. But I feel personally insulted when the developers treat it as though I shouldn't be concerned about their conspicuous absence on the basis that "it's about Thedas, not the Warden". I would ask, then, why they bothered with the Eluvian, the baby, the Warden disappearing...

None of which necessarily happened.

Heck, I have a couple of saves where the baby was never conceived. I never installed Witch Hunt so the eluvian was meaningless to my game, many people chose to sacrifice their wardens to end the blight, and even if you didn't the warden disappearing was only one possibility in the epilogue.

People got pretty pissed off that characters they'd 'killed' showed up in Dragon Age 2. How pissed off would they have been if Bioware had just said 'well, this game ignores everything you've done because StarCecil's ending was canonical, thanks for wasting 40+ hours on our game'. If they had always made it clear that's what they were going to do, it would have been fine, but it was always very clear that dragon age save files would be exported and used in future games, going back on that would be earned a lot of hate.

When I played Origins and listened to the developers talk about it, they were always open about the fact that they wanted to use the setting rather than follow a particular story within it. In fact, it always sounded as if they were planning to set the games many years apart or in entirely different places, allowing players to shape the overall mythology of the world rather than follow individual characters. The fact that the exported information is actually very limited (it doesn't even account for whether characters died) kind of supports this.

I can only assume that's what they were going to do before the game unexpectedly became super popular.

 

[StarCecil]

People got pretty pissed off that characters they'd 'killed' showed up in Dragon Age 2. How pissed off would they have been if Bioware had just said 'well, this game ignores everything you've done because StarCecil's ending was canonical, thanks for wasting 40+ hours on our game'.

I'm certainly not asking that they take this route. The devs, however, have always been clear that there's no "right" ending, and that however you personally played is how the story and the world pans out. There's several different methods they could have used to carry on the story (such as allowing you to import the Orlesian Warden or either of the Wardens you can make in Witch Hunt and Golems).

Now, that said, imagine how pissed I was for them to say "Well, this game ignores everything you've done because the game isn't about 'your' experience". My ending involved a lot of things - a lot of things - that I felt weren't concluded and should have been carried on. In fact, there was all indications that were meant to be (what with Morrigan surviving the ending of Witch Hunt no matter what - which itself is a ***** move). Origins, no matter how you look at it, is character-driven, which itself doesn't lend well to the "it's about Thedas" thing everyone insists.

I felt like my entire Origins game was thrown to the wayside because they decided that "their" version of events was the right version - which they specifically said they weren't going to do. I mean, why bother letting me import the save if it doesn't matter - indeed, they retconned whole events.

Keep in mind this is all my personal interpretation and I wouldn't recommend substituting my opinion for your own, but all the things I got invested in while playing the game were abandoned.

I understand that certain people would be pissed if their games were forced to take my interpretation of events - but understand that I was forced to take theirs.

 

[funksobeefy]

Can you say you love a series if you only like half the games? At best you're neutral.

edit: I cant believe you actually played the game, me I hated the game within the first 10 minutes in Kirkwell. I agree with you 100% and I didnt even play through the first act. Bioware fucked that series up hard.