The Things I Hate, Part One: Dragon Age II

[Slowpool]

It's a different game, with different priorities. Stop thinking of it as a sequel, and more of a continuation of setting (the main character of the series, according to the devs, is Thedas, not any single person). The only things that I personally thought were bad were the constant waves of enemies, the reused locations, the general size of the areas, the use of the speech wheel, and the pacing of the story. Everything else was at least as good as Origins, and sometimes better. The combat was more frantic, character relationships were slower and more even, and you didn't have to be their best friend to build a rapport with them. Your companions acted more as individuals- they chose to wear what THEY wanted to wear, and knew not to bother trying to wax philosophical with you while on a mission. In short, they had their own lives. Which was, I think, an improvement. Hawke was very well voiced, both with male and female, and the fact that his personality options are rather limited to saint, sinner and trickster do little to change the fact.

Some of the things you said were outright wrong, anyway- You CAN improve people's armor, by buying armor fragments from stores and finding them during specific quests. They also improve with level up- so unless you completely ignore upgrades and rune slotting, they're perfectly ready for endgame.

Basically, all I see is you complaining that it's not exactly like Origins. DA2 isn't perfect, and I would say it isn't quite as good as it's predecessor, either, but it's fun if you don't have a familiarity obsession.

The only thing I can agree with you fully on is the speech wheel. A list of exactly what you're going to say makes so much more sense that this shit; I don't understand how it came to be considered a good idea.

I've already said my piece about those aspects of the game, so I won't continue on about that, but I will say this:

The story was horribly executed. It was shambolic, at best. It was presented, not at a slow pace, but as a series of side quests - and that's what they were! - that were only loosely linked thematically and had no bearing on the ending.

I actually missed out on a lot of the game like the armor fragments and such because I had no idea what they were or what to do with them and the game itself was so tedious that I didn't want to play it any longer.

As for calling it a continuation and not a sequel... The devs said the same thing. But that falls flat on its face. I don't expect it to be exactly like Origins, but I do expect the games to be similar. The fact is, the game's called Dragon Age II, and it's a sequel to a wildly successful RPG that itself was a throwback to old school RPGs. They stripped out all of the core elements from Dragon Age, and replaced them with what I call "Mass Effectisms". Some elements I have no qualms with, but when I buy a sequel I expect it to retain much of what I enjoyed about the predecessor. Imagine if, say, Metal Gear Solid 2 were a first person shooter.

Now, thematically and insofar as the plot is concerned, you can go crazy calling it a continuation or another installment in the series. That's fine. I would argue with the wisdom of making it so, when there were dangling plot threads from the first, but go ahead. However, gameplay-wise the game should have been, and was not, a sequel to Dragon Age. I fail to see how preventing me from setting up the my companions' armor (when I might want to equip them to complement my play style or to utilize the various bits of armor I collect) expands on the universe.

Don't think of the side quests as side quests, then; think of them as parts of the main quest.

And the games were very similar; I really don;t see how they stripped too many of the game mechanics. Adding armor to your allies? You aren't their "leader" as much as you were in Origins (you're more like the friend they tag along with), so you have no real right to tell them how to dress. You're not their real mom/dad, man! They liked the old one better! Spell mechanics? They took out redundant spells and merged others. You still throw fireballs at peoples and the peoples scream in agony, which is really what the game is all about. The only thing about that that bugged me was the way they cut down the elemental spells.

As for playstyle customization with party members, what the hell do you expect? Are you mad that Anders doesn't get full plate? That Fenris isn't rocking fluffy robes (though he might as well be, considering how much protection his leotard and jedi coat give him)? The characters each have their own niches to fill, and their armor suits those niches perfectly. Fenris can fit as either a tank or scrapper, depending on his talent selection, as can Aveline. Isabela can be an archer or a stabber. Anders can be a blaster, controller or a healer. Merrill can be a blaster, controller or... well, fair enough, no Creation was retarded. Same thing with Varric being crossbow only (I'm less irritated with that, though, because Varric is awesome). Some characters are better suited to a certain role because of their personal specializations, but anyone can rock like it's 1985. There's plenty of customization to be had. The armor you get that you can't use is basically weighted money at that point, which I was fine with. I don't know about you, but seeing Varric in one of those generic leather armor suits would have been... wrong.

 

[Inner Pickle]

Am I doomed to read Dragon Age 2 user reviews again and again on this site until the next moderately disappointing-but-by-all-means-not-the-worst-game-ever thing Bioware make? I appreciate how much people care about the franchise but all the constant moaning is like hearing children complain about how shit their parents are because their christmas present wasn't *exactly* what they wanted.

 

[DSK-]

I agree on a few points, although some of the interactions with characters were quite funny. My set squad was Bethany, Varric, Merrill and Isabella because of this.

Hawke's dialogue for me sucked; it didn't have the same sort of impact. For example, choosing an 'aggressive' option in DA2 is nothing comppared to picking a renegade option in ME1/2. It didn't sound aggressive, and the sarcasm and goody-goody options didn't particularly do it for me either.

For me the game was a massive disappointment.

I'm surprised you managed to play it 1 and a half times. I've only managed the once, and boy that was hard especially towards the end.

 

[Ashendarei]

Am I doomed to read Dragon Age 2 user reviews again and again on this site until the next moderately disappointing-but-by-all-means-not-the-worst-game-ever thing Bioware make? I appreciate how much people care about the franchise but all the constant moaning is like hearing children complain about how shit their parents are because their christmas present wasn't *exactly* what they wanted.

I appreciate seeing, if not nessisarially constructive criticism, well thought-out criticism. The OP here has a clearly defined position on this game, and he defends his position fairly well. I personally like that this thread was started, as it got me thinking about the parts of DA:O and DA:2 that I really liked, and the parts that I found irritating or trivial.

 

[StarCecil]

It sounds me to like you've come to depend on Joseph Campbell's 'heroes journey'

It's not that I'm dependent on the Hero's Journey. It's that, for me, well...

You know, DA:O has a whole lot more investment for me then DA:2 did.

This.

Origins felt less like good vs evil, man vs darkspawn, and more like a single man's personal tragedy. For me, it resonated on a deeper level, especially romancing Morrigan.

I feel as though Origins already did correctly what Dragon Age II failed at.

And, to tackle the characters...

Morrigan has massive depth. She's superficially evil, but she is also innocent with a sweet side. If you romance her, you can see all sorts of depth and character development that can be very subtle. The important near-ending scene has massive subtext if one has romanced her.

Wynne is more of an intermediary between Lelianna and Morrigan. She believes in hope and self-sacrifice, but she is also willing to get her hands dirty if it means completing the mission. She recognizes that a Grey Warden's life is self-sacrifice, yet she understands that their duty can be greater than personal concerns and moralities to a degree that comes into conflict with both Lelianna and Alistair.

Zevran, as we agree, has his own depths. He's more a subversion of the casanova cliche. He came on to me once and was politely rebuffed, never to speak of it again. Whereas Isabella seems to only exist to say "insert here".

Don't think of the side quests as side quests, then; think of them as parts of the main quest.

That's the problem. They aren't really "main". They consist of the same material the previous game's side quests were made out of, rarely have an over-arcing purpose, and are only loosely linked thematically. More often than not, there's an attitude of "why am I doing this?" I kept waiting for the "real" story to kick in. It never did. The sad thing is, some of these quests could have been integrated into a real story. But together, they all painted a shambolic attempt at a story.

Not to mention the lack of wisdom necessary to introduce the game's two principle villains, or anti-villains - whatever the hell they were supposed to be - near the last third of the game.

And the games were very similar; I really don;t see how they stripped too many of the game mechanics.

They reduced many of the options of Origins that made the game special. Not only are only allowed to have specific conversations with companions at specific times, you can't customize them, you can't choose their specializations for them, you can't interact with them as well as you could in Origins. You're stuck playing as a human (where before you had three racial choices) with no significant change in the background story (where before the titular origins were a major factor in setting up the plotline). More importantly, one's class doesn't even affect the game as well as it did in the first Dragon Age.

The specializations are pretty weak, too.

You're not their real mom/dad, man!

That would be a fine justification if that were how it was executed. It wasn't, nor was it the intent, and that's the point. The execution of the game was very poor. None of its offenses are especially noteworthy except for how they are all due to a piss poor manner of execution.

I don't want to be their parent. But I do want a use for these armor pieces that clutter my inventory. I do want to be able set up my companions with gear that provides specific bonuses to how I built them up. I do want to be able to have a use for all that unique gear I keep finding, as well as the equipment I myself have no interest in using. Too many times as Mage!Hawke I came across a piece of armor that would have been great to use... had I been fucking Aveline!

To compare, I often times had Alistair sporting either Knight Commander armor or King Cailan's armor depending on how I felt. Leliana got to have that special suit of armor from her DLC, since my guy had no need for it. Wynne was sort of unlucky because there were few aesthetically pleasing mage robes until I got the First Enchanter's robes that I couldn't use anyway. I gave Zevran some Drakescale armor while I used my own Dragonscale set.

Plus, one healer. And I don't even like him.

Am I doomed to read Dragon Age 2 user reviews again and again on this site until the next moderately disappointing-but-by-all-means-not-the-worst-game-ever thing Bioware make? I appreciate how much people care about the franchise but all the constant moaning is like hearing children complain about how shit their parents are because their christmas present wasn't *exactly* what they wanted.

No one forced you to click this link, comment or even read the review (assuming you did). I assumed that the title of the thread was enough to clearly demonstrate what the content of this review would be, and that you, as a fully-functioning, intelligent and discerning individual, could choose whether or not the content would be appropriate for your tastes and interests. I personally feel that if you did not want to read "yet another" review condemning this particular game then you would not.

I would also ask that if you truly have neither the will nor the desire to add to what I hoped could be an open and frank, perhaps even mentally stimulating, discussion about a game that I personally found distasteful then you would please refrain from posting. I think it is rude to those that do want to discuss, and disruptive to the thread.

very interesting i hope i see more of these kinds of threads

Anyways, here's one guy who liked it.

 

[Athinira]

It's a different game, with different priorities. Stop thinking of it as a sequel, and more of a continuation of setting (the main character of the series, according to the devs, is Thedas, not any single person). The only things that I personally thought were bad were the constant waves of enemies, the reused locations, the general size of the areas, the use of the speech wheel, and the pacing of the story. Everything else was at least as good as Origins, and sometimes better. The combat was more frantic, character relationships were slower and more even, and you didn't have to be their best friend to build a rapport with them. Your companions acted more as individuals- they chose to wear what THEY wanted to wear, and knew not to bother trying to wax philosophical with you while on a mission. In short, they had their own lives. Which was, I think, an improvement. Hawke was very well voiced, both with male and female, and the fact that his personality options are rather limited to saint, sinner and trickster do little to change the fact.

Some of the things you said were outright wrong, anyway- You CAN improve people's armor, by buying armor fragments from stores and finding them during specific quests. They also improve with level up- so unless you completely ignore upgrades and rune slotting, they're perfectly ready for endgame.

Basically, all I see is you complaining that it's not exactly like Origins. DA2 isn't perfect, and I would say it isn't quite as good as it's predecessor, either, but it's fun if you don't have a familiarity obsession.

DA2 isn't just a different game. It's a worse game in many aspects. If i wanted to make a list of what's directly BAD about it, then that list would be very long. And just for the record, "bad" in my world is not "different from Origins", because i don't consider Origins a great game at all. At it's best, it was an above average game with an excellent story. That's it.

Yahtzee summerized a lot of it very well though in his DA2 review, but to put it frankly, beyond the story just being very badly told (which is not to say that the story is bad, but the narrative is), the simplification of the combat is done horribly. This was actually one of the things i was looking forward to in DA2, since DA:O c*cked up the gameplay and difficulty balancing bigtime, and the developers promised to fix it, but that just goes to prove that what's great on paper isn't necessarily great in practice (although it could have been). To put it frankly, the combat in DA2 is worse than in DA1, something i didn't think possible. Constant ambushes and enemy spawning is on the big list of sinners, but the real problem is the fact that events are largely out of your hands, and skill doesn't matter as much as it used to in DA:O, and considering that your freedom to affect combat in DA:O (beyond selecting the right party composition, choosing the right skills and selecting the right difficulty) was already rather limited, that's just a big fat failure. Not to mention the fact that for the PC version, the camera doesn't allow a top-down view anymore, which is ironic considering that DA:O allowed you to pull that off without a problem.

Fortunatly i found a way to solve all my problems with DA2 (and DA:O as well): Install Baldur's Gate 1+2 again and play them instead, because even to this day they're much better games.

 

[Ashendarei]

very interesting i hope i see more of these kinds of threads

Anyways, here's one guy who liked it.

Mark that up to two

 

[Terminal Blue]

Fenris can fit as either a tank or scrapper, depending on his talent selection, as can Aveline. Isabela can be an archer or a stabber. Anders can be a blaster, controller or a healer. Merrill can be a blaster, controller or... well, fair enough, no Creation was retarded.

It wasn't really retarded so much as being a secondary thing. The design idea seemed to be that Mages should be primarily focused on their aggressive abilities, which were actually very absent in Origins where half the mage specializations were about making you better in melee combat for some inexplicable reason (and they weren't even mutually supportive). I gave all my Mages in DA2 some creation spells (heal at very least), it saved my bacon on many occasions in the harder difficulties and was well worth it.

In other news, I agree with everything else (except that Isabella can't be an archer, which I can see was a bit annoying but her dialogue kind of made it clear she was a knife girl). The NPC specializations, however, can sometimes be taken in multiple directions, or, if you're willing to spend some time in the tactics menu, can be very flexible. Anders for example is definately not Wynne, he can alternate between damage dealing and healing as the situation demands, and is very effective doing so.

The one thing which bugged me about the specializations is that some of them clearly relate to the player specializations and don't have enough unique abilities which feels a bit lazy, but you can't have everything.

 

[ShakyFiend]

Ah opinions, fun for everyone. (I hope you appreciate that nice sarcastic full stop). Seriously though, posting a rant is just one level up from trolling unless you have an original point to male.

 

[StarCecil]

very interesting i hope i see more of these kinds of threads

Anyways, here's one guy who liked it.

Mark that up to two

Duly noted, fine man. And might I say, you look like a very intelligent individual?

/ego

 

[Catchy Slogan]

Welcome to Kirkwall! The most unfriendly place for mages ever! Home to more mages than the whole of Fereldan and Tevinter combined!

Also see: Eveyone and thier mother is secretly a Blood Mage.

But I still liked it. It was fun to play through, but not without flaws.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Origins felt less like good vs evil, man vs darkspawn, and more like a single man's personal tragedy. For me, it resonated on a deeper level, especially romancing Morrigan.

Good versus evil is a waste of the setting.

See, you've created a setting with distinct nations and factions with sophisticated histories, political tensions and ideological differences. Why completely ignore that and throw in a completely generic Tolkien-orc-analogue (i.e. a race which is just purely evil and malevolent with no real motivation) with a simple three word objective 'kill they ass'.

Man versus Darkspawn is not a struggle you can really say anything about. Darkspawn are generically bad and exist only so the protagonist can kill them and be a big damn hero. The really interesting things in the game were the conflicts around that, the civil war, the mages and the Templars, heck even the werewolves managed to be more interesting.

As for personal tragedy, the event is pretty much the same if you don't romance her I'm afraid. A few dialogue swaps to suggest that she's a little sad about it, but her motivation or overriding interest is entirely unaffected.

Spoiler

Heck, if your character is female she'll do it with Alistair. Do I need to say more.

Morrigan has massive depth. She's superficially evil, but she is also innocent with a sweet side. If you romance her, you can see all sorts of depth and character development that can be very subtle. The important near-ending scene has massive subtext if one has romanced her.

She makes this clear herself. She's not innocent, she simply doesn't understand human interaction and doesn't want to because she doesn't like people. That is different.

It's not 'depth' to bold-facedly kick the player repeatedly in the head with the idea that friends with benefits doesn't work and that people (well, women) will always fall in love if they have sex even if they don't want to and are actually morally opposed to the idea. Actually, it's kind of annoying and a little offensive.

The only redeeming feature of that romance is that there's no happy ending (except that there is, because people cried and Bioware tacked one on). It's hardly a tragedy though, did you ever imagine it would be otherwise?

Wynne is more of an intermediary between Lelianna and Morrigan. She believes in hope and self-sacrifice,

With no real evidence or development.

But she is also willing to get her hands dirty if it means completing the mission.

Demonstrated where?

She opposed every 'evil' choice in the game consistently and without any flexibility.

She recognizes that a Grey Warden's life is self-sacrifice, yet she understands that their duty can be greater than personal concerns and moralities to a degree that comes into conflict with both Lelianna and Alistair.

This is actually the one area in which she has character development, in that she learns to pull the stick out of her ass about sexual relationships.

But unless you're romancing them (and then she never confronts them on camera, only you because obviously their existence is entirely determined by yours) she never comes into conflict with Alistair or Lelianna beyond occasionally teasing Alistair about his personal habits.

Zevran, as we agree, has his own depths. He's more a subversion of the casanova cliche. He came on to me once and was politely rebuffed, never to speak of it again. Whereas Isabella seems to only exist to say "insert here".

Hang on.. they're pretty much the same character archetype with a gender change. Right down to the fact that despite despite claiming to be sexually indiscriminate when you romance them they ultimately learn to find love again and establish some degree of commitment to you.

Isabella doesn't even come onto you, you have to flirt with her to get any response.

I'm just not seeing this. I know why I liked Zevran and disliked Isabella, but you seem to be on a completely different tangent.

 

[go-10]

I dunno other than the repetitiveness of the environments I liked the game and I loved Merrill thought she was the best character of the lot. Although I do agree Leilana and Morrigan are WAY better

 

[StarCecil]

snip

I suppose it's largely a matter of perspective. As I, and at least one other, said, Origins just connected with me on a personal level that Dragon Age II failed to do - in large part by forcing this Hawke person on me as opposed to allowing me to construct a character from the ground up. To return to my Metal Gear analogy, it's playing as Raiden after playing as Snake.

I certainly felt like the "point" was about how one character in a unique world filled with subversions of our expectations is thrust into a mission he has to complete.

I really enjoyed how different an experience mine was from others, and theirs from mine.

Case in point, my brother absolutely loathed Morrigan and dismissed her as soon as possible, refusing her advances throughout and preferring to take the Hero's end. I loved her, and my character, an otherwise upstanding individual took her offer and proceeded to become an embittered apathetic.

Dragon Age II just didn't provide for this level of tragedy.

I dunno other than the repetitiveness of the environments I liked the game and I loved Merrill thought she was the best character of the lot. Although I do agree Leilana and Morrigan are WAY better

Merrill was my favorite as well, but her writing seemed to go from simple innocence to incredibly stupid, doing nothing to improve over the course of the game.

 

[Dracowrath]

Well, those of that know me (and not a one of you should) know that I absolutely love the Dragon Age series. Yet I have an absolute, undeniable loathing of Dragon Age II. It's a very unusual circumstance for me. There're plenty of games I don?t like, or don?t play, but there isn?t really a game I can say that absolutely hate to this degree.

Now, most pro reviewers have nothing but wonderful things to say about it, and users have reactions ranging from mediocre to great. I think I might actually stand alone when I say that this is one of the worst RPGs I?ve ever picked up, and it?s from Bioware, no less!

In order to properly review the sequel, I have to tell you about my experience with the first. It?s intrinsic to understand why I absolutely loathe the sequel.

Since this is definitely TL;DR, I?ve sectioned it out for ease of reading.

Spoiler: Dragon Age

Dragon Age was my first Bioware RPG. I fell in love with it. People criticize it for a number of reasons, but I really have few bad things to say about. Some things could work better than others, but my love for it transforms the entire game into a sacred object deserving of worship and all who disagree should die in a fire, or something.

The story - or rather, the character design - is what really sets Dragon Age apart from the crowd. The fact that the protagonist is completely silent is important to this point, so remember it.

As per Bioware standard, the dialogue options consist of a Good, Neutral, Evil standard, but(!) the fact that there is no voice acting - none at all - leaves every word up for interpretation. I, the player, am immersed so much more thanks to the ability to imagine the delivery, the intent, of each statement. The options themselves are important, because many are constructed in a way to establish the protagonist as a character in the world itself, not just a window through which the player experiences the world.

The protagonist is able to talk about views on life, love, family, his mother, his feelings - essentially making him a person unto himself. Now, if you're like me, you play your character as close to yourself as possible. The moral choices are often your own. The character build is often similar to yourself.

This is also very, very important.

Most important to making the game wonderfully awesome, gift from God, purpose for living, is the relationship with the supporting cast. Because the principle character is such a living being in his own right his interactions with the others make them feel like real people too. I actually grew to like my companions, almost counting them as actual friends and family.

The romances, always the most important of a Bioware game, were also exquisite. Instead of a few words and a quest to jump in bed, these people had actual, realistic reactions to love and sex. Of the four possible love interests, one stood out the most to me. I won?t say who because those that haven?t played will be spoiled for the end.

Now, a certain event occurs with this character making the sweet romance a tragic affair. I was heartbroken. It haunted me for weeks. The game was no longer the tale of a warrior looking to thwart evil, but was the tragedy of a single man.

I awaited with bated breath for the sequel, soaking up every scrap of information, every possible lead in the hopes of finding something - something - that would give me the slightest hint of what was to come. And then I got the sequel.

Spoiler: Hawke

Imagine my disappointment to discover that my beloved character, the man who I had come to know as a best friend and trusted companion, would not be making an appearance in the sequel. Instead, you would play as some nobody named Hawke, in some city called Kirkwall that gets mentioned one time in the entirety of Dragon Age.

The immediately dangling plot threads go unresolved, and the aftereffects of the first game get ignored.

Hawke is voiced - immediately destroying immersion. Let me tell you, Hawke - whether you play as Nice!Hawke, Snark!Hawke or Mean!Hawke - is a complete asshole. He?s either a pussy goody two-shoes, a sarcastic little prick or a regular doucher. He also has to be a human being. That?s right, folks. Where once you were allowed to be one of three races ? with six distinct Origins - now you get one race and the same introduction every fucking time. And that really jerks my dick. The first was called Dragon Age: Origins. Because of the six Origins. You know, the one truly unique aspect of the game that all reviews agreed set it apart from every other fantasy RPG.

And there's something very blase about playing as this character. I hate him. I don?t care about him, and I don?t care about his ?journey?. I wanted my Warden back, able to adventure and solve all the hanging threads that he didn?t get to tie up. I wanted to see my choices have consequences, as I was promised.

Spoiler: The Game

Hawke's not likeable, he?s not cool, and he just sucks to be saddled with throughout the course of a twenty hour game.

And if that number sounds shockingly low to you, especially for a Bioware RPG, don't be alarmed. It's the actual length of time it took me to beat the game. Dragon Age took me eighty or so hours to beat the main game and the expansion.

'Course, the game might be longer. I don't really know. I haven't been able to play it more than once (well, once and a half, noted below) because it's such a God damn chore. Playing that game feels like poking yourself with a butter knife. It doesn't hurt, but who the fuck would want to do that?

As I said, being stuck with such a shitty character sucks, but the game goes to extra lengths to make itself as horrible an experience as it can.

Unlike regular shitty games, Dragon Age II doesn?t have shitty controls or bad graphics. No, that would be too easy! Dragon Age II goes out of its way to be twenty hours of a fucking fetch quest! Seriously.
I?ve always been a huge proponent of story in games, and any game that doesn't have a solid story gets a low grade from me, but Dragon Age is astonishing for being a linear RPG that doesn?t have a story.

Superficially, it's about the shitty Hawke family going to Kirkwall to escape the events of the first game (pussies) and eventually becoming one of the most prominent and influential families in the city-state. However, one might be surprised to hear that, since the game seems to be more about doing fuck-all because a bunch of whiny losers ask you to.

?But wait!? you might say. ?That?s an RPG staple!?

Indeed it is, good man! However, Dragon Age II seems almost self-aware. Like, it might actually be good if they called it a deconstruction of the standard RPG story. But it's not, and it isn't.

The game is done in a three-act structure, with the first act being about getting money. Seriously. You have to get a set amount of money to proceed ahead. And not in a ?bribe the gate guard? kind of way. The quest is literally, actually, to get enough money to proceed.

To do this, the game awkwardly shoves a bunch of story-related quests in your face. I find that previous statement to be disturbingly ironic because Dragon Age II lacks a real story, and these quests really are a red light.

You have to variously handle a few low-key political goings-on in the game, without actually knowing that these are at all important to anything except for the ?Main Quest? tab in the journal. Fuck it.
Without spoiling the game for anyone sadomasochistic enough to play it, the game reaches a climax you don't see coming (not in a good way) with bad guys you won't meet until past the halfway point of the game, and lead to a conclusion that concludes nothing, and the most obnoxious cliffhanger I?ve ever seen. Ever. In the history of mankind.

What's worse, several of your companions appear only in the first section and you can miss them totally because the game doesn't deign to even hint that they are found here and only here (in fact, I played half way through the game before discovering that I?d missed two, and I presume you can miss a third).

Further, the developers promised that your actions in the first game would carry over. You can import your save, or choose one of three pre-defined states. But they really only make a token attempt at it. A few characters make return appearances (though I only ran across one), a few events reference events in the first, and two characters return regardless if they died in the last game.

Spoiler: Characters

Now, if this wasn't bullshit enough, there's the characters themselves.

You have your siblings Bethany and Carver. Both of them suck. One dies at the beginning depending on your class and that, I find, is the shittiest thing I've ever seen in a game. Your sibling dies presumably so you don?t have too many of one class or the other, but I could give a fuck.

It comes within ten minutes of starting the game and is so random that I couldn't be bothered to care.
To add, there's not much grieving done over your sibling, but that?s something I'll get to later.

The characters as a whole suck. Their writing, their attitudes, their interactions, all suck. The first was game was so good because each character had a distinct, clear personality that fit into a number of moral archetypes. I suppose Bioware didn't want a copy-paste of those characters, but when you've covered such a broad range of personalities and accompanying moralities, how exactly do write characters for a game that doesn't touch upon any of those? Apparently, you can't.

Each of them is horrible in their own special way, and four of them are bang-able. I?ll break them down for ease of access.

Merrill: An elf that appeared as a brief companion in the first game for the Dalish Origin. She's now completely retooled to fit in with the new elf design Bioware is going for and has a Welsh accent to boot. Fuck her (and that?s even an option). She sucks. She's supposed to be a naive do-good mage that stands apart from other mages by being a dreaded blood mage that thinks no bad end can come of dealing with demons.

Of course, Bioware takes the ?naive young girl? and runs with it to the fucking moon. She actually manages to border on mental retardation as opposed to sweetly daft. There were so many instances where I was begging for her to just shut the fuck up. Having a romantic relationship with her feels like sexually abusing a mentally handicapped girl (Ooh, a rape joke?).

Isabella: The ?bad girl? of this edition. She's a pirate lady you can sleep with in the first game, and the writers at Bioware decided that this should be her dominate trait. Seriously, they figured that ?total whore? would be her default mode. Everything she says is laced with innuendo or some reference to past sexual conquests. You can even stumble into a conversation where she receives magical treatment for an STD. I don't know why you would want to, but you can go ahead and contract syphilis with her.

Anders: This guy was advertized as a returning favorite from Dragon Age: Awakening. I suppose the character's name is the same, but the personality is not at all what it was. He's gone from being a comic-relief type to a noisy little *****. And not in a character development kind of way, but in a whiny punk ass ***** kind of way. You can mount his staff, too, if you're so inclined. Don't know why you would be.

He is part of my list of bullshit-isms. At the end of my Awakenings game, the one I imported, Anders had found a home in the Grey Wardens and was content to be a Warden for the rest of his life. Except, now he apparently said fuck it and decided he hates the Grey Wardens and only cares about bitching and moaning about mages. Do note, he can die at the end of Awakening and still comes back.

Fenris: Another elf, this one a warrior. He was a Tivinter slave so has a gripe against slavers and mages. Emo, whiny and a total douche. You can sleep with him, if you can get around the ?I'm about to cry but I'm trying so hard to be badass? thing he's got.

Aveline: You run into her and her soon-to-be dead husband early in the game. She sticks around with you because? well? why the fuck not? She seems to be the most schizophrenic of all the characters; being a guard she sometimes wants you to make only lawful good decisions. Unless she doesn't. But, fuck her, right?

No, you can't. There's some flirtation, but it flies over her head which I guess was meant to be funny or something.

Varric: A dwarf (one of the only ones in the game) and a rogue. He narrates the story - and that one made me laugh. His ?thing? is that he likes telling stories and is some sort of criminal mastermind. He randomly pops into your life at the game's beginning and you're anchored with him for the rest of the journey. I never was able to care about him, since he's just there for so long during. At least he's inoffensive. The fucker.

Carver/Bethany: Your siblings. A warrior and a mage, respectively, who die if you play as the same class (Carver still dies if you're a rogue). Of course, it doesn't really matter since something will happen at the end of the first act that deprives you of them for the rest of the game.

Carver is a major douche bag who'll resent you for the entire game no matter how you relate to him. Fuck him, anyways.

Bethany is? around. She's not very defined. Her personality is nice enough that she isn't a psycho *****, but her morals are flexible enough to let you be a prick. And you will want to be a prick to your ungrateful fucking siblings.

Unfortunately (for some) you can't bang her.

One will die no matter what, and you can't really say anything about it except for one or two circumstances. Makes the whole ?dying sibling? thing worthless.

Sebastian: He's a DLC only character and sucks. You get a quest or two from him, and he'll lecture you about the local god and why you suck for making shady decisions. If you're a woman, you can have a chaste fling with him, but he's too big a wuss to whip it out like every other man in the game.

Spoiler: Interactions

The game's major fault is the interaction with the characters. While in the first game you could stop and talk to your companions at any time, and have a variety of conversations and interactions. You can just pause a moment to kiss your lover before delving into the deep dark, have a brief discussion about philosophy, or learn something new and unique about them.

In Dragon Age II, you get a couple conversations stretched over the course of six years. If you try to talk to them when they don't ?feel? like it, you get a canned response. All the characters in Dragon Age were centrally located at the camp and you could explore every conversation branch without ever taking them out (which is good if you have a ?set? party). In the shitty-ass fucking sequel, you have to go to that character's house in the city to talk to them, which is a real hassle if you don?t even in like the prick to begin with. And they don't always have anything worth saying, so you might go way the fuck out of your way to discover, oh shit, they have nothing to say!

Fuck you, game!

Spoiler: Friendship/Rivalry

The game trades Dragon Age's approval mechanic (wherein you gain ?relationship points? for saying and doing things characters like, or giving them gifts) for a friendship/rivalry mechanic. This, I'll admit, could have been really cool. But of course this game has to fuck that up.

The first game's approval mechanic was only limited in that you had to agree with that character's point of view to gain the points, be able to unlock new conversation branches, and give them a boost to abilities. The friendship/rivalry was supposed to let the player roleplay effectively by giving each character a reaction to the player's actions. This could be in the form of approval (friendship) or disapproval (rivalry). This would lead to a ?climax? with each character as they either reaffirmed their belief in you, or confronted you about your actions.

As I said, the game fucks it up hard.

You have to play the game as something of a one-dimensional character in order to ?max out? friendship or rivalry and get the associated quests and bonuses. This means that if you try to make a complex individual (like, you know, a person) you'll constantly straddle friendship/rivalry with at least a few characters, making some scenarios based entirely upon who you want to like you.

This is a very bad thing because Dragon Age had a silent protagonist, making every statement something ambiguous. The words might be very nice and endearing to a character I like, but I was really lying to their face to manipulate them. Dragon Age II's voice acting throws that all out, but that part comes next.

One cool thing (and I think this is why the characters suck in so many other regards) is that many of your interactions with NPCs elicit responses from your companions, dependent on who's with you. Trying to fool a guard with Merrill causes her to naively reveal your deception. Trying to let a criminal pass gets you a hearty reprimand from Aveline. But then you get rivalry for no fucking reason, so fuck that up its stupid ass.

Now, you can't, cannot, are not allowed to change your companions' armor. That's right. You get to find loads of armor and equipment that are worth fuck-all to you because only you can wear it anyways.

Meaning Mage!Hawke will find himself with a bunch of shitty armor he can't use, because mages get the best use out of robes. Instead, the game upgrades your companions' armor for you based on relationship stats and accompanying quests, meaning you have to play their little psychotic game of Hawke's Many Personalities to get them end-game ready. Fuck you, man!

Spoiler: Romances

The romances are desperately hollow.

This comes in clash with the first game's romances, where two were directly involved in the main plot (with the potential to change the entire fucking ending for some of us) and the other two were powerful in their own way.

Four characters can be wooed by either gender (a fifth can be semi-loved by a woman) and all of them play out exactly the same way. You flirt a couple times and two years later knock boots, and then you say that you love them at the end.

Two of the romances are semi-related to the plot, but not in any way that matters.

Possibly the worst aspect of the romance system is its total lack of depth. You can tell your love interest once in the entire game that you love them, and that's at the very end of the game! Meaning that you were something like fuck buddies throughout the entire game. Your partner is supposed to move in with you, too, after you copulate the first time, but they never do.

I just? really have very little to say about that because there's just so little there to speak of. It?s almost like Bioware knew that they had to toss it in somewhere. It's very disappointing when one particular romance in the first game defined the whole experience for me.

Spoiler: Dialogue

I emphasized the dialogue for a very particular reason. As I said, a silent protagonist allows for such ambiguity that in turn allows for such immersion that makes the game a real character-driven story.

Bioware, I guess, said ?fuck you? to that and hired a shitty pair of voice actors. Male!Hawke?s speech sounds as disgustingly uninterested as one could possibly be (and indeed as uninterested I was playing the shitty game) and has a delivery that could only be described as ?standard fantasy British voice?.

Female!Hawke is a little more emotive, but the game sucks so she can fuck off.

You have three choices: Nice, Sarcastic, Mean. Sometimes you have a fourth that allows for questioning or a fifth that?s dependent on your present companions, class, previous actions, whatever. But the fact that each option, in the vein of Mass Effect, is so set-in-stone ruins the entire game. You can't play a deep, thoughtful, character with a variety of motivations and desires anymore.

Whereas in Dragon Age, I could play the game as a good-hearted warrior looking to complete his duty, with some occasional ruthless streaks brought on by the dire situation, Dragon Age II forces you to either play straight as one personality, or seem like a total maniac. You can open a conversation with a sarcastic quip, slide into a promise to provide selfless aid, and tack on a desire to kill all life and no one blinks an eye.

It reminds me of Oblivion's persuade system, where apparently everyone in Cyrodiil communicates via joking, threatening, bragging and complimenting without missing a beat.

I played through as a sarcastic Hawke. And I grew to hate her. She started to come across as juvenile ***** that couldn't take any situation seriously. And while you might think ?that's your fault for clicking sarcastic every time? you have to understand that the only thing ambiguous about this shitty fucking system is the one-word blurb for each statement. The game would have been better off with just using the little symbols.

Consider the phrase ?Okay?. You can say it in a variety of ways, right? Depending on what you want it to mean?

In Hawke's mind, ?okay? apparently means ?You know I'll do it for you?.

To which I reply, ?*****, you don't even know him!?

That continues throughout the entire fucking God damn game! That's what makes Hawke a complete fucking tosser!

I could have just clicked at fucking random and gotten the same fucking experience! This makes interacting with your companions something like a game show. You have to pick what you think they'll respond to and hope you get the desired outcome.

At least the game has the decency to mark the options that begin and end romances, not that the resultant dialogue sounds anything like it.

Some dialogue trees feel like mine fields, littered with vaguely marked options that will give you rivalry and friendship in varying amounts, or (in the case of that fuckwit Anders) try to pressure you into sleeping with your companions. Apparently Anders was the dev's choice for romance.

I have a load more of complaints about this steaming pile of dragon shit, but this review has already gotten away from me. I'm more than willing to discuss further, if anyone feels like, but I truly don't think Dragon Age II has any redeeming qualities, and it's actually soured both Bioware and the Dragon Age Franchise to me such that haven't played either game since finishing this fucknut.

TL;DR? "Wah wah, I wanted an exact copy of origins, wah wah". Next?

 

[StarCecil]

snip

I've said this once already, but I'll do so again.

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.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I suppose it's largely a matter of perspective. As I, and at least one other, said, Origins just connected with me on a personal level that Dragon Age II failed to do - in large part by forcing this Hawke person on me as opposed to allowing me to construct a character from the ground up. To return to my Metal Gear analogy, it's playing as Raiden after playing as Snake.

To clarify, I notched up hundreds of hours on Origins.

But, as a pen and paper roleplayer, I think there are fundamental limits when a computer RPG asks you to construct a character 'from the ground up', because you're not really doing so. You're picking from a series of preprogrammed choices, and while more choices may seem good it's difficult to make those choices have meaning if you can't spend much time on them because in all likelihood they won't be taken.

Therefore, removing choice - for example by imposing a predetermined character - is not necessarily a bad thing if it is done with the purpose of creating a meaningful narrative. Commander Shepherd from Mass Effect is an extremely predetermined character, even your choice of military specialization has no effect on who he/she is. Because Bioware weren't so concerned with making Shepherd a completely blank slate, they were able to make the emotional development of characters more consistent because Shepherd's motivation is always relatively clear.

Having played through Origins on virtually every permutation of character possible, I have to say that while I did have a couple of fun roleplaying experiences, there are also many points which really don't go to the hilt like they should because they have to function regardless of who your character is. Also, I'm glad you found romancing Morrigan so interesting, now go back and do it as a really ugly dwarf.. let the nightmare fuel commence!

Dragon Age II just didn't provide for this level of tragedy.

Try a rivalry romance with Anders..

..it can become very tragic.

Merrill was my favorite as well, but her writing seemed to go from simple innocence to incredibly stupid, doing nothing to improve over the course of the game.

This, I kind of agree with..

I don't think she's innocent though. I think she was mistakenly written to come across as such at times, but is in fact just extremely convinced.

I imagine you took the 'friendship' route with her. This may be part of the problem, if Hawke supports her she only becomes more convinced of her position, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. If Hawke opposes her, then she ultimately learns something. This is actually why I greatly preferred the friendship/rivalry system to the Origins 'lie to everyone to get them to like you' system.

Heck, there's a reason her 'friendship' ability improves her blood magic.

I also disagree utterly with your appraisal of Carver, he's an incredibly interesting character and probably my favourite in Dragon Age 2.

Although it's difficult because he starts with a high rivalry score, he is actually much more forgiving of Hawke than Bethany is if you manage to get over his rivalry. He also has a genuine strength of character which finally comes through in the end, despite virtually every other character he meets in the game making quips about him being shiftless, immoral or weak. He has a genuine growth arc, which is definitely more than many characters in either Origins or Dragon Age 2.

 

[StarCecil]

snip

I never got into pen and paper RPGs. Never had anyone interested. I understand that there are necessarily some limitations to a computer RPG, but as games go, I got way more emotionally involved in the characters in Origins than in Dragon Age II. I think that's where video games should be headed these days, emotional investment. The interactive nature of video games allows for so much creativity in storytelling. I'll toss up Heavy Rain as an example. Very emotional.

I can't imagine romancing Anders. Dude's a dick. I can see where one might find tragedy, but I think all the characters in Dragon Age II are so poorly done that I couldn't care. I actually ended up killing off half my party but sparing Anders simply because I couldn't be caused to care enough about him to kill him.

I took a rivalry romance with Merrill, and I thought it was rather weak. She shouts for once, and smashes her nifty mirror (and that pissed me the fuck off. After that steaming pile of shit that was Witch Hunt, I was hoping for something to happen with that cocksucker of a mirror. I mean, what the fuck was she even hoping for?) but really nothing else changes. I thought there'd be something more like a slap-slap-kiss relationship, but instead it's inseparable from the friendship path. She might get a different ability, but it doesn't have any impact beyond that point and that's saddening.

I would again compare Alistair and Morrigan. Morrigan's romance changes the entire meaning of the ending, at least for me. And then there's what Alistair does. Merrill felt so hollow a choice.

 

[Slowpool]

Fenris can fit as either a tank or scrapper, depending on his talent selection, as can Aveline. Isabela can be an archer or a stabber. Anders can be a blaster, controller or a healer. Merrill can be a blaster, controller or... well, fair enough, no Creation was retarded.

It wasn't really retarded so much as being a secondary thing. The design idea seemed to be that Mages should be primarily focused on their aggressive abilities, which were actually very absent in Origins where half the mage specializations were about making you better in melee combat for some inexplicable reason (and they weren't even mutually supportive). I gave all my Mages in DA2 some creation spells (heal at very least), it saved my bacon on many occasions in the harder difficulties and was well worth it.

In other news, I agree with everything else (except that Isabella can't be an archer, which I can see was a bit annoying but her dialogue kind of made it clear she was a knife girl). The NPC specializations, however, can sometimes be taken in multiple directions, or, if you're willing to spend some time in the tactics menu, can be very flexible. Anders for example is definately not Wynne, he can alternate between damage dealing and healing as the situation demands, and is very effective doing so.

The one thing which bugged me about the specializations is that some of them clearly relate to the player specializations and don't have enough unique abilities which feels a bit lazy, but you can't have everything.

IC, IC. I thought she could be an archer; it worked in my game. Must have been one of the mods I was using. Live and learn, I guess.

That said, Merrill not having Creation just makes no damn sense. I mean, they would have had to specifically say "Merrill gets no Creation". Is it because she's a Blood Mage? If so, why does my mage rock both healing and self inflicted wounds with such twisted skill?

I mean honestly.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I think that's where video games should be headed these days, emotional investment.

I don't disagree, but some of us have great difficulty emotionally investing in a placid faced mute with generic dialogue and no established personal baggage.

My favourite character I made in Origins was a casteless dwarf rogue, yet by midway through the game I didn't feel like a casteless dwarf rogue any more. I was just a generic fantasy protagonist whose dwarven nature was occasionally referenced, and that's the problem with 'building a character from scratch', because you're not really doing it.

I can't imagine romancing Anders. Dude's a dick. I can see where one might find tragedy, but I think all the characters in Dragon Age II are so poorly done that I couldn't care.

He's a dick?

What, because he now cares about the plight of mages and isn't just a selfish wisecracker with undiagnosed ADD (which incidentally is what I dislike Isabella for being).

If you ask me, he was a dick in Awakening. His DA2 appearance was a distinct upgrade, and a well explained one since it's pretty much laid out in the first meeting and in subsequent inter-party dialogue.

She shouts for once, and smashes her nifty mirror (and that pissed me the fuck off. After that steaming pile of shit that was Witch Hunt, I was hoping for something to happen with that cocksucker of a mirror. I mean, what the fuck was she even hoping for?)

It's an Eluvian, an artefact from Arlathan which allows for telecommunication and teleportation between different places, including, it's implied, other planes of existence. What Merrill was hoping for is fairly clear.

The fact that she does not suddenly get it working in game is really not that surprising, since it's pretty clear that everyone else knows that doing so (or at least the lengths to which she's gone to achieve it) is a bad idea. She finally smashes the eluvian because she finally wises up to the fact that its become an obsession.

If you follow the friendship path, she doesn't smash the eluvian and blames her clan for not seeing how she was trying to help them.

I mean, they would have had to specifically say "Merrill gets no Creation".

Anders also gets no Entropy, not quite as noticeable because Entropy isn't as essential, but never mind. I imagine it's to encourage co-dependency and bringing different party members for different situations. Plus, Merrill does have a clear way of healing herself which is compatible with her blood magic, so it might be a balance thing.

It's weird actually, I didn't notice that until you mentioned it.