What was wrong with Dragon Age 2, exactly?

[everythingbeeps]

No idea, the second DLC is great fun though!

It's amazing how much what's-her-face's involvement dulled my interest in that DLC. I'll still get it, but I can't really stand her, and it'll be a constant distraction while I'm playing it.

 

[TitanAtlas]

in dragon age origins is a adventure, all the places you see al the people that you can be.
DA2 is one city one person.
that is my number one complain bu there are many more.

In dragon age origins you can stare at the map and think: "where will I go now?"
In DA2 you know that you can go anywhere and it still feels the same.

In dragon age origins your goal is clear: rescure A land in civial-war from an army of darkspawn.
in DA2 your goal is:.......whell there is none its diffrent in all three acts.

In dragon age origins your companions where all rounded out,you get to known Allistar in one sentance but at the end he still suprises you.
In DA2 companions had no personality at all just goals you are forced to complete in quests.

Still DA2 is a great game but dragon age origins is so much better.

What this guy saied, taken a few aditions... There's not really much where to go to... it's either the same city, or the same exterior and the dungeons are exactly the same but with different paths... The combat is slightly improved yes, but story and character personalization wise it's awfull...

DA2 was a bad game but with immense potential... I do not blame the developers just EA for the pressure of releasing what could be a great game, only ahead of it's own time...

 

[Yopaz]

The problem with Dragon age 2: It wasn't Dragon Age Origins.
The problem with Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: It is Modern Warfare.

Fans are petty and are likely to hate on change if they're too drastic and likely to hate on change if they don't exist. I've seen brilliant games get bad reviews from fans because they didn't do what the original did.

However they could have bothered to make more than 1 dungeon covered in different skins.

It's not fair to say that fans didn't like DA2 "because it wasn't DA:O". I'm all for change...if it's improvement.

Unfortunately, most of what DA2 changed wasn't an improvement at all. I actually liked the more action-oriented combat. But the rest of the changes were definitely for the worst. They could have been better. With better and more environments, less reliance on waves of enemies, and a more compelling story, DA2 could have been an improvement on DA:O even with all the changes.

So you're probably the 5th person I've seen who doesn't like the game who lieks the combat or sees anything that is better in DA2 or could have made it a better game.
DA2 is a completely different game. They could have named it something else and it wouldn't get as many complaints, but they wouldn't be able to cash in because it wouldn't be a sequel of a game that struck gold.

 

[SadisticBrownie]

Besides the issues OP mentioned there wasn't much else massively wrong with it. Having hundreds of items called "Ring" that did varying things was irritating, and playing as a Warrior felt like a slog.
I felt DA2 was certainly inferior to DA:O, but giving it 0s and 4s out of 10 is just ridiculous.

 

[spartan231490]

My biggest single problem was the chain enemy spawns. It made it much more difficult to be strategic because you never knew if you were only going to fight the 4 enemies onscreen, or if there were going to be 40 more jumping down any second.

My next biggest problem was the inventory system, and the new level system. less customization is always bad in my opinion. It was still a fun game, but it wasn't an RPG, so much as an hack/slash with rpg elements.

Note: i had a blast playing the game, but It disappointed me because it wasn't what I pre-ordered it for, it wasn't a tactical rpg.

 

[badgersprite]

I can see what people didn't like about it. Its unconventional story made most of the quests including plot critical quests feel like sidequests rather than vice versa, the characters could be very off-putting and annoying if you didn't like them, you had very limited ability to customise your characters beyond what combat skills they learned, the combat itself was grind-tastic and uninteresting, it was very easy to screw things up and get yourself stuck with no or bad party members if you didn't have a guide telling you which quests to do in which order and how to max out your friendship/rivalry.

Personally, I liked the game, and enjoyed the story and the characters, but I can see what people dislike about it and it's not hard to put myself in their position and see why the flaws of the game overshadowed its good qualities.

 

[Nimcha]

No idea, the second DLC is great fun though!

It's amazing how much what's-her-face's involvement dulled my interest in that DLC. I'll still get it, but I can't really stand her, and it'll be a constant distraction while I'm playing it.

I'm actually quite fond of her, so that's only an extra bonus

 

[everythingbeeps]

The problem with Dragon age 2: It wasn't Dragon Age Origins.
The problem with Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: It is Modern Warfare.

Fans are petty and are likely to hate on change if they're too drastic and likely to hate on change if they don't exist. I've seen brilliant games get bad reviews from fans because they didn't do what the original did.

However they could have bothered to make more than 1 dungeon covered in different skins.

It's not fair to say that fans didn't like DA2 "because it wasn't DA:O". I'm all for change...if it's improvement.

Unfortunately, most of what DA2 changed wasn't an improvement at all. I actually liked the more action-oriented combat. But the rest of the changes were definitely for the worst. They could have been better. With better and more environments, less reliance on waves of enemies, and a more compelling story, DA2 could have been an improvement on DA:O even with all the changes.

So you're probably the 5th person I've seen who doesn't like the game who lieks the combat or sees anything that is better in DA2 or could have made it a better game.
DA2 is a completely different game. They could have named it something else and it wouldn't get as many complaints, but they wouldn't be able to cash in because it wouldn't be a sequel of a game that struck gold.

Well, yes and no. There are some things that would have skated, small stuff like the whole companion armor thing, or the Junk system, or the fact that you get loot you literally can't use (because of the companion armor thing.) These are things that in a different context might have seemed okay, but when compared to DA:O, they are all clearly steps back. They are changes but ones that don't add to the experience in any way. They only take away, and thus it's easier to feel like they're the result of cut corners and laziness. In another context, they might just be quirky mechanics that people possibly wouldn't even notice.


Other things, like the flimsy story and the recycled environments...honestly I think in a different game this stuff would have been criticized MORE. I think because it was Bioware a lot of people let that stuff slide, arguing "a bad Bioware game is still better than most other games". And even if Bioware had made the same game but not made it a DA game, it'd still be compared to DA. Hell, people compare DA to ME all the time, which I find bizarre.

Overall, I didn't hate the game. I finished it, did most of the sidequests, and for long stretches I was definitely enjoying it. But it's just that in the end, the overall experience was marred by a few very heavy problems and several more minor ones, and I just can't get around the fact that most of those problems didn't exist in DA:O.

 

[Humza Ahmad]

My problem is that the game became too action orientated. I liked the slower pace of DA1.

 

[Scorekeeper]

1) The dungeons were recycled
2) The endings with the mage and templar were the same regardless of choice
3) Quests and achievements were bugged
4) Enemies came in waves

I still enjoyed DAII, despite it being my least favorite BioWare game.

Dragon Age 2 wasn't a bad game, it was just a bad game by BioWare's standards. There were a lot of problems with it, such as the repeated maps and the re-spawning enemies but the one I had most issue with was simply that it was less epic. DA:O was a grand story, a tide of darkness sweeping across the land, a noble order of guardians betrayed and destroyed by those it sought to protect, all set in a world rich with history and atmosphere.

Dragon Age 2 was, for most of it, the story of one refugee family's struggle to adapt to the huge changes to the world that you, the player, made during the first game. It just couldn't compare.

I couldn't agree more.

EDIT: If they'd called the game "Dragon Age: Kirkwall", I'd have accepted it more.

 

[Ashendarei]

Same response to the last thread about this exact same issue:

"
You know, DA:O has a whole lot more investment for me then DA:2 did. I played through Origins once completely and then about 2/3 of the way through as another class and got about 65-70 hours in (still haven't finished 2nd run through, but enjoy it nontheless).

DA:2 I beat once and thought "wow. That was a cool game". That was it. No real replay value, I tried to replay it as a different class type, but didn't find it compelling enough. As things stand now I'm in chapter 2 on DA:2 (2nd runthrough) and I don't think I'm going to go any further with it.

I liked Varric as a character. He played the narrator VERY well, and his in-game banter was enjoyable throughout the entire game. The rest of the characters irritated me off and on, but weren't bad enough to get me to stop playing, just broke immersion here and there.

Hopefully Bioware will scrap the idea of continuing with the DA:2 style and fall back on their Origins (hah)."

 

[Yopaz]

The problem with Dragon age 2: It wasn't Dragon Age Origins.
The problem with Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: It is Modern Warfare.

Fans are petty and are likely to hate on change if they're too drastic and likely to hate on change if they don't exist. I've seen brilliant games get bad reviews from fans because they didn't do what the original did.

However they could have bothered to make more than 1 dungeon covered in different skins.

It's not fair to say that fans didn't like DA2 "because it wasn't DA:O". I'm all for change...if it's improvement.

Unfortunately, most of what DA2 changed wasn't an improvement at all. I actually liked the more action-oriented combat. But the rest of the changes were definitely for the worst. They could have been better. With better and more environments, less reliance on waves of enemies, and a more compelling story, DA2 could have been an improvement on DA:O even with all the changes.

So you're probably the 5th person I've seen who doesn't like the game who lieks the combat or sees anything that is better in DA2 or could have made it a better game.
DA2 is a completely different game. They could have named it something else and it wouldn't get as many complaints, but they wouldn't be able to cash in because it wouldn't be a sequel of a game that struck gold.

Well, yes and no. There are some things that would have skated, small stuff like the whole companion armor thing, or the Junk system, or the fact that you get loot you literally can't use (because of the companion armor thing.) These are things that in a different context might have seemed okay, but when compared to DA:O, they are all clearly steps back. They are changes but ones that don't add to the experience in any way. They only take away, and thus it's easier to feel like they're the result of cut corners and laziness. In another context, they might just be quirky mechanics that people possibly wouldn't even notice.


Other things, like the flimsy story and the recycled environments...honestly I think in a different game this stuff would have been criticized MORE. I think because it was Bioware a lot of people let that stuff slide, arguing "a bad Bioware game is still better than most other games". And even if Bioware had made the same game but not made it a DA game, it'd still be compared to DA. Hell, people compare DA to ME all the time, which I find bizarre.

Overall, I didn't hate the game. I finished it, did most of the sidequests, and for long stretches I was definitely enjoying it. But it's just that in the end, the overall experience was marred by a few very heavy problems and several more minor ones, and I just can't get around the fact that most of those problems didn't exist in DA:O.

Yeah, I already mentioned the fact that there's basically only one dungeon in it, but when I say that people dislike this game because it's not the first one I don't only talk about this game.
Tales of Symphonia Dawn of The New World. It'a s spin.off of the original. It's pretty good if not as good as the original. However talking to fans of the first game who also played the spin-off they will tell you it's the embodiment of shit. They removed the free exploring (genuine complaint), they added a new main character to follow a different point of view, they put a level cap on characters from the other game and they added some other things that brought changes to combat and strategy.
Take a look at Dragon Age 2 and its popularity. I've seen several posts here on the Escapist saying it's the worst game of 2011. Several saying it ruined something that was beautfil in every single way. Even on this thread you'll see some who can't say one positive thing about the game. This game basically got 3 things in common with its predecessor. Genre, setting and name. It is judged as if it were Dragon Age Origin however. Now you are able to like the game despite its flaws. I wont say it's a perfect game myself, but it's not a terrible game. Look at Metacritics. Review score is around 80 and user score is under 5. Most users reviews will compare it to other Bioware games so no. I am not taking this out of my ass. I am not sharing my personal opinion. I am sharing my observation about complaints based on years spent in forums. Gamers are petty and that's final. Before you protest. Have you seen anyone posting here on this very forum that Modern Warfare 3 will suck? This got nothing to do with change, it simply indicates that some are too quick to judge.
When it was announced that Skyrim would feature a different armour system than Oblivion so many fans started raging over it saying how that sucked so much and how they disliked it. A game they had not played. I am not saying fans hate change only because of the complaints sequels get, it's also because of the changes sequels are going to have. When you make up your mind before a game is out based on what is different from the original you hate change. Simple as that.

If you choose to ignore my disjointed wall of text (it's just rambling to be honest so not actually worth reading through) just pay attention to what's below this sentence.
Does Dragon Age 2 deserve all the hate it gets? If it does, why do you like it?
If it doesn't, does that indicate that it's being compared to something else (better)?

 

[everythingbeeps]

The problem with Dragon age 2: It wasn't Dragon Age Origins.
The problem with Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: It is Modern Warfare.

Fans are petty and are likely to hate on change if they're too drastic and likely to hate on change if they don't exist. I've seen brilliant games get bad reviews from fans because they didn't do what the original did.

However they could have bothered to make more than 1 dungeon covered in different skins.

It's not fair to say that fans didn't like DA2 "because it wasn't DA:O". I'm all for change...if it's improvement.

Unfortunately, most of what DA2 changed wasn't an improvement at all. I actually liked the more action-oriented combat. But the rest of the changes were definitely for the worst. They could have been better. With better and more environments, less reliance on waves of enemies, and a more compelling story, DA2 could have been an improvement on DA:O even with all the changes.

So you're probably the 5th person I've seen who doesn't like the game who lieks the combat or sees anything that is better in DA2 or could have made it a better game.
DA2 is a completely different game. They could have named it something else and it wouldn't get as many complaints, but they wouldn't be able to cash in because it wouldn't be a sequel of a game that struck gold.

Well, yes and no. There are some things that would have skated, small stuff like the whole companion armor thing, or the Junk system, or the fact that you get loot you literally can't use (because of the companion armor thing.) These are things that in a different context might have seemed okay, but when compared to DA:O, they are all clearly steps back. They are changes but ones that don't add to the experience in any way. They only take away, and thus it's easier to feel like they're the result of cut corners and laziness. In another context, they might just be quirky mechanics that people possibly wouldn't even notice.


Other things, like the flimsy story and the recycled environments...honestly I think in a different game this stuff would have been criticized MORE. I think because it was Bioware a lot of people let that stuff slide, arguing "a bad Bioware game is still better than most other games". And even if Bioware had made the same game but not made it a DA game, it'd still be compared to DA. Hell, people compare DA to ME all the time, which I find bizarre.

Overall, I didn't hate the game. I finished it, did most of the sidequests, and for long stretches I was definitely enjoying it. But it's just that in the end, the overall experience was marred by a few very heavy problems and several more minor ones, and I just can't get around the fact that most of those problems didn't exist in DA:O.

Yeah, I already mentioned the fact that there's basically only one dungeon in it, but when I say that people dislike this game because it's not the first one I don't only talk about this game.
Tales of Symphonia Dawn of The New World. It'a s spin.off of the original. It's pretty good if not as good as the original. However talking to fans of the first game who also played the spin-off they will tell you it's the embodiment of shit. They removed the free exploring (genuine complaint), they added a new main character to follow a different point of view, they put a level cap on characters from the other game and they added some other things that brought changes to combat and strategy.
Take a look at Dragon Age 2 and its popularity. I've seen several posts here on the Escapist saying it's the worst game of 2011. Several saying it ruined something that was beautfil in every single way. Even on this thread you'll see some who can't say one positive thing about the game. This game basically got 3 things in common with its predecessor. Genre, setting and name. It is judged as if it were Dragon Age Origin however. Now you are able to like the game despite its flaws. I wont say it's a perfect game myself, but it's not a terrible game. Look at Metacritics. Review score is around 80 and user score is under 5. Most users reviews will compare it to other Bioware games so no. I am not taking this out of my ass. I am not sharing my personal opinion. I am sharing my observation about complaints based on years spent in forums. Gamers are petty and that's final. Before you protest. Have you seen anyone posting here on this very forum that Modern Warfare 3 will suck? This got nothing to do with change, it simply indicates that some are too quick to judge.
When it was announced that Skyrim would feature a different armour system than Oblivion so many fans started raging over it saying how that sucked so much and how they disliked it. A game they had not played. I am not saying fans hate change only because of the complaints sequels get, it's also because of the changes sequels are going to have. When you make up your mind before a game is out based on what is different from the original you hate change. Simple as that.

If you choose to ignore my disjointed wall of text (it's just rambling to be honest so not actually worth reading through) just pay attention to what's below this sentence.
Does Dragon Age 2 deserve all the hate it gets? If it does, why do you like it?
If it doesn't, does that indicate that it's being compared to something else (better)?

We must first dismiss two groups of people: 1) the people who say DA2 sucks in every way, and 2) the people who say DA2 is an amazing game and better than DA:O in every way. Because neither of these things is true. I'm almost willing to call that a fact, not opinion.

But I think it's perfectly fair to compare a game to its predecessor, especially when any remotely significant changes are made. Because one would hope such changes are made to improve upon the previous game, not just for the sake of change. DA:O fans have a pretty valid claim: not much was broken about DA:O, certainly not enough to warrant the wholesale changes that took place for DA2. So that begs the question: why the changes? Did the developers genuinely think they were improving upon DA:O? I have a hard time believing that. Like I said before, many of these changes were things that took away from the game. Took away freedoms, took away customization options, took away variety. Hard to argue how those things improve on a game.

One of the main complaints about Mass Effect was that the simplistic inventory system combined with the sheer amount of stuff you acquire made it hard to really manage your inventory. Rather than improve the inventory system, the developers just decided to lose the loot, something a lot of fans got upset about, and rightly so. It seemed like a decision born from laziness. And fairly or not, this set a bad precedent and made people all the more wary when Dragon Age 2 came out. We were on the lookout for more such streamlining, more cut corners, more signs of laziness. And unfortunately, we found a lot.

Basically, I think most of the criticism of DA2 just comes down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." DA:O wasn't broken, but they still tried too hard to "fix" it, and wound up breaking it instead.

EDIT: Re: Skyrim...it's just another case of taking away something we had before. And in fact, it's compounded with Skyrim considering they already did this with Oblivion.

Morrowind had customization out the ass. They streamlined it a bit for Oblivion, and have now done so even more with Skyrim.

 

[Yopaz]

The problem with Dragon age 2: It wasn't Dragon Age Origins.
The problem with Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: It is Modern Warfare.

Fans are petty and are likely to hate on change if they're too drastic and likely to hate on change if they don't exist. I've seen brilliant games get bad reviews from fans because they didn't do what the original did.

However they could have bothered to make more than 1 dungeon covered in different skins.

It's not fair to say that fans didn't like DA2 "because it wasn't DA:O". I'm all for change...if it's improvement.

Unfortunately, most of what DA2 changed wasn't an improvement at all. I actually liked the more action-oriented combat. But the rest of the changes were definitely for the worst. They could have been better. With better and more environments, less reliance on waves of enemies, and a more compelling story, DA2 could have been an improvement on DA:O even with all the changes.

So you're probably the 5th person I've seen who doesn't like the game who lieks the combat or sees anything that is better in DA2 or could have made it a better game.
DA2 is a completely different game. They could have named it something else and it wouldn't get as many complaints, but they wouldn't be able to cash in because it wouldn't be a sequel of a game that struck gold.

Well, yes and no. There are some things that would have skated, small stuff like the whole companion armor thing, or the Junk system, or the fact that you get loot you literally can't use (because of the companion armor thing.) These are things that in a different context might have seemed okay, but when compared to DA:O, they are all clearly steps back. They are changes but ones that don't add to the experience in any way. They only take away, and thus it's easier to feel like they're the result of cut corners and laziness. In another context, they might just be quirky mechanics that people possibly wouldn't even notice.


Other things, like the flimsy story and the recycled environments...honestly I think in a different game this stuff would have been criticized MORE. I think because it was Bioware a lot of people let that stuff slide, arguing "a bad Bioware game is still better than most other games". And even if Bioware had made the same game but not made it a DA game, it'd still be compared to DA. Hell, people compare DA to ME all the time, which I find bizarre.

Overall, I didn't hate the game. I finished it, did most of the sidequests, and for long stretches I was definitely enjoying it. But it's just that in the end, the overall experience was marred by a few very heavy problems and several more minor ones, and I just can't get around the fact that most of those problems didn't exist in DA:O.

Yeah, I already mentioned the fact that there's basically only one dungeon in it, but when I say that people dislike this game because it's not the first one I don't only talk about this game.
Tales of Symphonia Dawn of The New World. It'a s spin.off of the original. It's pretty good if not as good as the original. However talking to fans of the first game who also played the spin-off they will tell you it's the embodiment of shit. They removed the free exploring (genuine complaint), they added a new main character to follow a different point of view, they put a level cap on characters from the other game and they added some other things that brought changes to combat and strategy.
Take a look at Dragon Age 2 and its popularity. I've seen several posts here on the Escapist saying it's the worst game of 2011. Several saying it ruined something that was beautfil in every single way. Even on this thread you'll see some who can't say one positive thing about the game. This game basically got 3 things in common with its predecessor. Genre, setting and name. It is judged as if it were Dragon Age Origin however. Now you are able to like the game despite its flaws. I wont say it's a perfect game myself, but it's not a terrible game. Look at Metacritics. Review score is around 80 and user score is under 5. Most users reviews will compare it to other Bioware games so no. I am not taking this out of my ass. I am not sharing my personal opinion. I am sharing my observation about complaints based on years spent in forums. Gamers are petty and that's final. Before you protest. Have you seen anyone posting here on this very forum that Modern Warfare 3 will suck? This got nothing to do with change, it simply indicates that some are too quick to judge.
When it was announced that Skyrim would feature a different armour system than Oblivion so many fans started raging over it saying how that sucked so much and how they disliked it. A game they had not played. I am not saying fans hate change only because of the complaints sequels get, it's also because of the changes sequels are going to have. When you make up your mind before a game is out based on what is different from the original you hate change. Simple as that.

If you choose to ignore my disjointed wall of text (it's just rambling to be honest so not actually worth reading through) just pay attention to what's below this sentence.
Does Dragon Age 2 deserve all the hate it gets? If it does, why do you like it?
If it doesn't, does that indicate that it's being compared to something else (better)?

We must first dismiss two groups of people: 1) the people who say DA2 sucks in every way, and 2) the people who say DA2 is an amazing game and better than DA:O in every way. Because neither of these things is true. I'm almost willing to call that a fact, not opinion.

But I think it's perfectly fair to compare a game to its predecessor, especially when any remotely significant changes are made. Because one would hope such changes are made to improve upon the previous game, not just for the sake of change. DA:O fans have a pretty valid claim: not much was broken about DA:O, certainly not enough to warrant the wholesale changes that took place for DA2. So that begs the question: why the changes? Did the developers genuinely think they were improving upon DA:O? I have a hard time believing that. Like I said before, many of these changes were things that took away from the game. Took away freedoms, took away customization options, took away variety. Hard to argue how those things improve on a game.

One of the main complaints about Mass Effect was that the simplistic inventory system combined with the sheer amount of stuff you acquire made it hard to really manage your inventory. Rather than improve the inventory system, the developers just decided to lose the loot, something a lot of fans got upset about, and rightly so. It seemed like a decision born from laziness. And fairly or not, this set a bad precedent and made people all the more wary when Dragon Age 2 came out. We were on the lookout for more such streamlining, more cut corners, more signs of laziness. And unfortunately, we found a lot.

Basically, I think most of the criticism of DA2 just comes down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." DA:O wasn't broken, but they still tried too hard to "fix" it, and wound up breaking it instead.

EDIT: Re: Skyrim...it's just another case of taking away something we had before. And in fact, it's compounded with Skyrim considering they already did this with Oblivion.

Morrowind had customization out the ass. They streamlined it a bit for Oblivion, and have now done so even more with Skyrim.

So you basically just ignored the only important part of my last post. This game is getting a tons of complaints.
Games change, sometimes significantly. You don't see anyone comparing Fallout 3 to Fallout 3. They're very different. Except for the fact that you got the VATS and the vaults they could be taken for completely different games. Yet this new style was accepted and loved. Now is it possible that Bioware wanted to do something similar with Dragon Age 2? That they thought tat making the same game twice was lame?

Honestly I prefer a game where I am more locked in so I can follow one story and not miss out on anything so I need to play it through just to see the variations. I think customization is a waste of time since I wont spend that much time admiring the character as I play as. So to me some of the things done to Dragon Age 2 is actually positive. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean everyone in the world has to agree with you.

Also I am suer you played Skyrim and really hate how the new equipment system works and that you have an excellent stand when you talk about how lame it is. Or maybe, just maybe you are judging it on previous experiences...

Now what you started your post with was saying we should ignore those who think Dragon Age 2 is shit. It seems like 60-70% of those who have played it think it's shit. Should we always dismiss 60% of the population when trying to find answers?
Should we ignore China if we want to count the world populatuion just because they're not important?
Now this time if you dare answer me this. If Dragon Age 2 isn't terrible, why is it described as such?

 

[kingcom]

Okay, I'll get this out if the way first: The areas were all identical, spawning waves of baddies and bugs.

What else? And please no:"They changed the combat system" or any other fanboy BS about changes that are bad because they changed it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.303651-Poll-Dragon-Age-2-was-it-that-bad#12158933

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.307800-Poll-The-Dragon-Age-2-hate#12404167

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.306128-Spoiler-Warning-Annoyed-at-the-dragon-age-2-ending#12309775

Come on. Took me 2 minutes.

 

[Vrach]

Okay, I'll get this out if the way first: The areas were all identical, spawning waves of baddies and bugs.

What else? And please no:"They changed the combat system" or any other fanboy BS about changes that are bad because they changed it.

Mostly what you said already. I also personally found the combat change to be less fun. Not hugely so, but it wasn't an improvement imo.

There's also the issue of story. It sucked arse and had no obvious overarching narrative. You couldn't tell what the fuck was the point of anything you were doing until the game was literally at an end. And the game just wasn't designed to support that kind of narrative. This isn't the Elder Scrolls, you don't have an open world at your hands where you can fuck around with the narrative and keep it vague cause there's a pile of other things to do. This is a BioWare game where you're chasing that narrative carrot and where everything in the way like combat is just fluff to get your through it.

It didn't help one bit that the side quests in Dragon Age (in both games really, was just more obvious here with the weak main quest causing most of the focus on them) suck arse.

 

[Zeema]

I believe that the companions were not very good in comparison too DA: O

 

[Heroic One]

It was poorly made, simple as that.