It looks ridiculous and dull. Companions are cheesy (though they generally are, but everyone picks his favourite, I guess). It is very short (from a storytelling point of view, hours are ok). Very little variety. Largely forgettable but entertaining in parts.
What was wrong with Dragon Age 2, exactly?
- Thread starter Renegade-pizza
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While I agree that your choices didn't affect anything major in game, there were a few things that were different but they were only showing if you played the game more than once.Agow95 said:
Certain quests would only open up depending on choices you made in previous quests. Some companions can leave permanently depending on the choice you make which in turn removes companion quests. And in the 2nd act it's a lot easier to force a duel with the Arishok if you made certain choices or by having certain partymembers with you.
The game was pretty alright except for those three horrible crippling problems, you can't just sweep them all under the rug like that.Renegade-pizza said:
I mean, what was so bad about the bubonic plague? And please no "it was infectious" or "it killed people" or any other fanboy BS about not wanting to die from the black death.
Recycled dungeons: They did it in Origins, but no-where near as frequently, and they put enough effort in that I didn't realise until my third playthrough.
Combat: Waves of enemies are a terrible battle system. It took some good action-RPG elements, but left out others that help balance it all out (like dodging, blocking, that kind of stuff). It meant that all the variations you could have from origins (sneak in and plant traps everywhere, set up your archers behind your repulsion glyph, etc) weren't applicable, because no matter how carefully you position and plan, you can't be expected to know which 30 foot wall the enemies will jump from next.
Skills: It felt very linear ... does that make sense? In origins, you only needed stat requirements (except for class-skills, which sort of makes sense, because it is about your skill as a rogue/mage/warrior, not how much stamina you happen to have), but in this one, all the level requirements mean that you can't go "I want a crushing prison build" because by the time you can get crushing prison, you are half-way through the game! Also, in origins, where the mage excelled in skill-variation, rogue and warrior could at least have some nice weapon skills to balance it out, which leads to my next point: class-specific gear
Equipment: My favourite thing about origins was that if you wanted to, you could build a ranged warrior, or a skill-rogue, or a warrior-mage. In DA2, sure you can pump strength and wear warrior armour as a mage, but you can't equip a sword or bow, and post-patch, even the bugged weapons that can be cross-classed are 'fixed'. Some of my favourite classes in Origins were strength mages/rogues using two-handed weapons (rogues can backstab with those, it makes for some very pretty damage scores), or bow-wielding warriors with huge dexterity, defense boosting buffs and taunt. And my final problem ...
Stats: All these weapon restrictions means that there is barely any point in giving a a class any non-central stats (except maybe a couple constitution if you wanted a tiny bit more health).
So those are my complaints, though I still enjoyed the game.
Combat: Waves of enemies are a terrible battle system. It took some good action-RPG elements, but left out others that help balance it all out (like dodging, blocking, that kind of stuff). It meant that all the variations you could have from origins (sneak in and plant traps everywhere, set up your archers behind your repulsion glyph, etc) weren't applicable, because no matter how carefully you position and plan, you can't be expected to know which 30 foot wall the enemies will jump from next.
Skills: It felt very linear ... does that make sense? In origins, you only needed stat requirements (except for class-skills, which sort of makes sense, because it is about your skill as a rogue/mage/warrior, not how much stamina you happen to have), but in this one, all the level requirements mean that you can't go "I want a crushing prison build" because by the time you can get crushing prison, you are half-way through the game! Also, in origins, where the mage excelled in skill-variation, rogue and warrior could at least have some nice weapon skills to balance it out, which leads to my next point: class-specific gear
Equipment: My favourite thing about origins was that if you wanted to, you could build a ranged warrior, or a skill-rogue, or a warrior-mage. In DA2, sure you can pump strength and wear warrior armour as a mage, but you can't equip a sword or bow, and post-patch, even the bugged weapons that can be cross-classed are 'fixed'. Some of my favourite classes in Origins were strength mages/rogues using two-handed weapons (rogues can backstab with those, it makes for some very pretty damage scores), or bow-wielding warriors with huge dexterity, defense boosting buffs and taunt. And my final problem ...
Stats: All these weapon restrictions means that there is barely any point in giving a a class any non-central stats (except maybe a couple constitution if you wanted a tiny bit more health).
So those are my complaints, though I still enjoyed the game.
Well, here goes, why not.
1. The Plot. There is none. The game is about Hawke's rise to power, but that's not a plot. It's a character arc. The hero's rise is an intrinsic element of any classical fantasy tale. However, his/her rise must always be driven by some main, overriding plot. Taking that arc out and trying to make the story just about that might work in some story types, but not in a linear, structured narrative.
2. Combat. There were actually a couple things wrong with the combat, so I'm breaking it down into subgroups.
a. Mechanics. The combat this time around was designed to be faster, more impressive and more engaging to the player. For many people it failed all but the faster part. Stating why it failed is a matter for opinion I suppose, but I think it was because it was trying to be two combat systems at once. Part of the game was trying to be a brawler, with button presses required for each attack/skill use. The other part of the game was trying to be more like Origins: tactical party-based combat. Trying to be both of these things, I feel, made the combat lacking all around. It didn't have the control and finesse that good brawlers do, but it couldn't be a good tactical game because of many of the mechanics (speed, lack of to-hit, etc.).
A parallel I like to draw is the difference between the Witcher 1 and the Witcher 2. The two games had radically different combat systems, but fans didn't begrudge the switch because the developers went the whole way and made it a damn good brawler. Furthermore, combat in the Witcher 2 still felt like the Witcher 1, even though it had a radically different system, because of how it was presented. Which brings me to the next topic:
b. Presentation. Combat is disturbingly poorly presented in DA2. There is hardly any build up to most of the fights, for one thing. If you do anything but walk around the city in the daytime you will be attacked, but the battles are over as fast as they began and no weight or consequences are ever attached. This makes them feel incredibly artificial, like they're happening in another dimension or something.
Enemies also have no impact since most of them are nameless, faceless, nobodies that are jsut there to make Hawke look awesome. There are also too many of them. A tough fight in Origins might have a single mage backed by four warriors, but DA2 never presents a challenge unless there's a boss and a dozen cannon fodders. This goes further to making to the fights seem artificial.
The last thing the game fumbles with the presentation is the animations. They're incredibly visceral, fast-paced, and cool-looking... for the first couple of hours. Then they just start feeling overdone and boring. There's no sense of weight to the character's movements, and the way they swing their weapons makes it look like they're using blow-ups rather than real weapons. It's the final nail in the coffin for making the fights seem fake.
On the other hand, the magic effects and models look much nicer than they did in origins.
3. Characters. the final thing I'll talk about are the characters. One of the big changes this time was the main character had both a set name and a voice. Yet, somehow they managed to have less personality than the characters I played in Origins. I think a large part of that is tied to the fact that there is less dialogue this time. Since the voice actors had to record 3 responses to everything someone said, the writers seemed to compensate by giving fewer chances to respond and shorter lines.
Another reason might be that all responses this time around (or nearly all) had to be shoe-horned into the Nice, Sarcastic, and Asshole categories. This meant there could be no more than three responses to anything, and they all had to fit their predetermined roles. Origins, on the other hand, could have a multitude of responses, and they left it up to the player to decide whether the character added a sarcastic tilt to it.
Which brings me to the voice actors themselves. They both suck. Moving on. No seriously, the voice actors for Hawke (both genders) are easily the worst of the main cast. Why? Why do that?
Anyway, the only other thing I'll say about the characters is that it was very hard for me to care about my companions since most of them had no logical reason to follow me around. Especially if they didn't like me. In fact, my first meeting with Anders went very badly since I thought he was an ass for leaving the wardens. Yet, despite my snide remarks and his open hostility he was more than willing to follow me around and obey orders. I also never took Aveline since THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD TO BE FOLLOWING ME AROUND TOWN SHE HAS A VERY DEMANDING JOB SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME!!!!
Conclusion
Despite all that I did enjoy DA2. It's a decent game, if nothing else. It just makes a number of mistakes that I largely think is the result of not enough development time. It would probably have seemed better if it wasn't a sequel to a much better game. I'll be interested to see if BioWare can turn things around with the third installment, or if they'll just do a rush job to milk whatever is left of name recognition with the series.
1. The Plot. There is none. The game is about Hawke's rise to power, but that's not a plot. It's a character arc. The hero's rise is an intrinsic element of any classical fantasy tale. However, his/her rise must always be driven by some main, overriding plot. Taking that arc out and trying to make the story just about that might work in some story types, but not in a linear, structured narrative.
2. Combat. There were actually a couple things wrong with the combat, so I'm breaking it down into subgroups.
a. Mechanics. The combat this time around was designed to be faster, more impressive and more engaging to the player. For many people it failed all but the faster part. Stating why it failed is a matter for opinion I suppose, but I think it was because it was trying to be two combat systems at once. Part of the game was trying to be a brawler, with button presses required for each attack/skill use. The other part of the game was trying to be more like Origins: tactical party-based combat. Trying to be both of these things, I feel, made the combat lacking all around. It didn't have the control and finesse that good brawlers do, but it couldn't be a good tactical game because of many of the mechanics (speed, lack of to-hit, etc.).
A parallel I like to draw is the difference between the Witcher 1 and the Witcher 2. The two games had radically different combat systems, but fans didn't begrudge the switch because the developers went the whole way and made it a damn good brawler. Furthermore, combat in the Witcher 2 still felt like the Witcher 1, even though it had a radically different system, because of how it was presented. Which brings me to the next topic:
b. Presentation. Combat is disturbingly poorly presented in DA2. There is hardly any build up to most of the fights, for one thing. If you do anything but walk around the city in the daytime you will be attacked, but the battles are over as fast as they began and no weight or consequences are ever attached. This makes them feel incredibly artificial, like they're happening in another dimension or something.
Enemies also have no impact since most of them are nameless, faceless, nobodies that are jsut there to make Hawke look awesome. There are also too many of them. A tough fight in Origins might have a single mage backed by four warriors, but DA2 never presents a challenge unless there's a boss and a dozen cannon fodders. This goes further to making to the fights seem artificial.
The last thing the game fumbles with the presentation is the animations. They're incredibly visceral, fast-paced, and cool-looking... for the first couple of hours. Then they just start feeling overdone and boring. There's no sense of weight to the character's movements, and the way they swing their weapons makes it look like they're using blow-ups rather than real weapons. It's the final nail in the coffin for making the fights seem fake.
On the other hand, the magic effects and models look much nicer than they did in origins.
3. Characters. the final thing I'll talk about are the characters. One of the big changes this time was the main character had both a set name and a voice. Yet, somehow they managed to have less personality than the characters I played in Origins. I think a large part of that is tied to the fact that there is less dialogue this time. Since the voice actors had to record 3 responses to everything someone said, the writers seemed to compensate by giving fewer chances to respond and shorter lines.
Another reason might be that all responses this time around (or nearly all) had to be shoe-horned into the Nice, Sarcastic, and Asshole categories. This meant there could be no more than three responses to anything, and they all had to fit their predetermined roles. Origins, on the other hand, could have a multitude of responses, and they left it up to the player to decide whether the character added a sarcastic tilt to it.
Which brings me to the voice actors themselves. They both suck. Moving on. No seriously, the voice actors for Hawke (both genders) are easily the worst of the main cast. Why? Why do that?
Anyway, the only other thing I'll say about the characters is that it was very hard for me to care about my companions since most of them had no logical reason to follow me around. Especially if they didn't like me. In fact, my first meeting with Anders went very badly since I thought he was an ass for leaving the wardens. Yet, despite my snide remarks and his open hostility he was more than willing to follow me around and obey orders. I also never took Aveline since THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD TO BE FOLLOWING ME AROUND TOWN SHE HAS A VERY DEMANDING JOB SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME!!!!
Conclusion
Despite all that I did enjoy DA2. It's a decent game, if nothing else. It just makes a number of mistakes that I largely think is the result of not enough development time. It would probably have seemed better if it wasn't a sequel to a much better game. I'll be interested to see if BioWare can turn things around with the third installment, or if they'll just do a rush job to milk whatever is left of name recognition with the series.
I liked the story, I thought it fit the characters even if it wasn't on an as epic scale as the original. the thing that bothered me about the game was the pacing of it. It took it's time developing and building up, then the last hour or so felt very rushed. Just as i was really getting into it I got that.. wait a minute, this game is about to end feeling. and sure enough it did just like that. And with not enough racial options for replay in character creation i just felt meh. So i beat it and never played it again. But overall i still enjoyed it.
No. A rational person who didn't enjoy the game would rate it a 4 or 5. If they give it a 0-2, they're being irrational and vindictive. No matter its flaws, DA2 is not THAT awful.Joccaren said:
But I agree with you that scores are pretty stupid anyway, since everyone seems to have a different scale. (i.e. there are people who think anything higher than 5 constitutes "good", and plenty who think anything under 7 is "bad").
The story of the game isn't all that bad. Sure a big part of the story focusses on Hawke's rise to power and wealth, but from the start of the game the 2 other main themes are represented.Krantos said:
The 1st theme is the Kunari problem which got caused by Isabella where Hawke tries to find a way to keep the peace in the streets but interference of the Chantry doesn't make the situation any easier.
And there's the whole mage vs templar situation that grows worse and worse until it finally explodes in the 3rd act, but it's not absent in the 1st 2 acts. Now this gets linked to the end of the 1st act when it became clear that Meredith's insane rule was caused by the idol Berthrand ninja'ed in the deeproads. So during Hawke's rise to power, he accidentally makes the whole thing worse without even realising it.
Is the story perfect? Not at all, but to say there's no underlying plot at all might be a tad exaggerated.
I can't say I see any faults in your reasoning, but for the most part I prefer the combat from DA2 over DA:O. Again it was perfect, but nonetheless I enjoyed it. The fringe of tactical combat was there to provide some form of customisation of certain companions.
Depending on how you configured it most characters could perform 2 roles with the exception of Aveline who got stuck in her tanking mode. Fenris could be a perfect tank or a damage dealer. Anders could swing between full healer with some support or a damage oriented character that could throw a heal if needed. Merril could go 2 ways with her casting depending on the fact you wanted to use her bloodmagic or not. And those choices also lead to a different stat-distribution.
My main issue with the combatsystem was that playing as a daggerwielding rogue, you could obliterate the enemies who would pose the biggest problem such as mages or the stronger demons with 2-3 skills. But at the same time, you could play with minimal constitution because a high cunning would increase your defence stat. During the Orsino fight I even bugged it, because I killed him in his 2nd phase so the 3rd part of the encounter would never pop up.
I think my main problem with the story is just that, in comparison to that of DA:O, it just felt so small. (And a big part of that, of course, is that you're confined to one town for the whole game.) The problems just feel like the problems of one town, and the conflicts end up sounding like bickering amongst neighbors. It all just felt so petty.Takolin said: