Hawke is an idiot who does nothing for years on end as a problem gets worse and worse. The entire plot is contingent upon the fact that the hero and protagonist is unable to do anything unless someone tells him to first.Renegade-pizza said:
What was wrong with Dragon Age 2, exactly?
- Thread starter Renegade-pizza
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I played DA2 for about... four hours. It was, basically, Dragon Age: Mass Effect. Less everything that made Mass Effect actually good.
The reason Origins was as good as it was, is because it was similar to the older PC Centric RPGs from Bioware's past. Origins was still flawed, but a superior game compared to it's sequel.
Dragon Age 2 is what happens when development changes focus after Sales reports.
"Well, Dragon Age: Origins sold less on consoles than Mass Effect, and it's PC sales were decent but not gangbusters. Instead of subjectively looking as the problems with the game, and realising a medieval RPG only has SO MUCH appeal, we're basically going to copy everything from Mass Effect, which sold better but we're not going to actually look at why, and make sure the combat is controller focused!"
"Er... isn't that going to drive down sales of this game, and any future games in the series, basically killing this franchise?"
"An opinion, eh? I know how to deal with those - you're now making the Facebook game!"
"Fuck."
The reason Origins was as good as it was, is because it was similar to the older PC Centric RPGs from Bioware's past. Origins was still flawed, but a superior game compared to it's sequel.
Dragon Age 2 is what happens when development changes focus after Sales reports.
"Well, Dragon Age: Origins sold less on consoles than Mass Effect, and it's PC sales were decent but not gangbusters. Instead of subjectively looking as the problems with the game, and realising a medieval RPG only has SO MUCH appeal, we're basically going to copy everything from Mass Effect, which sold better but we're not going to actually look at why, and make sure the combat is controller focused!"
"Er... isn't that going to drive down sales of this game, and any future games in the series, basically killing this franchise?"
"An opinion, eh? I know how to deal with those - you're now making the Facebook game!"
"Fuck."
Because it was shit and I mean that in every sense of the word. Of course people are still defending it. I mean, how could a Bioware fanboy admit Bioware screwed up?
It felt like a cheap cash-in, because that's what it was. End of story.
*reverts focus back to Dark Souls*
*reverts focus back to Dark Souls*
My 3 main problems:
1. Recycled areas. Absolute Bullshit, especially to the fans of DA Origins who were used to large, open areas to explore, a massive world that was full of little secrets for you to find. DA2 is nothing like that
2. The combat overall. Button Mashing is shit, as are spawning waves. I don't get why they thought it would be a good idea. I just don't.
3. The narrative. Instead of a Fantasy Epic like DA:O was, with a clear quest, a huge goal, something that needed doing, DA2s story is basically about getting rich, and rising to power. Only in the end to we see something that might be interesting, but we have to wait for the next game for that.
Also, saying 'Except the complaints about 'Things were different to DA:O'' is bullshit. They sold the game as Dragon Age, to Dragon Age fans, telling us it was a sequel to Dragon Age Origins, when it would have recieved a LOT less flak had it been released as 'Age of Hawk: Rise to Power' or something along those lines. Calling it a sequel to DA:O is an insult to everything that made DA:O great, and an insult to us fans who trusted Bioware to give us the game we thought we would get.
When I saw everyone going off about how bad it was, I thought 'You can't be serious right?'. I got the game, played it, and made the sad realisation that they were.
Also: Philosophy answer here: What was right with it?
1. Recycled areas. Absolute Bullshit, especially to the fans of DA Origins who were used to large, open areas to explore, a massive world that was full of little secrets for you to find. DA2 is nothing like that
2. The combat overall. Button Mashing is shit, as are spawning waves. I don't get why they thought it would be a good idea. I just don't.
3. The narrative. Instead of a Fantasy Epic like DA:O was, with a clear quest, a huge goal, something that needed doing, DA2s story is basically about getting rich, and rising to power. Only in the end to we see something that might be interesting, but we have to wait for the next game for that.
Also, saying 'Except the complaints about 'Things were different to DA:O'' is bullshit. They sold the game as Dragon Age, to Dragon Age fans, telling us it was a sequel to Dragon Age Origins, when it would have recieved a LOT less flak had it been released as 'Age of Hawk: Rise to Power' or something along those lines. Calling it a sequel to DA:O is an insult to everything that made DA:O great, and an insult to us fans who trusted Bioware to give us the game we thought we would get.
When I saw everyone going off about how bad it was, I thought 'You can't be serious right?'. I got the game, played it, and made the sad realisation that they were.
Also: Philosophy answer here: What was right with it?
No. The problem with Dragon Age 2 was that it wasn't -good-. It was solidly mediocre while following up a masterpiece.Yopaz said:
Sigh. First of all, the game isn't really getting "a ton of complaints". Yes, people complain about it. People complain about ALL games. People are complaining about Batman: Arkham City already (including me!). Especially this long after DA2's been released, most of the people who are still interested enough in the game to be vocal about it are the ones who either love it or hate it. For the rest, for the majority, the game is old news and you just won't really hear them chiming in.Yopaz said:
As for your Fallout thing, I don't know which games you're comparing, since you screwed that one up. Presumably Fallout 2 and Fallout 3? I didn't play Fallout 2. But Fallout 3 was made by a whole different company, many years after Fallout 2, on technology vastly improved over what was available when Fallout 2 was made. You can't make a comparison here to DA. You just can't. Think of something else where both games were made close together and the changes weren't so drastic (because the changes between DA:O and DA2 weren't nearly as drastic as that!)
So now we're getting to the meat of it. YOU think customization is a waste of time. So what? Sounds like most DA (and Elder Scrolls) fans disagree with you. But here you are saying they're the problem. So it's ironic that you say "just because you dno't think so doesn't mean everyone in the world has to agree", because you're calling out a bunch of people who don't agree with you!
But here's a protip: games like Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls are as much about immersion as anything else. And customization goes a very long way towards making people feel immersed in a game. The less customization they're allowed, the more they just feel like they're pushing around someone else's creation, and the less attached they feel to that character. I'm not even someone who really gets immersed in games, and even I understand this.
Less customization is never an improvement. Ever. For people like you who can't be bothered, maybe. But for games like this...you aren't in the majority.
Your numbers are outrageous. The people who think DA2 is shit aren't 60% of those who played it. That's ridiculous. Ever heard of a vocal minority? That's what you're witnessing. Most of the people who liked it don't really speak up because they've got nothing to say. They didn't love it enough to praise it like a fanboy, and they didn't hate it enough to complain on the internet. Most people liked this game just fine, minus a handful of complaints.
Those where about my only real problems with Dragon Age 2 - the repeated use of the maps made the whole place seem very small.Renegade-pizza said:
I did enjoy most everything else though, especially the hints of a more complex history to the Dwarves, unknown even to themselves.
I dont know about the console versions but the PC versions had an absolutly crap control scheme and while the graphics and aesthetics both looked like ass it still managed to lag and jerk around even after turning the settings way down. also (though this in no way excuses all the other problems with this game) it did have to be compared to the first one which in my opinion is one of the best fantasy PC RPGs in a long time if not the best ever
It is described as terrible because people have opinions. Something you point out in your post yet fail to take account of.Yopaz said:
As for the Fallout 3 and Modern Warfare stuff:
1. Fallout. People do complain about the differences between Fallout 2 and 3 (Which is what I assume you meant as opposed to 3 & 3), however they are a not so vocal minority, at least now. I'm not sure how it was when the game was released.
2. Modern Warfare. The fans of the series rarely complain about the lack of change. It is mostly those outside the fan circle who go "Why would you buy the same stuff year after year?". The fans will respond with 'Because I like that stuff'. It is the opposite here. The fans are complaining about the massive and unnecessary changes that reeked of unfinished worse than KotOR2 did, whilst those who didn't like the original game too much, or who were unaware of it, this is a big step forward.
A challenge though. We have found things that are considered almost universally to be bad: The re-used environments, the waves of enemies...
Find me one thing that is considered almost universally better.
Some things that I have heard people say they like better:
Combat. Sure, faster than DA:O is nice, but they did not do a good job of it, end of story. I don't have tactical encounters any more, I have button-mash fests. An auto attack option would have been nice, but the combat overall needed some more polish too.
Story. Yes, a focus on an area and how it changes COULD have been good and interesting. It was something I liked the sound of originally for its originality. However, it was executed horridly. The change in the world was insignificant at best, and completely against player choices at worst. The one thing you NEVER want to do to an RPG fan is to tell them they made the wrong choice, sorry! The Leliana and Zevran Bullshit could have been stopped with a simple "Sorry, we fucked up. We're fixing it now", but instead they say to the fans "Sorry, you were wrong. They survived. I don't care how much sense it makes but they survived". I am personally looking forward to the 3rd game to see it have an interesting story again (Hopefully) as is foreshadowed at the end of DA2.
The Inventory System. A de cluttering of the inventory system of DA:O was needed, but this was not the way to do it. Being able to customize companions was good, and it would have not only provided a slightly deeper experience and put fans on less of a war path, but also have given you a use for all the shit you pick up.
Yes, DA:O had its flaws, but this was not in any way the way to fix them. Had the team had a bigger budget, another year of Dev time, and not been completely lazy with this game, it might have had potential. As stands, its not worth being called good, and terrible is usually the new word for average, as we have come to expect above average from Bioware.
Let's not completely whitewash gaming history due to nostalgia, now. Dragon Age: Origins itself was not much more different from the standard black and white (on large scale) fantasy trope story akin to Lord of the Rings and it's predecessors.Pandabearparade said:
Orcs = Darkspawn, Sauron = Archdemon, Grey Wardens = Fellowship (roughly), Alistair = Aragorn Minas Tirith = Denerim, Redcliffe = Rohan, etc.
Whether or not Dragon Age: Origins was a masterpiece or not, it was hardly original or genre progressing in anyway, shape or form. At best, it could be considered an allegorical masterpiece of Western society in both Christian-dominated European times and the Western world today (Chantry = Catholic/Christian Church (except female dominated), Andraste = Female Jesus, Maker = God, Mages = Blacks, Homosexuals, other disenfranchised, demonized minorities, Templars vs. Mages = Civil Rights movement and it's struggles (more emphasized in DA2), etc). At worst, it also used recycled maps quite often, combat was horribly slow and clunky, armor/body-to-ground clipping issues, ugly, pastelled grey and brown everywhere.. and this is coming from someone whom likes the game.
The issue most seem to take with Dragon Age 2, is that it was not a rehash of Dragon Age: Origins with extended plot points from cliffhangers at the end of DA: O, but rather the story of another prominent figure in the realm of Thedas, and his/her rise to power after the Hero of Ferelden, ignoring the Warden character for the time being (the cliffhangers of Origins coming more into play during Dragon Age 3, presumably).
At worst, Dragon Age 2 suffered from four primary faults that made it a tough game to really give high honors to in the series: overexcessive use of recycled maps, even moreso than Dragon Age: Origins, it was the second game in the trilogy (and henceforth suffered the same reason Mass Effect 2 did - the story is the filler inbetween the first and the ending major plots, doesn't have the same epic feeling of accomplishment), the retconing of Leliana if she dies in the first game (no excuse for that) and Zevran (apparently?) and an ending in which your choices really bring you exactly the same results no matter which way you go, just in the epilogue, you are either lauded by the templars and used as a rallying enemy for mages everywhere in the coming war, or you are lauded by mages everywhere and used a rallying ally for mages everywhere in the coming war. The first two acts were fine and consistent with one another, but the third quickly (and unfortunately) degraded after Anders blows up the Chantry and you end up killing both Orsino and Meredith (though to be honest, Kirkwall would not be healthy with either of them still around later on).
You've pretty much cut out a lot of valid complaints with that one. The combat system in DAII was a HUGE change from the first game, and it left a lot of tactically-minded RPG players feeling a bit left out. The first game was definitely focused more heavily on group tactics and using the skill's at the part's disposal. The second one seemed more focused on action and Dynasty Warriors-style combat. Think of it this way: If Gears of War 3 had come out as a first-person shooter with no cover system, would fans have had a legitimate cause for complaint?Renegade-pizza said:
Beyond the combat system, DAII also had the following "issues," with each issue being subject to personal opinion:
- Vastly decreased character customization
- certain skill trees were only available to certain characters within a class
- armor was only equippable on the main character. Other party members found "outfits" along the way
- the main character was human. No other races were available at creation.
- A much "smaller" storyline. In DA:O, the main character saved the world; in DAII, all of the story focused around a single city and the problems therein
- A disjointed storyline. The story moved from act to act without really seeming to flow naturally.
That's all I can really think of. To me, DAII just felt like a really rushed and weak follow-up to one of the best old-fashioned RPGs to come out of BioWare in years.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-iieverythingbeeps said:
Dragon Age 2 is getting a lot of bad user reviews. I based my facts on this not my personal opinion. I might be exaggerating, but at least there is a core of fact in my rambling. Dragon Age 2 got a lower score than Duke Nukem Forever.
However I wont bother to discuss this any further. Since you wont really answer my questions anyway.
Again, see my "vocal minority" comment. About 1800 people submitted user scores, and if you peruse the individual reviews, there's a whole lot of 0's and 2's...those people are idiots. Like I said, dismiss them. What do you think the User Review score would be if you took out those clowns? Much higher than 4.4, I can assure you that. Scores like that are worthless anyway; they aren't truly representative of all gamers who've played the game, they're representative of only those gamers who feel strongly enough one way or the other to post, and the number of people who like to ***** about things is far higher than the number of people who like to praise things.Yopaz said:
I've answered all your questions, to the degree that they can be answered at all considering this fictitious scenario you've constructed.
Yet the site you linked showed less favourable results for Duke Nukem Forever when comparing the same platform (4.3 vs DA2's 4.4). When comparing the PS3 or PC versions, Duke wins but I digress.Yopaz said:
The main problem with DA2 and metacritic is that people are just mad it didn't resemble DA:O enough. Now if DA2 would have been the 1st game in the series, I suspect the reviewscores would have been higher. I mean the game wasn't that bad, that it deserved such an amount of 0/10s.
OK, so there is opinions, but the fact that that I don't like a game doesn't mean the game is terrible. Now I'll admit it I didn't see the appeal of Bioshock. That doesn't mean I will call the game terrible. I see a game that didn't catch my interest and say it's not for me. I'd say Clive Barker's Jerico is below par and Big Rigs racing is terrible.Joccaren said:
You see there is a difference between not liking a game and that a game is terrible. There is more than high and low unless you're bipolar. You didn't like Dragon Age 2 now play Big Rigs racing which is the only game that objectively can be called terrible. Is Dragon Age 2 in the same category? Now don't get me wrong. I wont say Dragon Age 2 is great, it did basically give you 1 dungeon with different skins rather than taking their time to make it feel as big as its predecessor. It changed the gameplay, it changed the graphics, it dumbed down things.
Can you honestly say it's terrible? Now be careful before answering this. I am not asking "Do you find it terrible?"
I feel my choices didn't affect anything in-game, I had 3 different play-throughs, rarely chose the same choice twice, and all that was different was that one or two NPC's didn't die, and that I supported either mages or templars at the end, and that didn't even matter on who I had already been helping as it gives me a last second choice towards the end to choose sides, No-matter how I treated my companions I always get all personal quests/romances, they might as well just have scripted cutscenes and decide everything for me, unless there are massive consequences in the third Game, which reminds me, all I get for importing from origins was one friggin quest and some slightly different dialogue in certain places.
Once again, pretty much subjective. I do not understand enough about coding to understand if the engine was well done, I don't have qualifications to say the story was terrible, and graphics+ aesthetics are up to the viewer as to which one is better. What I do know, is how the game felt. It wasn't fun.Yopaz said:
Whilst Big Rigs had bad gameplay, below par graphics, and bugged in pretty much every way possible, I still found it somewhat fun due to how bad it was. I am kinda ashamed to say that I got more enjoyment out of it then I did in DA2.
It certainly isn't the worst game ever made, which is what numerous people seem to call it out for being, but it is well below par, especially for a Bioware game. Had they given it some more time, and a bigger budget, and told them not to be lazy on this one, maybe I would have been on the other side of the figurative fence, however as it stands it feels more Rushed than KotOR2.
When it all comes down to it though, Bioware did make a major mistake with DA2, and many people are quite upset about that. Whilst its certainly not the most civil way of doing it, review bombing a game does get the developers attention - probably because their paycheck rests partially in the hands of a metacritic score or something. It is a way of those who found the game to be sub par of getting noticed and saying "Hey, listen here, make it better next time or we're not buying it". Does that mean its the worst game ever made? For some people maybe, but IMO no. Is it terrible? Depends on what you classify terrible as, and how you felt about the game overall. Is it bad? Really depends on what you were looking for, however there are quite a few people saying yes. Is it great? Depends on what you classify great as, but my guess is no.
Taking out those who did not enjoy the game at all and thus rated it 0 or 2 is just as stupid as taking out those who did enjoy it and rated it higher than 4. Simply because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are stupid. Some of them may have been acting rashly, however a number would also have not enjoyed the game. As it stands there are a great many problems with the game, and that is something that people will complain about.everythingbeeps said:
In all honesty, ALL review scores are pointless as they do not tell an individual whether they will enjoy the game, only whether another person, or several other people, did or didn't, and if the ones who voted it down are the main ones who had strong feelings about it, that means there weren't many strong good feelings about the game. That's not really a good thing.