AboveUp Reviews: Dragon Age 2

AboveUp

New member
May 21, 2008
1,382
0
0

Dragon Age: Origins was an original experimental game by BioWare. It took a lot of elements from their older titles, most notably the Baldur's Gate titles, set up a rich and deep fantasy world, and most importantly, made us feel like our actions had an actual effect on the story. A fact that was made even better by the fact that choices never were black and white in terms of morality. It might not have been for everyone, but I got a massive kick out of it, which is why I was eager to play the second instalment of the series.

The first thing you'll notice about Dragon Age 2 is the new style of the game. It starts out with the new character models, continues with the controls, extends to the conversational style, and ends with the entire story put together. Whatever happened to Dragon Age, it's sure that we're not in Ferelden any more.


Likeable protagonist? Who needs one? Hawke's got a massive sword!

From the moment that you create your character, heck, it extends to the scenes before that as you'll be forced to play with the cannon look for Hawke before crafting your own version, you'll notice a massive shift in tone in the game. Not just in the story, which I'll go into further later on, but just the way the characters look and act just feels different. Thinking back to how the first Dragon Age felt, it seems out of place. It feels somewhat colorful and cartoony. What makes this feel strange and out of place is the fact that this is supposedly BioWare's darkest game yet. A statement I kept stumbling over as I played the game. Yes, there's traces of darkness everywhere, and the game's story is brutal and hard at points, but the representation and delivery of it are so extreme it just feels like you're playing a cartoon. It's as if we're seeing a darker and edgier Dragon Age as through the eyes of a 12-year-old. It really didn't do it for me.

Where the first Dragon Age gave us full control over our character and his or her actions, the second one makes you feel as if none of your input is really all that important. The story is already laid out in front of you. In fact, the story is told by one of your party members, as he's talking to some mysterious figure in a darkened room. Everything is set in stone already. You have your choices, and when they reflect on you negatively, the game goes in extremes. I'm going to avoid spoilers, but pretty much every bad decision was met with the game punishing me for thinking outside of 2D clichés, which it never dared moved outside of. After the first half or so of the game, it just gets tiring. It doesn't help that a lot of these dramatic elements don't have effect on the story as a whole at all. They're all loose plot threads dangling around a series of reused maps.

It's so bad in fact, that most of the game, I really couldn't tell which parts of the game were sidequests and which were the main quests. There's no consistency in events. Certain events supposedly span weeks and others days, despite the ones spanning days can be finished at the same rate as the ones spanning weeks because of how they're playd out. The main quest's scenes just seem irrelevant most of the time.In fact, most of it probably was, I couldn't remember most of it shortly after beating the game.


Oh yeah, these guys. Who are they again? Companions? Well, at least Varric works.

Dragon Age 2 was at it's best when it focussed on the party members, and almost completely dismantled itself at the points that obviously were part of the main quest.

Mass Effect's wheel of conversation makes an appearance in Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age 2 also manages to show us why it doesn't work in every game it's implemented into. Whereas Mass Effect makes us feel like we're in control, Dragon Age 2 just makes it seem like there is none. There are less conversational options compared to the first game. Not only that, Hawke often speaks automatically without you being given a choice, and as a result, you barely feel in control of your character.

My favorite thing from the first Dragon Age, the campsite, has been scrapped completely. They took the fantastic conversations with the team members along with it. You can still visit your team members at their own hangout locations, but instead of having an actual conversation with them, it feels like you're watching a series of optional cut scenes. It doesn't help when you have to wait for the availability of the conversations to trigger, and that you can play through them all in a row while the game pretends time has passed in between. It feels unnatural and broken. Which is a shame, BioWare's writing staff could have shined during these scenes.

The main shining point of Dragon Age 2 is the new battle system. Instead of the slow-paced and much more strategical (until you break it with overpowered mages) system of the first game, we've got a battle system that's kind of like your average hack and slash title. It's not too bad at what it does, and it makes fights a lot faster and frantic, but it's not great either. I feel they had a good idea with it, but just couldn't tap it to its full potential. It really doesn't help that most fights take place in the same four or five maps, and that the game loves spawning back-up mooks for even the most simple of encounters. The fights aren't too hard, the game just tries to turn it into a battle of endurance.

Yes, Dragon Age 2 reuses maps liberally, throwing in doors that won't open as the only real difference between areas. It feels unfinished, and from what I've gathered, that is really the problem. The game actually was released unfinished. That still doesn't seem like a good excuse to me though. How hard would it be to adjust the maps for the area accordingly? Areas that have been blocked off in the game will still look open in the map on the menu and HUD. That's just lazy game design if anything.


Meet Varric and the love of his life, Bianca.


My biggest problem with the game is the main quest. And it's very hard for me to properly criticise it when I can barely remember any of it. The game works in short story arcs, each of them has about the length and scope of an introduction to a full-length game, slapped together to make a whole game. It just doesn't work out, at all. What makes it even more painful is that your choices make no impact on the story at all. In the end, the story will always move towards the same conclusion. In fact, Dragon Age 2 made its story so absolute and unmoving that they went ahead and forced some retroactive continuation on your decisions from the first title. You know, the ones that were supposed to carry over? Well, they're not important enough.

There's a lot of debate about whether or not these problems are all part of the game's full story, seeing as you're not experiencing it directly: Varric is telling all this. It takes the Dragon Age 2 less than half an hour before it discredits most of the truth behind his story telling, and even plays it for laughs later on in the game. Repeatedly. It would also explain why this game is so ridiculously over the top to the point of it just not being funny anymore. I honestly hope that this is the case. Because if it isn't, I don't want to see another Dragon Age title. Which is a shame, since they seemed to have made an effort into making the game flow better. It's just not flowing towards anything anymore.


Previous reviews
Super Punch-Out (SNES) [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.190783-AboveUp-reviews-Super-Punch-Out]
The Dishwasher Dead Samurai (XBLA) [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.132533-AboveUp-reviews-The-Dishwasher-Dead-Samurai]
Bowser's Inside Story (NDS) [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.197971-AboveUp-reviews-Mario-Luigi-Bowsers-Inside-Story]
The A-Team movie [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.203780-AboveUp-reviews-The-A-Team-movie]
Rune Factory 1 (NDS) [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.283511-AboveUp-Reviews-Rune-Factory-1]
Desktop Dungeons (Freeware, PC/Mac) [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.284918-AboveUp-Reviews-Desktop-Dungeons-Freeware-PC-Mac]
Assassin's Creed 2 (360 version) [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.302445-AboveUp-Reviews-Assassins-Creed-2]


Overviews
This Reminds Me of a Puzzle - Professor Layton [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.252585-A-view-from-Above-This-Reminds-Me-of-a-Puzzle-A-Professor-Layton-Overview]

Shiny link to other good stuff:
Shiny Good Stuff [http://remyvanruiten.com/]
 

Sp3ratus

New member
Apr 11, 2009
756
0
0
THIS POST FEATURES SPOILERS FOR DA2.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head with the review itself, I have similar issues with the game; incoherent and a lot shallower than the DA name promises.

As for:
AboveUp said:
There's a lot of debate about whether or not these problems are all part of the game's full story, seeing as you're not experiencing it directly: Varric is telling all this. It takes the Dragon Age 2 less than half an hour before it discredits most of the truth behind his story telling, and even plays it for laughs later on in the game. Repeatedly. It would also explain why this game is so ridiculously over the top to the point of it just not being funny anymore. I honestly hope that this is the case. Because if it isn't, I don't want to see another Dragon Age title. Which is a shame, since they seemed to have made an effort into making the game flow better. It's just not flowing towards anything anymore.
Even if the point is that it's supposed to be over the top with an unreliable narrator, that still doesn't explain throwing out player choices from the first game just to make it fit in what is passed for a story in the game. It just seems weird, that Bioware puts so much effort and pride into stories for their game, then making decisions like that. It just doesn't make sense.

My biggest gripe, however, is the combat. As you said, they've amped up the action going on in the fights, but my problem with it is this:
AboveUp said:
It really doesn't help that most fights take place in the same four or five maps, and that the game loves spawning back-up mooks for even the most simple of encounters. The fights aren't too hard, the game just tries to turn it into a battle of endurance.
I like challenges in my game and DA:O certainly provided that. Nightmare was a test of your skills, but it was manageable and you could get through the fight, if you made an effort in thinking about strategy, positioning etc. In DA2 though, Nightmare is just that, a nightmare. I like the concept, mobs with immunities, friendly fire and all that, but it's just so poorly executed. Assassins, who oneshots party members, ridiculously long endurance fights and respawning enemies is really just stupid. I'm not the best player in the world, but when I go online and see other people's "strategies" for encounters in DA2 is to lure mobs away one by one and using party members to run away from mobs, before the combat animation is done and therefore avoid getting hit(ie kiting), something is wrong. That really shouldn't be how you do difficulty. It got so bad, I just said fuck it and switched to easy, just to get through the end and not end up not finishing the game. I was that fed up with it, in the end.

The story? Incoherent? You bet, having 3 different and major story acts is an interesting idea, if done properly, that is. It's pretty cool getting to live through a bigger part of the life of Hawke, instead of just a single event(like the Blight), but the way it's done in DA2 is not good enough, at least not for me. The acts didn't really seem to have much to do with each other, other than them all being connected to Hawke somehow. Events should be connected and a choice in one acts should influence a later act, just not be done with, as soon as you move on, which seem to be the case. But then again, this comes back to the whole point about choices you made in your review. There really aren't any, not ones that matter, anyway.

Oh and one last thing for the story. The whole mages vs. templars was really, really bad. When practically every mage turns out to be a blood mage(seriously, who thought that was a good idea?) and most of the templars being batshit crazy, it's really hard to symphatise with either side. My first(and only, so far) playthrough, I chose the mages, but that was really only because I was a mage myself and it seemed to make sense, but during my playthrough, choosing between them was only a somewhat hard choice, because it was choosing between stupid and more stupid, not some great moral debate, which Bioware obviously wanted it to be.

To add a positive thing about the game, I liked some of the companions, specifically Isabela and Varric(and no, not just for the eye-candy factor, in regards to Isabela). I liked the individual storylines and also, having companions, who knew what the word "fun" means, instead of angsty or brooding, "I am so dark and no one understands me" dipshits, made it a better experience for me.

Whew, that turned out to be longer than I intended it to be, but ultimately, I'm just more disappointed than anything with DA2. I had hoped for more DA:O goodness, but instead I get some watered-down, half-finished product, which I'm not really all that eager to give another playthrough, unlike DA:O, which I have played through multiple times.

Oh and I didn't really say it earlier, but nice review, well-structured, coherent and easy to read. It gives a nice little view of what DA2 is, without giving too much away.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
You know I read your review, and it made me angry.

I'm angry Dragon Age is so shit compared to the original Dragon Age.

I'm angry that what looked to be an outright awesome franchise has been turned into such a shitfest of different ideas and splash of genres.

I guess Bioware figured they could keep their core fanbase while bringing in stupid crowds from other genres, and fulfill their takeover of the console crowd.

They failed on all accounts, or at the very least, I'm sure a lot of people (Including myself and people I know) will be VERY hesitant before buying any upcoming Dragon Age game. It makes me angry that they ruined it. Everything made flashier, more cartoony, more unrealistic, more unrelateable, sexier and stupid.
 

AboveUp

New member
May 21, 2008
1,382
0
0
Sp3ratus said:
that Bioware puts so much effort and pride into stories for their game, then making decisions like that. It just doesn't make sense.
And this is what makes it all that more painful. I was almost willing to blindly trust BioWare at writing a compelling narrative for every game. Almost.

I like challenges in my game and DA:O certainly provided that. Nightmare was a test of your skills, but it was manageable and you could get through the fight, if you made an effort in thinking about strategy, positioning etc.
Dragon Age: Origin's fighting system was like Baldur's Gate in 3D. Which in my opinion was th main appeal to the battle system. They should have tried keeping some better balance between action and strategy, and in ways, you can kind of see what they were trying to do. It's a shame it didn't pan out right.

I haven't played the game on Nightmare, and reading your post, I'm happy I haven't.

Oh and one last thing for the story. The whole mages vs. templars was really, really bad. When practically every mage turns out to be a blood mage(seriously, who thought that was a good idea?) and most of the templars being batshit crazy, it's really hard to symphatise with either side. My first(and only, so far) playthrough, I chose the mages, but that was really only because I was a mage myself and it seemed to make sense, but during my playthrough, choosing between them was only a somewhat hard choice, because it was choosing between stupid and more stupid, not some great moral debate, which Bioware obviously wanted it to be.
It makes no difference who you choose. Anders does his thing. You fight both sides. Nothing changes. It's ridiculous.

To add a positive thing about the game, I liked some of the companions, specifically Isabela and Varric(and no, not just for the eye-candy factor, in regards to Isabela). I liked the individual storylines and also, having companions, who knew what the word "fun" means, instead of angsty or brooding, "I am so dark and no one understands me" dipshits, made it a better experience for me.
I... didn't like Isabela that much. Varric's personal mission made my day though.

Whew, that turned out to be longer than I intended it to be, but ultimately, I'm just more disappointed than anything with DA2. I had hoped for more DA:O goodness, but instead I get some watered-down, half-finished product, which I'm not really all that eager to give another playthrough, unlike DA:O, which I have played through multiple times.
I think a lot of people feel that way about the game. I know I do. Shame too, they had something going for it, and they screwed up.

Oh and I didn't really say it earlier, but nice review, well-structured, coherent and easy to read. It gives a nice little view of what DA2 is, without giving too much away.
Thanks!

s0denone said:
You know I read your review, and it made me angry.

I'm angry Dragon Age is so shit compared to the original Dragon Age.

I'm angry that what looked to be an outright awesome franchise has been turned into such a shitfest of different ideas and splash of genres.

I guess Bioware figured they could keep their core fanbase while bringing in stupid crowds from other genres, and fulfill their takeover of the console crowd.

They failed on all accounts, or at the very least, I'm sure a lot of people (Including myself and people I know) will be VERY hesitant before buying any upcoming Dragon Age game. It makes me angry that they ruined it. Everything made flashier, more cartoony, more unrealistic, more unrelateable, sexier and stupid.
And here's my main problem with DA2... How many of the new experimental stuff from DA:O made an appearance in Mass Effect 2, making that game that much more enjoyable? Now Mass Effect 3 is putting more focus on action as well.

Not saying that this can't work and everything is ruined forever, but I'm quite honestly afraid of what the final result will be.

Thanks for the comment!
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
AboveUp said:
Yeah, nice review by the way.

Looking back at my comment, it seems a little out of place, but it is obviously just venting my frustration. I am a sucker for Bioware, or was, and loved nearly all the Infinity-Engine, particularly the Baldur's Gate series, games to death. You should review Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader by the way, if you want, an obscure but awesome game that you could raise awareness about.

Dragon Age 2 was even judged more harshly than the original BY GAMESPOT. FUCKING GAMESPOT. You know, they are usually just drinking at big publishers tits, but even they took a step back and said "Wait, why is all this dumbed down? What is with this streamlining?"

Bioware tried to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, but have ended up appealing to no specific audience in particular, and alienating their core fanbase in the process.
 

Sp3ratus

New member
Apr 11, 2009
756
0
0
AboveUp said:
And this is what makes it all that more painful. I was almost willing to blindly trust BioWare at writing a compelling narrative for every game. Almost.
Well, it's not really surprising we have so much faith in Bioware(I know I had as well), since their track record before DA2 has been near flawless. The disappointment over that the "mighty giant" Bioware can also fail, despite what they've made before made for that gigantic backlash against DA2.

Dragon Age: Origin's fighting system was like Baldur's Gate in 3D. Which in my opinion was th main appeal to the battle system. They should have tried keeping some better balance between action and strategy, and in ways, you can kind of see what they were trying to do. It's a shame it didn't pan out right.

I haven't played the game on Nightmare, and reading your post, I'm happy I haven't.
The fighting in DA:O is one the main reasons I come back. Sure, the story is well-presented and there are a bunch of different choices to be made in the game, but I like trying out different setups, thinking about strategy and so on. DA2 just doesn't have that same appeal, which is a shame. If it had gotten that down, I would have been a lot more forgiving in my judgement of the game.

It makes no difference who you choose. Anders does his thing. You fight both sides. Nothing changes. It's ridiculous.
Yet another example of poor design choices, but sadly it's just another one more to go on the pile.

I... didn't like Isabela that much. Varric's personal mission made my day though.
I don't know, I primarily used Isabela, Varric and that meh lady warrior, Aveline, I think, so I might have taken more a shine to them because of that. I also romanced Isabela, leading to more characterisation(as per usual for Bioware), so that might have something to do with it as well.

If the DA franchise is being kept alive, which it looks like it will be, what I'd like to see is either Bioware shaping up and not half-arsing it next time and expect to get away with it or it being handed over to Obsidian, at least for game. I know Obsidian don't have all that good a track record and the scenario being unlikely at best(Bioware won't hand over an original IP), but if you want a good story in a video game nowadays, in my opinion, one of the best places to go for that, is Obsidian and Chris Avellone. Obsidian knows how to tell a story and make real, morally ambigious choices and interesting characters, instead of a game trying to be dark and end up being DA2 instead. Or better yet, make a collaboration between the two companies, make something fantastic.
 

manythings

New member
Nov 7, 2009
3,297
0
0
Oh no, they didn't make the exact same game again! Those Bastards! How dare they take chances and make changes in an effort to produce games that don't just eternally repeat Nintendo style!
 

AboveUp

New member
May 21, 2008
1,382
0
0
manythings said:
Oh no, they didn't make the exact same game again! Those Bastards! How dare they take chances and make changes in an effort to produce games that don't just eternally repeat Nintendo style!
Oh, no! They released a game that wasn't finished, freezes often (at least on the 360 it does), promotes false advertising in it being choice-based and your choices won't mean anything within the game! If you paid any attention to the review, you might have noticed that I'm in favor of what they were trying to do, but didn't agree with the final product it resulted in. And a lot of that wasn't because of an effort to produce the games that repeat the same thing, it was because of a lack of effort to make the changes work.

Also, like it or not, Nintendo is a master of iteration. Look at Mario Bros. 3, then at Galaxy 2. They're not the same game, and even games generation apart managed to use the same basic formula to create outstanding and well polished titles.

If anything went wrong with the changes made in Dragon Age 2, it was that it copied too heavily from Mass Effect's dialogue system. A system that doesn't work well with Dragon Age's setting. There was nothing new and innovative about it. Nor was there anything new or fresh about the story, read your basic fantasy novels and you've about got all of it down before starting. It was too basic in its efforts in story telling. BioWare can, and has done, a lot better than that. The battle system wasn't new or innovative either. It was close to being a traditional hack and slash. If you've played Phantasy Star Online, you'll know what I'm talking about.

The reason this is a problem? They didn't try. Or they tried and ended up cutting it short halfway through the process of creating it. It falls short and becomes average. And even then the story telling is below that, which is criminal for a game that's supposed to have story at its very core.

Your comment actually doesn't deserve a response like this, but I wanted to get that out there anyway. Thank you for the opportunity, I'd love to see future comments on my reviews.

Moving on.

Sp3ratus said:
If the DA franchise is being kept alive, which it looks like it will be, what I'd like to see is either Bioware shaping up and not half-arsing it next time and expect to get away with it or it being handed over to Obsidian, at least for game. I know Obsidian don't have all that good a track record and the scenario being unlikely at best(Bioware won't hand over an original IP), but if you want a good story in a video game nowadays, in my opinion, one of the best places to go for that, is Obsidian and Chris Avellone. Obsidian knows how to tell a story and make real, morally ambigious choices and interesting characters, instead of a game trying to be dark and end up being DA2 instead. Or better yet, make a collaboration between the two companies, make something fantastic.
Now see, that would be interesting. Have BioWare flesh out the game's system fully while Obsidion fleshes out the basic story and character.

It would be costly though, so I doubt we'd ever see this kind of cooperation, which is a sad thing.

s0denone said:
AboveUp said:
Yeah, nice review by the way.

Looking back at my comment, it seems a little out of place, but it is obviously just venting my frustration. I am a sucker for Bioware, or was, and loved nearly all the Infinity-Engine, particularly the Baldur's Gate series, games to death. You should review Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader by the way, if you want, an obscure but awesome game that you could raise awareness about.

Dragon Age 2 was even judged more harshly than the original BY GAMESPOT. FUCKING GAMESPOT. You know, they are usually just drinking at big publishers tits, but even they took a step back and said "Wait, why is all this dumbed down? What is with this streamlining?"

Bioware tried to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, but have ended up appealing to no specific audience in particular, and alienating their core fanbase in the process.
GameSpot even bashed it? Really? Wow. I was actually trying my very best not to get too hateful with my review because the game doesn't deserve full-on hate. And I realized, it wasn't hatred, bad gameplay, or anything else that was the problem. It was disappointment. The game could have been a lot more than it ended up being. It's a huge shame.
 

manythings

New member
Nov 7, 2009
3,297
0
0
AboveUp said:
manythings said:
Oh no, they didn't make the exact same game again! Those Bastards! How dare they take chances and make changes in an effort to produce games that don't just eternally repeat Nintendo style!
Oh, no! They released a game that wasn't finished, freezes often (at least on the 360 it does), promotes false advertising in it being choice-based and your choices won't mean anything within the game! If you paid any attention to the review, you might have noticed that I'm in favor of what they were trying to do, but didn't agree with the final product it resulted in. And a lot of that wasn't because of an effort to produce the games that repeat the same thing, it was because of a lack of effort to make the changes work.

Also, like it or not, Nintendo is a master of iteration. Look at Mario Bros. 3, then at Galaxy 2. They're not the same game, and even games generation apart managed to use the same basic formula to create outstanding and well polished titles.

If anything went wrong with the changes made in Dragon Age 2, it was that it copied too heavily from Mass Effect's dialogue system. A system that doesn't work well with Dragon Age's setting. There was nothing new and innovative about it. Nor was there anything new or fresh about the story, read your basic fantasy novels and you've about got all of it down before starting. It was too basic in its efforts in story telling. BioWare can, and has done, a lot better than that. The battle system wasn't new or innovative either. It was close to being a traditional hack and slash. If you've played Phantasy Star Online, you'll know what I'm talking about.

The reason this is a problem? They didn't try. Or they tried and ended up cutting it short halfway through the process of creating it. It falls short and becomes average. And even then the story telling is below that, which is criminal for a game that's supposed to have story at its very core.

Your comment actually doesn't deserve a response like this, but I wanted to get that out there anyway. Thank you for the opportunity, I'd love to see future comments on my reviews.

Moving on.
I tried reading it, then it got less and less interesting and more preachy. Exactly why I ignore Shamus Young if his article involves EA in anyway, it's just a continuous drone of a person pretending he is being unbiased.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
AboveUp said:
GameSpot even bashed it? Really? Wow. I was actually trying my very best not to get too hateful with my review because the game doesn't deserve full-on hate. And I realized, it wasn't hatred, bad gameplay, or anything else that was the problem. It was disappointment. The game could have been a lot more than it ended up being. It's a huge shame.
They didn't "bash" it at all, just stated at several points in their review that it(Paraphrasing) "fixed things that weren't broken in the first place" and "streamlined skills/inventory for no apparent reason at all" I especially like a comment about "Other than maybe making the player spend less time in menues, the streamlining of the inventory adds nothing, and instead takes away" or something to the like.

My point about Gamespot is just that I think they are wellknown for EXTREMELY RARELY giving bad reviews to games from major publishers. Hell, even Kane & Lynch recieved a VERBAL THRASHING in their video review, only to be granted no lower than 5.0(I think?) in the end, making it mediocre instead of bad.

For Gamespot to say Dragon Age 2 is inferior to it's original, and finish the video review with "In the end, maybe you will even want to go back and play it again" as opposed to the replayability being widely praised on all counts in the first game, says it all, I think.
 

AboveUp

New member
May 21, 2008
1,382
0
0
manythings said:
I tried reading it, then it got less and less interesting and more preachy. Exactly why I ignore Shamus Young if his article involves EA in anyway, it's just a continuous drone of a person pretending he is being unbiased.
I will agree with you there. Reading his posts about BioWare and Bethesdas works were painful. Especially how he's seriously nitpicking minor details in their games and makes a much, much bigger deal out of it than it really is. Like there aren't any farms in Fallout 3, making the entire story flawed due to a lack of food production.

I generally don't have a problem with BioWare that much. I loved the first Dragon Age, and I loved the first and second Mass Effect. Dragon Age 2 really felt like a massive let-down in almost every aspect. It had problems most games this generation had left behind already, and with the level of presentation it tries to have, it only becomes that more painful.
 

MatsVS

Tea & Grief
Nov 9, 2009
423
0
0
AboveUp said:
The reason this is a problem? They didn't try. Or they tried and ended up cutting it short halfway through the process of creating it. It falls short and becomes average. And even then the story telling is below that, which is criminal for a game that's supposed to have story at its very core.
And what, exactly, was so great about Origin's story? I too was a great lover of the old Infinity games (and newer Bioware titles, for that matter) and yearn for a return to what I personally consider the golden years of RPGs, yet it seems petty to me to bash on Dragon Age 2, or any RPG for that matter, for not living up to that pedigree, seeing how the market has changed over the past decade.

If anything, the story of Dragon Age 2 seemed much more accomplished to me than that of Origin. The idea of experiencing the story of a city through a whole decade is surely a much more interesting idea than following the misadventures of a motley crew of adventurers (yawn) as they save the world from the forces of evil? I am not saying the execution was flawless, far from it, and the city itself was severely gimped as not to be overly taxing on the poor wittle consoles, but it was not terrible. It also had some interesting design-ideas despite a lacklustre colour-scheme. All things considered, it was far more interesting than anything Origin could boast.

Quite frankly, though, I have no idea why Bioware chose to go with the 'unreliable narrator' style of storytelling. Gene Wolfe, they are not.
 

Rawne1980

New member
Jul 29, 2011
4,144
0
0
My biggest problem with the main story was the whole Templar versus Mage crap fest.

Templar = bad
Mage = good

Except for 1 minor problem.

All the way through the game I didn't have a single problem with any Templars, in fact I helped them out a fair bit and they were quite pleasant to me. While on the other side of the coin the Mages spent every opportunity they had trying to suck out my eyeballs and skull fuck me.

Then they try and make you choose a side....

Gee I fucking wonder.

And the final battle was a joke. Not just for it's difficulty (or lack of) but the supposed "twist" that I think most of us saw coming from a mile away with it's neon sodding lights.

The re-used areas I can forgive if everything else would have worked but it just didn't.

Combat was too simple.

Story was shit, too sporadic and didn't seem to fit anywhere.

Gameplay was smooth i'll give it that.

Graphics were okay, characters and areas looked nice.

But it's biggest failing was the choice system. We all like to make decisions that have an impact or that matter in any way and in this game they just don't. It doesn't matter what you do throughout the game and what decisions you make it changes nothing. It still plays out in 1 single straight line and only has 1 ending (with a slight variation about who you chose romance). The choice system didn't need to be there it didn't matter at all.

As mentioned in the review above, the companion conversations were sorely lacking aswell. They were forced to happen at certain times and you had no freedom to chat at will with them. Whereas in DA:O you had to be careful about what you did around your companions lest they think you an utter bastard and run away, in DA2 it doesn't matter if you are Jack the Ripper of Kirkwall. If you are nice then your companions will love you for it, your romance choice will fall at your feet. If you turn out to be Genghis Khan incarnate then your companions will love you for it and your romance choice will fall at your feet.

IT MADE NO SENSE.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
Rawne1980 said:
My biggest problem with the main story was the whole Templar versus Mage crap fest.

Templar = bad
Mage = good

Except for 1 minor problem.

All the way through the game I didn't have a single problem with any Templars, in fact I helped them out a fair bit and they were quite pleasant to me. While on the other side of the coin the Mages spent every opportunity they had trying to suck out my eyeballs and skull fuck me.

Then they try and make you choose a side....

Gee I fucking wonder.

...

IT MADE NO SENSE.
This. Although what I think they were going for was that neither side was a "good" side, both had flaws. But like this review said, it was like a kids version of what a "dark" game would be. What should have been is just that, mages from the circle would be "good" with a few exceptions, and Templars should be "bad" with a few exceptions. Too bad it was just the opposite, with one crazy-ass templar leader, a lot of good templars, while the vast majority of the mages simply went "F**K THE POLICE" and blood magic'd their way to the grave. Usually by my hand.

The game was indeed very obviously not finished, considering they only had 1.5 years to develop the game. I thought the game was very underwhelming, and I thought it would be as long as the first one, especially after I found the ancient place in the Deeps Roads. That could've been a good ten hours of the game, exploring and learning, but I have a feeling that they are going to do something with that and Sandal in the next game.

I don't know why Bioware thought that taking a measly 1.5 years to redesign a game was a good idea, and despite the fact that the game sold over a million copies, hopefully Bioware has learned to never do that again.
 

AboveUp

New member
May 21, 2008
1,382
0
0
MatsVS said:
And what, exactly, was so great about Origin's story?
What drew me in with Dragon Age: Origins was how, ever slowly, the stories unfolded. They'd start simple enough, go over there and kill the wolves, the wolves are evil! So you go over to the wolves, and then find reason on their side as well. In almost every quest in the game you'd have a choice between two sides, and you could walk out choosing either side without being evil. Choosing either side could be morally justified. Choosing either side could be selfish. How you got to the conclusion mattered almost as much as the conclusion.

DA2 had the problem of there actually being a right and wrong very clearly. Like someone else pointed out, mages were always wrong. They'd always be blood mages.

I did like the idea of having several big story arcs, but the execution was horrible.

McNinja said:
I don't know why Bioware thought that taking a measly 1.5 years to redesign a game was a good idea, and despite the fact that the game sold over a million copies, hopefully Bioware has learned to never do that again.
Absolutely. If you're going to redesign the whole structure, you need more time. Especially if there's a grand story that's supposed to have a lot of depth behind it. Three story arcs in one game is one hell of an undertaking.

They should have tried one or the other, not both at the same time.

And again, thanks to everyone for commenting!
 

Lost In The Void

When in doubt, curl up and cry
Aug 27, 2008
10,128
0
0
manythings said:
AboveUp said:
manythings said:
Oh no, they didn't make the exact same game again! Those Bastards! How dare they take chances and make changes in an effort to produce games that don't just eternally repeat Nintendo style!
Oh, no! They released a game that wasn't finished, freezes often (at least on the 360 it does), promotes false advertising in it being choice-based and your choices won't mean anything within the game! If you paid any attention to the review, you might have noticed that I'm in favor of what they were trying to do, but didn't agree with the final product it resulted in. And a lot of that wasn't because of an effort to produce the games that repeat the same thing, it was because of a lack of effort to make the changes work.

Also, like it or not, Nintendo is a master of iteration. Look at Mario Bros. 3, then at Galaxy 2. They're not the same game, and even games generation apart managed to use the same basic formula to create outstanding and well polished titles.

If anything went wrong with the changes made in Dragon Age 2, it was that it copied too heavily from Mass Effect's dialogue system. A system that doesn't work well with Dragon Age's setting. There was nothing new and innovative about it. Nor was there anything new or fresh about the story, read your basic fantasy novels and you've about got all of it down before starting. It was too basic in its efforts in story telling. BioWare can, and has done, a lot better than that. The battle system wasn't new or innovative either. It was close to being a traditional hack and slash. If you've played Phantasy Star Online, you'll know what I'm talking about.

The reason this is a problem? They didn't try. Or they tried and ended up cutting it short halfway through the process of creating it. It falls short and becomes average. And even then the story telling is below that, which is criminal for a game that's supposed to have story at its very core.

Your comment actually doesn't deserve a response like this, but I wanted to get that out there anyway. Thank you for the opportunity, I'd love to see future comments on my reviews.

Moving on.
I tried reading it, then it got less and less interesting and more preachy. Exactly why I ignore Shamus Young if his article involves EA in anyway, it's just a continuous drone of a person pretending he is being unbiased.
You know that reviews are never unbiased right?
 

AboveUp

New member
May 21, 2008
1,382
0
0
Rawne1980 said:
My biggest problem with the main story was the whole Templar versus Mage crap fest.
Don't get me started on that. Remember when mages were allowed to be good? That both sides of the argument had flaws, and even mages hated blood magic?

I miss those days.

And the final battle was a joke. Not just for it's difficulty (or lack of) but the supposed "twist" that I think most of us saw coming from a mile away with it's neon sodding lights.
That ending didn't happen. Seriously, what was that all about? Templars, during their moment of evil are using... magic. Ah, all magic is evil. I get it now. It didn't feel like something that should be part of the Dragon Age world. It felt seperate and stupid.

But it's biggest failing was the choice system. We all like to make decisions that have an impact or that matter in any way and in this game they just don't. It doesn't matter what you do throughout the game and what decisions you make it changes nothing. It still plays out in 1 single straight line and only has 1 ending (with a slight variation about who you chose romance). The choice system didn't need to be there it didn't matter at all.
Lots and lots of games trip over this problem. Usually BioWare does better at it than this. That's what make this whole thing so disappointing to me. That and the fact they even took the choices we made in the previous game away from us.

Thanks for commenting!