can you say something nice about dragon age 2

[FoolKiller]

It was a pretty good little game. Lot of flaws but credit must be given for trying to make something new. it's biggest mistake was calling it dragon age. The truth is sequels are always a hard line to walk. People want it to be new and better than the original but still the same if you get my meaning.

As for saying something nice: it had a good story

 

[Sunrider]

I love DA2. I love Lady Hawke, I think she's great. Anders is a whiny ***** who had the potential of being one of the coolest characters ever, but the rest of them are pretty damn good IMO, and that's why I play Dragon Age games.

 

[BLAHwhatever]

combat looks nice. That is all

 

[Sp3ratus]

Well the very first fight with the Ogre comes to mind as one were Aveline won't survive unless you manually dodge out of the way. I actually died over and over on that fight wondering what I did wrong. I couldn't choose any party members at that point, I hadn't had an opportunity to select any talents and I haven't gotten any gear so I failed to see what I was doing wrong. I tried doing all sort of different tactics until I finally gave up and watched a youtube video. Then it occured to me, oh it's an action game now I get it.

I'll give you that, the first fight, before you had a chance to establish your party and pick out skills, the fights aren't great.

Holding aggro is moot when enemies spawn in random positions. Enemies often appear behind casters and one-shot them. Even the best tank can't be everywhere at once. I found that keeping the party together and just focus firing while backstepping worked best. Most of my attempts at a tactical approach was punished by the game. Positioning is pointless when the characters sprint around the map at random and get one-shotted. The wave system is less strategic because you can't plan for something that is random.

True, you can't plan for something that is random, but what you can do, is pause and reassess the situation and your strategy for how to deal with the new wave of enemies. It is Real Time with Pause(RTwP), after all. With regards to positioning and repositioning, I've written something about that, further down in the post. Your allies don't really have to sprint around the map, that can be changed in the tactics screen for each character.

Also, I'd argue that keeping the party together and focus firing is is a tactical approach to the combat situation. If it worked for you, which from the sound of it, it did, then that's a solution to how to beat a certain encounter. My approach was having the party spread out and reposition them, whenever a new wave spawned, which worked for me.

I do wonder how much DA2 varies between ports, because some of the descriptions I heard from others sounds like a completely different game to me. In my PC version the combat felt very broken.

Or maybe I just didn't get it, thats also a possibility. I often wondered what the intention with the gameplay was.

I wonder a bit about that too(the ports, that is). I played on PC, just for reference and I quite liked it. To me, the gameplay is all about facing a challenge and how to deal with it. This is where the strategy comes in, you set up a plan for how to deal with enemies, who goes down first, how do I protect my allies and so on. When the waves then come, you alter your strategy in order to deal with these new enemies, while still keeping your party alive.

I don't think it's unfair at all. The gameplay style reminded me of a hack-and-slash game. I don't have to have played it on Nightmare mode to think that; genre is separate from difficulty.

I mean, DAII really was in a different genre to DA:O, and I think the fact that it was marketed as a sequel to DA:O massively hurt its chances of getting a fair reception. It would have been better off going full-hog to the ARPG side and making something like God of War set in the Dragon Age universe; at least then I could enjoy it.

Indeed, genre is separate from difficulty, my intention wasn't to say it was, either. My point is that you can't just hack and slash your way through nightmare, on that difficulty you actually have to think about how to deal with the combat situation at hand. You have to set up how to deal with certain enemies, when to use what cooldown and where your people are standing and then you have to reevaluate that, every time a wave spawns.

The wave combat made positioning or planning irrelevant. It didn't matter where you put anyone; in fifteen seconds another dozen dudes would spawn behind you like spiders jumping out of a clown car. You'd have street brawls where a hundred Carta thugs would leap from the rooftops, inexplicably avoid breaking their ankles, and backstab Merrill half to death before you even knew what was going on because the game also didn't let you pan out the perspective to give you any idea of what was going on. "Maintaining aggro" amounted to "hit Taunt whenever it's off cooldown."

I don't really agree with that. Initial positioning might be as important as it was in DA:O, but the point I've been trying to make, with regards to the wave system is that repositioning is very important in DA2. When I play DA2, I pause immediately, whenever I see a new wave spawn, so that I can reposition my weakest allies as quickly as possible and get my tank in position to deal with the strongest of the newly spawned enemies.

As for holding aggro, there are several tools available to the warrior, such as increased aggro presence, if you will. When aggro wasn't possible to hold, there are other talents that make the warrior take some of the damage, that allies would otherwise have taken.

 

[Maeshone]

Yeah, no worries. Happens to me as well.

But anyways... You say that characters, the story and the combat were better. I'd just like to respond, since I am rather passionate about the first game.

Characters
-------------------

-First of all, companion quests and companion interactions were bad in comparison to Dragon Age Origins. You were not able to talk to your companions when you wished, and at the start of each chapter/act you would get a laundry list of things to do, such as companion quests.
In Origins, you could talk to companions when you wanted, and they would sometimes have some insight or opinions or stories about the location you were currently in, or about the memories the place or the events reminded them of. You also had to "find" companion quests; Instead of them being thrown into your face, they came up after extensive amounts of dialog and called back to something mentioned before. Receiving one felt like an honor and actually meant something.

Anders has one of the wackiest character arcs I can remember. His development, his major plot point is so batshit crazy that it made me hate the character.
Isable and Merrill I did not personally enjoy, but I can see why some people would like them.
Fenris, i did not like. He was a stereotype of a wounded, hateful emo; yet he never really got his moment of redemption and at no point did I feel like he had anything more into him than the emo elf thing.
I had Bethany. I thought she was fine.
Aveline and Varric I liked.

For characters, yeah, the fact that you couldn't talk to them anywhere was one of the things I thought was a step back as well, and hopefully that will be back for the third one. As for companion quests, I always kind of thought that since years passed between the acts, that all the relevant talking kind of happened off screen. Not optimal, but if they have to do timeskips then I'd prefer that the characters act like they actually spent time together during the timeskip as well rather than just jump in three years later and not have the relationships advanced at all. Preferably I'd see no timeskips though, it just messes with storytelling most of the time.

Anders was fine... During act one. Then he was just in the party until I could get Bethany back...
Isabela and Merrill I really liked, but as you say, that really is personal preference (as are most things I'm bringing up really)
First time I played I actually missed Fenris completely, but when I actually had him the second time around he didn't bother me that much. I have no strong feelings one way or another.
Bethany and Carver are both good, though they get way to little screentime to really shine, what with being gone for most of the game...
Aveline and Varric are good as well.

For Dragon Age characters, I enjoyed most of the characters as well, but they felt more like cliches to me. Not saying DAIIs characters aren't cliched, they just didn't scream cliche to me.
Alistar was the silly sidekick, Morrigan the mean witch with a heart of gold (Kind of...) Leliana came of as a bit of an crouching moron, hidden badass-kind of character, Wynne was the motherly one, Oghren the drunk dwarf. I will say that Zevran and Shale were ace though.

Story
---------

Dragon Age Origins had the traditional "save the world from ancient evil" plot, but it did it well. It served as a framework for your travels to the elves, mages, humans and dwarves. Each major location had a story of it's own which deviated from the "darkspawn are evil, must slay darkspawn" thing, and I found them really interesting.

Meanwhile in Dragon Age 2, the first act is just faffing about and setting up the story, in 2nd act the Qunari kick in... and it leads to nowhere. I actually liked the Qunari and would have liked them and their issues be the center of the game rather than the craptastic mages vs. templars argument which was absolutely ridiculous, especially in Act 3.

None of the sidequests really proved to be interesting. They were mostly just fetch quests or errand work. While Origins had it's fair share of fetch quests, I felt like they had better framework and actually felt important to the individual characters.

I felt that the first act was really good, in more of a world-building, character introduction sort of way, which I appreciate. Act 2 is the gem though, as the qunari are one of the most interesting parts of DA lore to me. Like you, I would have loved it if they were the primary antagonists through the game. Or that ***** Sister in the Chantry, god I hated her. Act three was... Well, let's just settle for saying it was a mess. It was all over the place. But it feels like that was because it was rushed. Like most of my problems, this could really have been solved with another year or two in developement.

As for the sidequests, I really didn't have a problem with "pick up random pair of trousers, magically know what dwarf they belong to, and find him in a giant city to get some money"-quests as it didn't feel like they cut into the proper sidequests and were more of a diversion to get som extra money. Again, proper stories for these could have been put in with more time, but alas, it was not to be... The real sidequests though I felt were really rather good, if a bit lacking in longer arcs.

Combat
------------

Dragon Age Origins had a fairly challenging combat in my opinion, at least on harder difficulty levels. You had to have a proper strategy in a battle, or you would get crushed. Most of the abilities also felt interesting to use.
It also had a SHITLOAD of optional challenges, like hard boss fights and the like which rewarded you with pieces of items or powerful artifacts. The revenants, dragons etc. I felt like the combat in Origins also required more creativity than the mess that was DA2.

DA2 had an "actiony" combat that wasn't really actiony. You just mashed shit to kill enemies and prayed to god more wouldn't drop out from the invisible blimp on the sky. It didn't have the same excitement Origins did.
DA2 also, at least on Hard where I played the game, forces certain characters on your team. Such as Anders. Anders was a powerful healer, and he was a necessity for most of the fights. He was an optimal pick for nearly any party, and you could not get away from him if you wanted to be confident you could face whatever would lie ahead.
DA2's difficulty was also extremely imbalanced at points, or so I felt playing on hard and normal. See: Ancient Rock Wraith, Qunari 1vs1 as a warrior.

I'm actually gonna be real honest and admit something I'm a bit ashamed of. I can't come to terms with Dragon Age combat. I just genuinely suck at it. There are only two game franchises that I've tried, where I have to go down to the easiest difficulty in order to play the game. Dragon Age and Kingdom Hearts. Give me Gears of War and I'll play it on insanity any day, or Human Revolution on Give me Deus Ex and Witcher 2 on Dark, but Dragon Age? Nope. Fucking wall, right there. So Anders was not a factor for me, which was good, because as above, he kind of sucks. But that also means I am far from an authority on combat on higher difficulties. And as I said, I would like it even better if the acually went even further towards a pure action game in the combat, kind of like Mass Effect 3. It's just a combat style I find way more enjoyment from.

I don't want Devil May Cry/God of War-style though, keep it grounded. Make enemies die in one or two hits, and the player as well. Make it not rely on dodge rolls as that got silly in the Witcher 2 after a while, instead make if focused on defence by blocks or parries, with dodges for the really big guys. No combat rolls though, that looks really silly in plate armor. I know a lot of people like Dragon Age Origins combat, and I'm definately not gonna ***** if that's what they'll use for DA3. I'll still play it for the story and lore.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I can't say much nice about DA2, apart from Varric being reliable. I'd recommend reading this LP to showcase just how bad the game got.
http://gigglesquee.blogspot.ca/

If you want more hilarity, I would also look up the original thread for the LP at Something Awful. You just have to go into the Comedy Gas Chamber to find it, but some of the derails regarding Bioware were hilarious.

 

[teh_Canape]

Combat looks better
The characters are better overall
Sets up an awesome sequel
The idea was cool
Boss fights were better (mostly)

I think the combat thing is a bit... hit and miss
rogues and mages look pretty cool, but the warriors look rather off
like, in Origins, the sword+shield and double handed weapons looked heavy and powerful, in DA2 it looks like they're waving a light piece of wood around

also archery looks weird as well =P

aside from that, I really loved Isabela and Merrill, Varric was awesome, Sebastian was an uptight asswipe and when did Anders become such an ass
he was pretty cool in Awakening

 

[Darren Carrigan]

I enjoyed Dragon Age 2
I loved the characters
The little cameos are nice too - was great to see Zevran pop up.
I did like the changes to the combat even though i liked the old combat.
It made me feel more like a badass even if i ran out of stamina/magicka.
I liked how powerful it felt to be a mage in that game, two spells could clear a group of infantry.

 

[OniaPL]

Big bitchin' snip

I just had a few more points I felt like I needed to say before I stop pestering you about this subject.

-First of all; Combat. We are clearly just looking for different things there, so no point in discussing that further.

-You said that Act 1 was fine. I agree that it was fine; up to a point. It is a relatively long act that leads to nothing except the Deep Roads Exploration quest. Much of it felt like filler, and I ended up feeling empty since it all felt so pointless. You just get the deep roads exploration, you do it, timeskip. All that happened before that didn't really mean anything. You could argue that it did mean [isomething][/i], since it was about setting up the world and characters, but it was a way too long of an act for that. It dragged on. It was monotonous. (Fuck gathering all that gold.)

-Regarding Characters:
The characters definitely fit their own stereotypes, but I think they handled that well. Alistar is a sidekick character, but with him his past as being a young templar and what it all meant to him fleshed him out into a real character, instead of a silly sidekick. The protagonist can also "harden" Alistar, which makes him turn into a more stern, forwardfacing champ.
Meaning: Alistar can graduate from just being a sidekick.

Leliana was the slightly nutty one, but with her the issue of faith is a big theme. You talk with her about her faith, and she tells you about it. During the game there are even periods when Leliana questions her faith. I found it to be really interesting.

Morrigan; yes, she was a witchbitch who wasn't that bad after all. However with her I found the struggle that she had about her mother interesting. She loved her mother, yet she hated her. I found this conflict compelling.
Oghren had too little facetime to really be anything. I felt like he was an "extra".

I felt like DA2's character arcs outside of Varric and Aveline lacked the same kind of growth that characters like Leliana and Alistar had in the original game.

I have a simple request: Could you give a numerical score to DA2? I just wish to know if you thought it was "okay" or if you thought it was "good".
On a scale of 1-10, 5 being average, what score would you give it? Mine would be 4.

 

[RatRace123]

I like it. It has a lot of flaws, but I still greatly enjoy it. The more personal scope of the story, I liked that. I liked the fact that Hawke wasn't a world saving hero, but merely just some guy/girl. I liked the companions, even if I don't think the group was as strong as the one in Origins. But I do like that the companions were seen talking to each other during their downtime, and they weren't all dependent on you as their anchor. It made them feel more like real people.
Really my problems with the game were more focused on the actual game aspects.
If it hadn't been rushed out by EA, if it had, like 6 more months of polish (at least, I'd rather give it a year.) those flaws could probably have been ironed out.

So yeah, I still like the game, and I think it's totally worth checking out, and it does not deserve anywhere near the amount of hate it gets.

 

[Judgment90]

The best thing about DA2: Varric.

Varric is awesome, PERIOD.

 

[RubyT]

Yes, Dragon Age 2 was a very good game.

Most people who hated it, hated it for it comprising of only one town and featuring boring permutations of three basic dungeon designs. I can understand that, compared to the epicness of DA:O it felt like a cheap, quick money-grab. If Bioware had taken at least two years to do it, they could have delivered a much more satisfying experience for all.

On the other hand writing, voice-acting and character design were still vintage Bioware. So it's like the anti-Skyrim: well-written but nothing to explore.

DA:O was one for the ages, DA2 is one for an enjoyable single playthough, if you braze your expectations.

 

[God's Clown]

Dragon Age 2 is pretty good game, and Isabella alone made the game worth it to me. That sexy slut that she is. I normally don't like slutty characters, but Isabella is awesome about it.

 

[endtherapture]

It's the only Bioware game I've never finished at least once. That says it all.

 

[David Huff]

It was the inspiration for Gavin's Age of The Dragon.

 

[Joccaren]

Really, how so? The only instance of manual dodging I can see is if your tank can't hold aggro, like a tank supposed to do. Granted, I've had to do it once in a while, while playing it, but most of the time the set tactics worked out just fine, with the weaker members dropping aggro and/or the tank using CDs to get aggro back.

Quite simple really. Walking out as the enemy preps it's attack animation, walking back in after to attack again for most, however there are rogue abilities dedicated to jumping away from enemies as well. You can play with tactics if you want to, but it's also not too difficult to just time your movements and solo most encounters in an action game way. I say most because there were those BS times where you were surrounded by 6+ lieutenants and a general in a small room that would perma stun your party unless you ran through the nearest door and kept them coming 1 at a time.

You know, I don't get this attitude. I don't know what difficulty any of you played on, but I have a feeling it wasn't on nightmare, because if that was the case, I'm fairly certain none of you would say there's little or no strategy involved. This is not to put any of you down, please don't take it that way, but I think it's unfair to call it an action game and/or button spammer, if you haven't beat the game on the highest difficulty.

Also, how is the wave combat making the combat any less strategic? If anything, it adds more things to consider to every encounter, like repositioning and cooldown management. I have no idea how those two things removes strategic elements, rather than add them.

Having to navigate all those things; repositioning, cooldown management, friendly fire, keeping aggro and deciding which mobs to take out, in order to not get your party killed, is what I'd call strategic combat, but maybe that's just me.

A large part of it is because what I said is 100% true - the combat IS button spam. Every time you want to attack, you have I press a button. No designate target then issue special orders, you've got to spam that button like there's no tomorrow. It's the default game mode, and whilst there is an option for it, it either does nothing or I cancelled every time anything happens other than your character doing a normal attack, including enemies attacking you, which made it quite pointless.
As for less strategy, I'd say yeah - it takes a more action game approach to strategy. Unless you remember each level and encounter from a previous attempt or play through, you have no way to plan for the battle. You cant see the enemies before you get there and plan how I take them out, partially because you are attacked almost the moment you do sight them, and partially because they spawn in afterwords from god knows where. You can have a general set of tactics, but rarely need specialised tactics for encounters. The lack of enemy variety kinda adds to that too.

Overall the game give of a far more action game feel. It isn't an action game, it's a very awkward mix of action game and RPG. As said, I said, IMO it would have Been better of just being one or the other.

 

[KB13]

Honestly for being a "sequel" to the first game it is not a bad game to play. I have play worse (Venetica) and I have played better (Beyond Good and Evil). During combat you need to pay attention because once the opposing character your Hawke is fighting dies Hawke just stops, no helping comrades with this protagonist. The companions do not have the customization options as the first games, the voice acting, facial emotions, and attitude tops the first game... except Anders, he's just a whinny self absorbed, any way. While stuck basically in the same city the entire game (minus the DLC) the story line defiantly sets the player up for the third game with the Mage/Templar conflict. All in all if you really like the way DA3 sounds buy the game used or rent it (I've been told RedBox now does game rentals) and at least play it once in-case they make a selection system involving decisions Hawke made in the previous game.

 

[Xdeser2]

It was, without a doubt a bad Bioware RPG

however, evaluated on its own, it was fine. Average. Run of the Mill. It had somewhat enjoyable combat (once again if you don't compare it to origins), and a few of the characters were pretty fun. (Though as much as I enjoyed Varric, he came across as if the devs said "Hey, you know that Tyrion chap from ice and Fire? Lets put him in here, and make him an actual Dwarf")

See, I cant go 2 sentence praising it without bringing up criticisms lol

 

[Another]

A good comment?

I only play mages in most RPG's like this, and the combat was better for them, I feel. Also loved the Quanari subplot, the culture is pretty cool conceptually.

A double sided comment?

The concept of a single characters rise to fame spanning 10 years in a single city was actually a cool idea. Baaaaaad execution.

 

[J Tyran]

It ended, no seriously you could complete it. Getting stuck in that game and having to play it forever.......... -shudders-