Dragon Age 2: Legacy Review

[PixelKing]

Only hard part was the final boss used his AoE spell to kill my entire party except me, so we went mano-a-mano the rest of the fight.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't care if this DLC is sending me to the moon to fight space dragons; I don't even wanna look at DA2 ever again.

 

[Danny91]

Give it up, man ...

Why? He's right. Your score was ridiculous, and something you should be ashamed of as a critic. Dragon Age 2 was stuffed full of cut corners and problems that you didn't even mention. Ignoring everything even remotely subjective for a moment, the recycled environments alone should have dinged the game a point.

He's asking you to give it up because this happened several months ago. At this point, you're only beating a dead horse.

I would say its a matter of lets never forget what happened those few months ago. The pain felt by fans of the Escapist and fans of the original Dragon Age is something that should never be forgotten. Time heals all wounds but for many it will always be etched in their minds. If you dont feel like this thats fine... But why can't he express his feelings just because it happened a few months ago? really?
The dead horse as you state is actually very much alive it is the called The Escapist. People love the Escapist they dont want to see its name tarnished to what THEY BELIEVED was an unjust score, because they are apart of the community and as a gaming community they expect the highest quality coming from the reviewers of the site.
So no he shouldnt give it up he believes it was wrong and he should be vocal about his beliefs until he thinks the situation will never repeat itself again.

I sincerely don't mean to insult you as a person in any way, although that might ring a bit hollow just now, but this one post was very funny; just because of how much "The Internet is Serious Business" there was behind it. With the "Never Forget" you said, you make it sound more like the end of slavery or Apartheid or something. If someone felt that much "pain" or was 'wounded" over a review made by a site...I dunno man, I guess I just wanna say there's so much more to life?

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

It's not about the score. The wording in that review was pretty much preposterous. He complimented things that weren't actually improvements, made very silly "objective" claims that just weren't true ("Best looking RPG of our generation", my ass), and completely ignored (or chose not to mention) many of the glaring technical flaws in the game.

OT: I don't think difficulty should really be a complaint, unless the curve is flawed (Witcher 2), or it's the games fault in any way. If it's too easy, bump up the difficulty.

Otherwise, Good review. And YAY, for another femHawke player.

Who says he was claiming that he was being objective about the whole "best looking" thing. There is a reason why there are never totally unanimous results from critics. Critics are never going to be totally objective. There will always be bias. I have read, watched, and listened to probably a thousand critics in my time, and I have never encountered a totally unbiased critic.

Who knows, maybe he did think it was the "best looking RPG of our generation." Of the ones I had played up to that time, I thought so too. I certainly believe it looked at least twice better than DA:Origins. The graphics of DA2 were much more polished compared to Origins. I didn't say it in that line, but of course I was being subjective, even if I do have points to back it up. But still, he didn't have to clarify that he was being subjective. Reviews can never be totally taken at face value as if it is absolute truth, because everybody will have some sort of different opinion.

Example: Not everybody is going to agree with me that the only problem DA2 had was the repeat dungeons every once in awhile. I thought that they improved everything else compared to Origins, changing the dialogue to the wheel, having a fully voiced main character, better/faster inventory and equipping, much better and rewarding ability tree/leveling, better characterization of characters(they weren't unnecessarily/unrealistically complex), and the graphics were much improved.

Now I gave it a ten out of ten on Metacritic, but that was because I had to do my part to try and get the game up to a score that it at least deserved even from a totally objective prospective(which is definitely not a 4 out of 10).

Metacritic just causing aside, if I was going to give the real score I was going to give the game, I would have given DA2 a 9.5 out of 10. The only flaw I saw in the game was the repeat dungeons every once in awhile, but as people pointed out that can happen, I was having so much fun with the game I didn't care about the repeat dungeons.

But still, there are other people out there that truly give it a 10 because they see such a thing as not mattering in a game and feel that it didn't effect the game any for them.

Really, the only problems that a reviewer can mention about a game are things of a technical nature that actually effect the games playability, not things that can be go either way on the opinion scale. A person can't say that the dungeons didn't repeat, because they did.

Other things that people can comment on, are subjective: Graphics, dialogue wheel, story, characters, leveling/abilities, inventory(it is subjective whether it is better or not to be able to totally customize all things that your party wears).

Those are areas of artistic and play aesthetics, things that people will always be subjective when they are talking about them.

I'm just saying that that review made Dragon Age 2 out to be a decently high fidelity game. And it wasn't. The artistic choices and styles are obviously subjective; and I quite liked those. But it still had the shitty, bland, textures that would look horrendous close up.

Having finished the vanilla game last week.....I would give Dragon Age 2....... Three and a half stars. It's not a bad RPG, but it's no 10. True, there was nothing glaringly broken about it other than the repeating environs.....but it was just so, average. Nothing (except for a few of the characters) pops out as noteworthy.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I don't know how clear it can be made to anti-DA2 whiners, but a review is a SUBJECTIVE thing. It can't be "done wrong".

Yes, a review can be done wrong. The classic "That's just -YOUR- opinion!" defense is the last, desperate refuge of a bad argument, I've always found.

Here, I can write you an example of a poor review off of the top of my head:

"Superman 64 is a masterpiece of modern gaming. Never before have the controls of a game been so polished, the bosses so dynamic and engaging, the aesthetics so well honed.. one could legitimately call these graphics sex for the eyeballs. In fact, I would be hard pressed to name you a single fault in the game! Go and buy it today. If you can't afford it, consult a loan shark. The game is just that good."

See? Bad review. Now, Mr. Tito's review wasn't quite -that- ridiculous, but the same principle applies. He omitted any faults in the game from his review and spoke only of the good points. Even if he loves the game, a review isn't about entirely about his enjoyment, it's about quality.. which is -partly- subjective, and partly objective.

I hate racing games. Every racing game gets a 1 of 10 from me on a purely subjective level. Do you think that kind of reasoning would fly in a professional publication?
"Sorry, boss. I gave Gran Turismo a 1 out of 10 because I hate it. Reviews are subjective! Get over it!"

Oh, and if you buy games simply based on what other people say then you kinda deserve getting a bad game every now and then. Sheeps never win, mate.

Unless I pirate the game, there is no alternative to listening to what other people say about the game. I either buy the game blind, or I read reviews. Do you have some magical third option that doesn't involve stealing it?

 

[Macrobstar]

Unless I pirate the game, there is no alternative to listening to what other people say about the game. I either buy the game blind, or I read reviews. Do you have some magical third option that doesn't involve stealing it?

Yeh you take what the reviewer has said and take things from the gameplay footage you have seen and then you form your own opinion on whether you'll enjoy a game or not, for example Catherine has been getting consistently good reviews, but I've seen the gameplay and it doesn't interest me. I'm not gonna buy it and get my finger bitten just because a reviewer told me to. You read the review, take what he says with a grain of salt, and then think to yourself "Will I enjoy the aspects that he enjoyed"

 

[Imre Csete]

I played every ounce of origins and read the book as well(not sure if there is more than one), though that was the epitome of cliche writing.

There are two (The Stolen Throne, The Calling) and there are rumors about a third in the works.

 

[JasonBurnout16]

The only thing she didn't mention was how it fits into the story? Does it go before the Qunari? Before I go into the Darkspawn tunnels?

Would someone care to enlighten me? ^^

If it in't an add on after the completed game, I'll just wait till all the DLC is out, then go through it all on 1 character.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I might be alone on this, but I have zero desire to purchase what amounts to side-quest DLC for games I've already finished. I'll pony up for stuff like Awakenings or other legitimate expansions. I'll buy lesser additions to open-world games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion. But little add-ons for linear, story-heavy games like ME and DA? Not interested.

 

[Jake Martinez]

I might be alone on this, but I have zero desire to purchase what amounts to side-quest DLC for games I've already finished. I'll pony up for stuff like Awakenings or other legitimate expansions. I'll buy lesser additions to open-world games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion. But little add-ons for linear, story-heavy games like ME and DA? Not interested.

Honestly, I think it depends on the game. Fallout:NV has enough going for it in terms of replay-ability to make DLC an attractive enticement for yet another go round (Oh hey, I can try the game again with XYZ build, with a different set of allies, and pick a different path and then play all this new DLC too...)

DA2 on the other hand is a simperingly stupid, simple game where all three classes, despite having different names, essentially accomplish the same things, in the same way, with a plethora of button mashing along the way. Why would I want to do that again, DLC or no.

Developers keep dumbing their products down. I'm just not interested in it anymore...

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I liked it. It added more to Hawke's backstory, it didn't seem that short, it had some useful armour and weapon for Hawke (depending on when you play it as the rewards depend on your level: the weapon is better later on and the armour is better earlier on, before you get your box cover armour). There are new enemies, which judging from the Origins DLC will probably turn up again in other DLC and/or the sequel. So you won't miss 'em, if you don't get this. I didn't like that there's the illusion of choice, but your actions have no real consequence on events. My major issue is with the boss fight that has your AI team killed by their own incompotent AI and leaves you on your own (unless you have a mage who can revive team members or the right potion). That part feels really cheap and frustratingly stupid...

It's safe to say this is no Witch Hunt, which just felt like an insulting money-grab.

Granted the escapist's perfect score for the main game did seem a bit much, but I would still give Dragon Age 2 an 8 or an 9. You can't really argue against a review, since they are based on an opinion...

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Give it up, man ...

Nice job derailing the thread, bro. Maybe it's time for *you* to give it up.

 

[SFMB]

Oh: There's a new DLC out for the Dragon Age 2? How could I have not noticed it? Was it on Steam? Ofcourse not. Great job, EA! On the other hand: I really don't give a ****. DA2 was not worth my time and this little hack'n'slash has dropped from the radar a yaer ago...

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I don't know how clear it can be made to anti-DA2 whiners, but a review is a SUBJECTIVE thing. It can't be "done wrong".

If reviews couldn't be done wrong, then we wouldn't need professional reviewers. We could just hop on the forums and the read the opinion of the first idiot posting his opinion after having played the game for half an hour.

The entire point of reading a professional review is that we expect it to come with some degree of objectivity, and not contain blatant lies about the game.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Objectively, if you play the game on a console having played Origins, you can't help but objectively say that they improved it tenfold. It handles a lot better, it's far better paced, and responsive on consoles, and that objectively makes DA2 a better game than Origins. Sure, DA:O on Pc handles better than both Origins and DA2 on consoles, but the UI wasn't changed enough for one to say the game lost its feel. Tried all 2 games on consoles and PC and didn't found DA2 lacking in comparison. So yes, the game objectivelty improved by not tampering enough with the formula as to make it unrecognizable (even in the demo, I felt clearly that I was playing Dragon Age) and by making its mechanics that much better. That is objective. Other things like the mainstreamed inventory are a matter of taste, and you'll find as many people saying it makes the game better as there are those who don't. Like with Mass Effect 2, you may bemoan the lack of a complex inventory, but since for many people that actually makes the game better, it's not an objective complaint.

Uhh... I never compared DA2 to DA:O. In fact, I was actively trying not discuss it in that context. But if you must: Yes they improved the graphical fidelity from Dragon Age: Origins. How the hell is that an accomplishment? Bioware started working on DA:O in ~2005. That game had the right to look horrible because it took them 5 fucking years to make all the content, so the engine was just that old at launch day.

For DA2, they just used that same (at this point) 7 year old engine, with the same textures, same animations, and TONS of re-used models. They added a few neat Shaders, Bloom effects and God rays, so that it technically looked better than DAO......but you were still staring at a SEVEN year old engine with low-res textures.

Spoiler: You were looking at THIS

http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/AquaticaDK/strangeelf.jpg

It had better graphics than DAO. It didn't have good graphics. That's all I ever said.

And just to reiterate: I quite liked the artistic style used in the game. I'm just talking about the fidelity of the game, and the morality of reusing a nearly decade old engine to pump out unpolished cash-cows.

 

[Hawgh]

I liked the dlc, although I have to agree on the shortness. It's a little more glaring since Old World Blues just came out, and I think I spent more than a few additional hours on that.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I would say its a matter of lets never forget what happened those few months ago. The pain felt by fans of the Escapist and fans of the original Dragon Age is something that should never be forgotten. Time heals all wounds but for many it will always be etched in their minds.

I'd just like to ask you one question. Which is your pain more comparable to: a) the victims of the Japanese Tsunami, b) the citizens of Egypt under the former Mubarak regime, or c) those afflicted with either cancer or AIDS? There is of course, alternatively, d), ie, none of the above, and you should count your blessings if the worst pain you've ever endured was a bloke on a gaming site giving a game you didn't like a five star review, rather than lamenting it with annual commemorations and bronze memorials.