Dragon Age 2 post mortem

[endtherapture]

So with Dragon Age 3 on the horizon next month it's probably time for a final Dragon Age 2 thread to put our thoughts to rest on this controversial game.

To begin with, thoughts on Origins. Wow, what game. Brought back the CRPG in style with high production values, a great storyline, interesting combat and memorable characters, alongside great lore and an amazing soundtrack. I did at least 2 full playthroughs of this title and it's DLC and was in general a huge fan of the game.

Then Dragon Age 2 came. A lot of people were disappointed in this game. It started off as a fairly ambitious title with an interesting concept, a story focusing on a single person and his companions as they weather various crisis over the course of 10 years, in a single location, with time jumps. However the feel and gameplay of Origins was completely lost.

1. Lord of the Rings slower style tactical combat replaced with button mashing less tactical anime style combat with waves.
Combat was a bit reason why DA2 failed. Sure it was slightly more interesting visually, but enemies and characters teleported around, enemies teleported in from the ceiling making positioning impossible, and generally the feel of Origins as a grounded fantasy experience was completely compromised.

2. Changes in art style.
The art style of many creatures changed between the games. The actual art (concept arts etc.) of the games remained a similar style, but things like the look of armour and the design of the Darkspawn and the Elves changed for no reason and lost a lot of their grittiness and realism from the first game to be replaced by brutal spikey stuff. Everything in game looked a lot worse and there were low res textures everywhere.

3. Disjointed story
The games story about Hawke's journey across the course of 10 years really interested me, but instead it ended up as being a fairly hollow experience of 3 different plots with only Hawke and Kirkwall as the constants. The companions all had bizarre off screen character development, as did Hawke, and the game felt like it climaxed after the Qunari invasion, a lot of momentum was taken out of the story after act 2 ended. Also Kirkwall didn't change or evolve, all areas always seemed the same, which brings us to point 4. ~Also they changed Anders character and Merill was an idiot.

4. Low production values.
Copy paste enemies, copy paste environments, low res textures, lack of weapons and armour sets when compared to Origins, plain ugly graphics, junk items, unfinished UI and a lack of organic change in Kirkwall characterised the games production values.

However...the game had so much potential to be good but ultimately fell flat because of these 4 points. What will you remember about DA2?

 

[tippy2k2]

I liked Dragon Age 2

...alright, is everyone done yelling and throwing things at their house? Good.

It's not Dragon Age 1 in terms of...well...anything really. DA1 was better but I still believe that the "Dragon Age" name is what did this game in.

Was it a 5/5 game like everyone's favorite reviewer believes? No (although he is 100% entitled to his opinion).

However, it seems if you ask the internet, it's quite possibly the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of gaming up there with ET. Based on some reactions, I wouldn't be surprised if people felt it somehow caused 9/11. It was an alright to good game that was dragged down by the name.

 

[Dandark]

I'll always remember it as the game that had a lot of potential but was ruined by EA rushing it out before it could be finished because EA.

Although Origins had a much better combat system I did still find myself somewhat enjoying the combat in dragon age 2 in the same way I might enjoy something like Dynasty warriors, it was still kinda fun to play.

I liked some of the art style changes. The darkspawn looked horrible in it but I did kind of like the Qunari.

I really enjoy the Mage vs Templar conflict so I enjoyed that a large section of the game was based around that. The story was a mess with different concepts and conflicts thrown together in the hope that it will resemble something that looks like it was planned out. I did enjoy the individual themes though.

As much as I enjoy the mage vs templar conflict, I can't help but feel they did a bad job with the mages side of things in the game. I often find myself agreeing with the Templars sometimes and wanting to side with them even if im playing as a mage. It doesn't help that nearly every mage in the game ends up being a blood mage, I mean seriously? Did I miss the demons that stood on street corners handing out pamphlets on how to do blood magic or something?

It's a game I still enjoy to play but I always feel like im playing a discontinued game because it had so much wasted potential.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

I let the characters fight as they wanted to in DA1 and in DA2 --- it was just Dragon Age finally coming clean and in the open as to its button smashing ways.

It was more about that chaotic story and strange mood switch plus the repetitive areas and watered down " fetch it for me!" quests. I just happened to notice that BioWare's Mass Effect 3 suffered the same maneuver, instead of side missions that you actually participated in, most of it was text based or extremely shallow, not really knowing anything about the item you took, just that you were supposed to get it from A to give to B in order to get points. (Sloppy and lazy writing).

It was messed up that the game ran up to the confrontation with the Quanari -- which was the best part of the game...and then switches to this social/political problem between the chantry, Mages, and Templars. The Order Commander was obviously unhinged with her outrage whom were unfortunately going to have to follow her to their doom because of blind support... but you have to admit the final battle was well done yes? They had a pretty good plot when the group found the medieval Tiag in the deep roads. It was never explained what the story was behind the artifact they found --- was it made by the Dark Spawn? Was it a relic of the Black City? Whom were the ancient Dwarfs? I was more interested in that then any of the other things of the game. Then what was with that short plot about the psycho killer in the streets? It was too damned random and I felt it was made up just to provide some shock value to the game.

Too many mages being blood mages for no reason...even the most level headed mage of the circle suddenly loosing his cool.


Hawke wasn't all that interesting and that whole part of him becoming a robe wearing pimp was also questionable.

Armor and gear. It didn't take you long to figure out that most of the stores and weapons were just you focusing on Hawk's upgrading while everyone was was on auto-pilot. Very anti-rpg.

All in all it was a weak 2nd installment that was even in the same league as the first. Too involved with making it a casual action-RPG. It was more like Gears of Kirkwall.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Dragon Age 2 was... all right, bad visuals, segmented plot and boring combat aside.

In fact, it was so all right, that is was average. It was so average, it was OK. And it was so OK, it was boring as shit.

I really think it was rushed out before everything was finished, before all of the story was finished, and before they had perfected the battle system, so instead masked it with effects and explosions and shit.

Also, the Player Mage character wasn't a walking tank with healing spells, making the entire game ridiculously easy, which was a little disappointing, but I'm sure horrendously unbalanced mages will come back in Inquisition. Seriously, insanely powered mages = so freaking fun to play.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Playing through Dragon Age 2 again actually made me look more kindly on it than I previously had (still nowhere near as good as the first in my opinion though). I definitely saw what they were going for and for the most part they succeeded (at least for me anyway). Hawke isn't some deterimator who despite all the odds comes out on top in the end and saves the country. He/she is just a normal person (albeit a badass one) that consistently fails in their goals and at best manages to salvage something from a shit situation. Getting rich from an expedition? Kind of works out, but you are betrayed and lose your sibling no matter what. Trying to ease tensions between the Qunari and Kirkwall? Viscount ends up dead, power vacuum created, and thousands more dead in the streets. Ease tensions between mages and templars? Holy hell no, no matter what you do everyone who is considered moderate in the discussion is either killed or forced to align with the more radical elements so as not to be killed themselves. You are destiny's plaything. This even plays into the framing device, as Cassandra towards the beginning is so desperately looking for a big bad, that she initially thinks it must be Hawke. After all, his choices lead to this mess, right? Actually no, it is pretty much everyone else's choices that lead to this mess and even if proper blame could be established, all those who did it are (probably) dead. In the end, you are irrelevant to your own story. Pretty much the antithesis of everything Origins tried to do. And I really liked that.

On the gameplay side, it is a very mixed bag. I like some of the playstyles, but the overall game is too damn fast to be played tactically if you aren't a mage. The designs are improved from Origins, which had Mage robes look almost exclusively like pajamas with stupid hats, to odd looking leather armors, to ridiculous heavy armors with pauldrons of the size of your head. Dragon Age 2 had a wider variety of better looking armors and nailed many of the designs. However aesthetically the game is ugly, like Origins but for different reasons. While Origins was ugly for having a shit-brown color palette and odd models for pretty much everything, Dragon Age 2 looks washed out and uninspired. It is just a boring kind of ugly. Also some of the redesigns are definitely to the determent of the game, like making the elves look odd and the darkspawn look... ugh. Okay, I am not going to lie, I fucking hate how the Darkspawn look in 2. They look like fucking harlequins with a bad back.

But the absolute worst thing about the game is definitely the world design. Kirkwall and the surrounding region is boring, ugly, and not worth looking at. The level design can charitably described as uninspired and is filled to the brim with with copy-pasted levels that you pretty much know where everything will spawn even if you have never entered this specific level. Dragon Age 2's biggest fuck up is that it make exploration completely unfulfilling (which it looks like Inquisition has corrected hopefully).

But despite all those problems, I like playing it. Many of the characters are just pure awesome (Varric) and I actually like the deconstructionist narrative, even if others don't. There are definitely some character issues (I wish Anders had started out closer to his Awakening character before progressing into obsessed loon) but overall I liked it and am genuinely excited for Inquisition.

 

[Arina Love]

DA2 was mediocre game in every way. Coming from awesome first game to this was a real disappointment of that year for me. Said that i did not really hate it, game provided at lest some degree of fun.
I just hope that they learned their lesson and improved the third game. (From what i've seen, they have)

 

[endtherapture]

I let the characters fight as they wanted to in DA1 and in DA2 --- it was just Dragon Age finally coming clean and in the open as to its button smashing ways.

It was more about that chaotic story and strange mood switch plus the repetitive areas and watered down " fetch it for me!" quests. I just happened to notice that BioWare's Mass Effect 3 suffered the same maneuver, instead of side missions that you actually participated in, most of it was text based or extremely shallow, not really knowing anything about the item you took, just that you were supposed to get it from A to give to B in order to get points. (Sloppy and lazy writing).

It was messed up that the game ran up to the confrontation with the Quanari -- which was the best part of the game...and then switches to this social/political problem between the chantry, Mages, and Templars. The Order Commander was obviously unhinged with her outrage whom were unfortunately going to have to follow her to their doom because of blind support... but you have to admit the final battle was well done yes? They had a pretty good plot when the group found the medieval Tiag in the deep roads. It was never explained what the story was behind the artifact they found --- was it made by the Dark Spawn? Was it a relic of the Black City? Whom were the ancient Dwarfs? I was more interested in that then any of the other things of the game. Then what was with that short plot about the psycho killer in the streets? It was too damned random and I felt it was made up just to provide some shock value to the game.

Too many mages being blood mages for no reason...even the most level headed mage of the circle suddenly loosing his cool.


Hawke wasn't all that interesting and that whole part of him becoming a robe wearing pimp was also questionable.

Armor and gear. It didn't take you long to figure out that most of the stores and weapons were just you focusing on Hawk's upgrading while everyone was was on auto-pilot. Very anti-rpg.

All in all it was a weak 2nd installment that was even in the same league as the first. Too involved with making it a casual action-RPG. It was more like Gears of Kirkwall.

I agree about the bolded section so much. Although there was definitely a theme through the game, mages vs templars, it seemed more like a background theme, just a bit of set dressing, for the game. To have it thrust to the limelight in the third act was completely out of place and weird.

I thought the game was building up to a Qunari invasion or something. The Qunari plot was the best part of the game in my opinion and I really enjoyed my interactions with The Arishok and everything to do with the Tal Vasoth and basically the whole section at the end of Act 2. The Thaig and Red Lyrium idol were also really interesting plots as I love the history and religion in the Dragon Age franchise. It was sad to see how those 2 plot threads were basically just made to get Meredith to power (via death of the viscount by the Arishok) and then to go batshit crazy (via big lyrium sword).

 

[Delerien]

Playing through Dragon Age 2 again actually made me look more kindly on it than I previously had (still nowhere near as good as the first in my opinion though). I definitely saw what they were going for and for the most part they succeeded (at least for me anyway). Hawke isn't some deterimator who despite all the odds comes out on top in the end and saves the country. He/she is just a normal person (albeit a badass one) that consistently fails in their goals and at best manages to salvage something from a shit situation. Getting rich from an expedition? Kind of works out, but you are betrayed and lose your sibling no matter what. Trying to ease tensions between the Qunari and Kirkwall? Viscount ends up dead, power vacuum created, and thousands more dead in the streets. Ease tensions between mages and templars? Holy hell no, no matter what you do everyone who is considered moderate in the discussion is either killed or forced to align with the more radical elements so as not to be killed themselves. You are destiny's plaything. This even plays into the framing device, as Cassandra towards the beginning is so desperately looking for a big bad, that she initially thinks it must be Hawke. After all, his choices lead to this mess, right? Actually no, it is pretty much everyone else's choices that lead to this mess and even if proper blame could be established, all those who did it are (probably) dead. In the end, you are irrelevant to your own story. Pretty much the antithesis of everything Origins tried to do. And I really liked that.

But despite all those problems, I like playing it. Many of the characters are just pure awesome (Varric) and I actually like the deconstructionist narrative, even if others don't. There are definitely some character issues (I wish Anders had started out closer to his Awakening character before progressing into obsessed loon) but overall I liked it and am genuinely excited for Inquisition.

I totally agree with you on most things. I too loved the Idea behind the story of DA2. Just being someone trying to get by (and constantly getting involved in the worst events). It is a nice change from being the big hero who's off to save the world.
The execution of it though failed in my opinion. Especially Act 3. Honestly the logical thing would've been to let those guys kill each other . Meredith's explanation for why this isn't a choice (You're the champion, so what I still got legs to get the hell out of Kirkwall) is unsatisfactory and while I would've loved to care about my little sister/brother the game actually gives me almost no reason to do so.

Overall I also got the feeling that a huge load of explanations were simply missing. It's not that DA2 is the most horrible game ever but I would have difficulty to imagine a game with so much wasted potential to be good. (ME3 maybe but let's not get into that) For me that's probably the main reason why I'm mad at DA2 despite actually enjoying it.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Dragon Age II had halfway engaging combat, and really strong characters. Most of whom didn't feel like the standardised tropes that Bioware is all too comfortable about rolling out in their games.

I also liked how the city changed slightly with every arc, and how revisiting (some, not the blatantly copy-pasted "totally different area guys" places) locations felt like they had their own story to tell and were also undergoing gradual change.

Aside from that... combat can get tedious if you're not a mage, the game hasn't aged well, yes, the copy-paste environments are still shite, but the DLC is pretty good. Or at least, Mark of The Assassin is pretty good.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

The saving grace in DA2 was how the narrative flowed around character interactions more so then most RPGs and did so rather organically. Characters were, for the most part, interesting, so much so that they were the only thing really holding me to the game. I like how Hawkes personality changes according to your chosen approach to dialogue. Hearing my Rogue Hawke attempt to "deal" with tragedy made him rather endearing to me.

Combat is uninspired but functional. In a better game, these wouldn't be too much of a problem but...

World design is atrocious. Copy Paste dungeons, limited palette, dull designs just bad marks all round. This makes combat even more laborious as you have to slog trough the same dungeons over and over again over the 50 hour long story. If each area you visited was somehow special or unique, it would entice me forward, but as it's not and the combat is unsatisfying the game becomes a real slog after the first 10 hours.

The game is ultimately pretty forgettable. The story isn't strong enough to carry it, the gameplay is not doing it any favors and the world is actively harming the experience. The characters feel like good ideas lost in a lot of bad decisions. I feel no desire to play it again even though I recently repurchased a Digital copy of it.

If DA3 turns out well enough, I might consider a series replay (origins and 2), but if it flops I'll probably abandon the series and forget it ever happened.

Since DA Origns (and Mass Effect 2 which was great) happened, we all had high expectations, but apparently someone had no confidence in the project. Either the budget was an issue or deadlines were or the developers lost their confidence... whatever the case, DA2 suffered for it and it was a massive disappointment.

After the ME3 debacle it became apparent something had broken over at Bioware (note, I actually do like ME3) and it would come as no surprise if EA was at the core of these issues.

 

[Risingblade]

Dragon Age 2 had problems, a ton of problems. However it was enjoyable and it did get me hyped up for DA3....years ago.

 

[Agayek]

However, it seems if you ask the internet, it's quite possibly the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of gaming up there with ET. Based on some reactions, I wouldn't be surprised if people felt it somehow caused 9/11. It was an alright to good game that was dragged down by the name.

DA2 was buggy, unpolished, and clearly rushed out the door, with several godawful design decisions and some of the worst combat encounter design I've ever seen in a game.

It had some high points (Hawke's expressed personality changing based on the player's dialogue choices and Varric primarily, with the combat mechanics earning an honorable mention), but it had many, many, many more extremely low points, from narrative design to functionality, that it can't honestly be called "mediocre". It's a straight up bad game with a couple of mediocre-to-good elements and a handful of enjoyable bad elements.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I liked Dragon Age 2

...alright, is everyone done yelling and throwing things at their house? Good.

It's not Dragon Age 1 in terms of...well...anything really. DA1 was better but I still believe that the "Dragon Age" name is what did this game in.

Was it a 5/5 game like everyone's favorite reviewer believes? No (although he is 100% entitled to his opinion).

However, it seems if you ask the internet, it's quite possibly the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of gaming up there with ET. Based on some reactions, I wouldn't be surprised if people felt it somehow caused 9/11. It was an alright to good game that was dragged down by the name.

there is that, however I do think that it being a direct sequel to dragon age origins didn't help it either, if it had just been some side game or something, I'm sure it would've been met with "meh" to "worth a playthrough" responses, but it actively took that spot and we've had to wait this long for ANOTHER sequel to those games (which who knows at this point if it's gonna be good or not.)

Now I didn't hate the game, but from a pure objective standpoint you can't tell me that it didn't cut corners in bad ways(as the OP pointed out, copy pasta everywhere.), completely made things different from the first game that fans of the game didn't have a problem with, and the plotline was a bit of a mess. (Not that I minded having the closer/more personal story, but the storylines kind of came together as a mess in the end.)

 

[bz316]

I didn't much care for Dragon Age 2, but it did do two things I liked. 1) It continued the trend of not making elves into all-wise, perfect beings beyond reproach (something I absolutely loath about all fantasy post-Tolkien). And 2) it showed just how delicate the seams holding together the society of that world really was. In Dragon Age: Origins, we get something of a sense of that as we travel throughout the world, observing the political turmoil and agendas of various competing factions who we have to get to honor their commitments to the Wardens. However, this is all ultimately brushed aside to do the usual "last stand against evil" thing that always comes up in this kind of story. In Dragon Age 2, on the other hand, with the Blight gone and the old god defeated, the entire story was about that political instability. And it was actually pretty interesting. The corruption of religion, the tension between the different races of Thedas (indeed, tensions within those very races, i.e. city elves vs dalish elves, kirkwall natives vs. ferelden refugees, etc.), the almost Gatsby-esque disapproval Hawke faces after buying his way into the aristocracy. Indeed, in many ways the threat of the Blight was really the ONLY thing keeping the whole system from falling apart. The game really delved into the heart of what happens when the existential threat that's been holding things together breaks down and no one knows what to do next, indeed all but implying that the social order of the world was doomed to fail without a world-threatening force to rally against. Though the execution was very sloppy, I have to admire the ambition of the idea in retrospect.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I enjoyed Dragon Age II very much, but I agree that the story felt very...rushed and disjointed. I keep forgetting that it takes place over ten years. I just feel like it takes place over a year, maybe two.

I loved the DLC for the game, because it gave us a look at what DA II could have been if given more time. As such, I'm really hopeful for the third game because this time they had their time, and more importantly, they have listened to the criticism.

One of the things that I love about DA II that a lot of people don't seem to notice is the storyline that was happening in the background of the game. Hawke and her party stumble across some seriously disturbing, and ground-shaking, stuff in Dragon Age II.
1) They find a dwarf city that doesn't match any known records and is completely different from anything else. And then they find that lyrium idol, which is nuts and nothing else like it has even been found.
2) They fight one, possibly two, for the Four Great Demons from the Fade.
3) They discover that Kirkwall is built in a very disturbing pattern, as if it's meant to be a giant summoning circle and everyone was supposed to be sacrificed in the city long ago.
4) Finally, and perhaps my favorite, there's this cult running around doing research on things they really shouldn't be doing research on, and at the end of the game they let something out that slaughters most of their order and leaves the third one badly wounded.

All these things, and more, and really interesting to me, and I like to believe that Hawke and the others would have stopped and seriously started looking into this stuff if given the chance. However, they always need to deal with a much more pressing issue at the time. Getting out of the Deep Roads alive after being trapped, or stopping Kirkwall from falling into civil war. I'm really hoping that these plot points are revisited in the new game, because I would like to know what happens.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

Yeah --- BioWare was at the precipice of Ultimate Gamedom --- and it just seems every time they almost get to the end zone, they fumble the ball or do something so outrageous and out of the norm, the game just goes left along with its pre-existing success.

Who knows maybe with Casey Hudson out of the way something will turn up better but I don't know --- EA is like the sarlack pit of otherwise decent developers.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Really couldnt get into DAO, it was so boring, the fighting, the characters, the story just nothing sparked or grabbed me. I rented DA2, it was ok though had loads of issues - i would have been pissed if i had bought it full price. Now with DA3 has a mixture of both fighting styles in an open world i am looking forward to this game.

 

[laggyteabag]

1. Lord of the Rings slower style tactical combat replaced with button mashing less tactical anime style combat with waves.
Combat was a bit reason why DA2 failed. Sure it was slightly more interesting visually, but enemies and characters teleported around, enemies teleported in from the ceiling making positioning impossible, and generally the feel of Origins as a grounded fantasy experience was completely compromised.

2. Changes in art style.
The art style of many creatures changed between the games. The actual art (concept arts etc.) of the games remained a similar style, but things like the look of armour and the design of the Darkspawn and the Elves changed for no reason and lost a lot of their grittiness and realism from the first game to be replaced by brutal spikey stuff. Everything in game looked a lot worse and there were low res textures everywhere.

3. Disjointed story
The games story about Hawke's journey across the course of 10 years really interested me, but instead it ended up as being a fairly hollow experience of 3 different plots with only Hawke and Kirkwall as the constants. The companions all had bizarre off screen character development, as did Hawke, and the game felt like it climaxed after the Qunari invasion, a lot of momentum was taken out of the story after act 2 ended. Also Kirkwall didn't change or evolve, all areas always seemed the same, which brings us to point 4. ~Also they changed Anders character and Merill was an idiot.

4. Low production values.
Copy paste enemies, copy paste environments, low res textures, lack of weapons and armour sets when compared to Origins, plain ugly graphics, junk items, unfinished UI and a lack of organic change in Kirkwall characterised the games production values.

1. I never really understood the criticism about the combat. As someone who played both games on the PC, I saw very little change between the two games (in terms of the actual combat mechanics. I used auto attack in DA2.) other than the improved animations in Dragon Age 2, and you would be surprised how much of a difference animations can make in terms of making the combat more satisfying. The real change came in the form of how enemies spawned in. In Dragon Age: Origins (if my memory serves me correctly), pretty much every enemy that you were going to fight appears when the fight begins, whereas in Dragon Age 2, you could clear a room of mobs, and then another wave would suddenly appear out of nowhere. I agree that this change was pretty bad, because you could have your tank at the front, your squishier companions behind, and then UH OH! A wave from behind, and then BAM! Wipe. What I did enjoy was having a larger amount of weaker enemies, but that is mostly because it was really satisfying to use an AoE spell and watch an entire section of the horde just melt.

2. Kirkwall was pretty bland I will admit that, but I really like a lot of the other things. I loved the art style for the cutscenes, and I am really glad that they are keeping it for Dragon Age Keep and presumably Dragon Age: Inquisition, and I really do like how they made the elves look more unique as opposed to just looking like humans with pointy ears. Now you can really spot the elf from the human, even if they have long hair. The Darkspawn one was tricky because it really was a redesign. The Hurlocks look a lot less threatening, especially because they got rid of that really sinister looking toothy smile. The Genlocks (Legacy) look way better in 2, however they don't really look like they could have come from Dwarves anymore. The Ogres looked better in Origins hands down. And the Shrieks (Legacy, not in game) look a lot more like elves, and a lot less like werewolves. As for the low res textures, even the so called "HD Texture pack" didn't really help much, and there is an issue with NVidia GPUs where textures get shredded or don't even load at all. The amount of legless/feetless/blender people I have come across in disgusting (in the final fight, Sebastian was just a floating head and a bow). Also, the armour looks way better in 2. Just saying.

3. Act 1 was really just Hawke on his way up, and Act 2 was Hawke's rise to power and becoming the champion, and really felt like the end of his/her story. Act 3 felt like it was setting up the sequel more than being part of Hawke's story. That and the ending was utter BS. No matter what side you pick, you still have to fight Orsino because blood magic lol, you still have to fight Meredith because red lyrium lol, and no matter what, the circles all rise up and you get the same ending. I did like the story that revolved around one city, and I did like the characters, but aside from Acts 1 and 2, meh.

4. Agreed.

 

[Mikejames]

I liked Dragon Age 2

...alright, is everyone done yelling and throwing things at their house? Good.

It's not Dragon Age 1 in terms of...well...anything really. DA1 was better but I still believe that the "Dragon Age" name is what did this game in.

Was it a 5/5 game like everyone's favorite reviewer believes? No (although he is 100% entitled to his opinion).

However, it seems if you ask the internet, it's quite possibly the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of gaming up there with ET. Based on some reactions, I wouldn't be surprised if people felt it somehow caused 9/11. It was an alright to good game that was dragged down by the name.

I'll second this. There were valid criticisms (recycled dungeons, disjointed plot arcs, less character interaction), but by its own merits, I still don't think DA2 deserves the hate it gets.

It didn't get the development time it deserved and it doesn't go for the sprawling adventure that Origins was, but I still liked a lot of the ideas behind it. A ragtag team of characters representing different sides of the story's conflict, side quests tying into the main plot-line, a personal story of people trying to make their lives work in the city, etc.

It had its issues, but I think it's a shame when people completely write it off as unplayable.