Dragon Age 2 post mortem

Ishal

New member
Oct 30, 2012
1,177
0
0
Apparently, several people think one of the saving graces of the narrative of Dragon Age 2 was that it didn't do the whole "Unite everyone and save the world" thing. Thus it was more interesting. Sounds nice in theory, but what we got was still a steaming pile of dog crap. Personally, I'll take a well executed "hackneyed" plot over an "ambitious" or "fresh" it wasn't fresh plot that couldn't even stand up straight without pissing itself.

While the game itself isn't nearly as bad as the internet makes it out to be, it was still horrible by Bioware standards. Or, at least their previous standards.

- Crap protagonist with a crap name. Should have just called him what he was, DA Shepard.
- Re used areas
- completely screwed up combat system
- enemy spawns that prevented any form of strategy going on.
- Garbage writing for both companions and quest line (referring to mages and templars)

Oh, and when you press a button, something awesome has to happen! Button! Awesome!

I'll remember this about Dragon Age 2. Stay awesome BioEAre.

 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
I'll remember liking the smaller story focus but the lack of real change or progression in the city you spent the whole game in even though the game took places over a long stretch of time. I'll remember loving some of the characters but not caring at all about some of the others. I'll remember the nice environments that unfortunately got re-used until they weren't so nice anymore.

Above all, I'll remember it as being a pretty good game with some great moments that got a lot more flak than it deserved.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
I've had a long break from the franchise (couple years maybe?) and am now revisiting the games.

2 months ago I would have told you that Dragon Age: Origins was my second favorite RPG of all time (FF6 being my favorite). I LOVED the games story, characters, combat and how much meaning your choices had. The experience was near perfect save for some poor pacing in parts (deep roads was such a grind-fest).

Having just replaced the game I've changed my mind. The story as a whole is still great. It's a simple LOTR style tale and the choices you make leading up to the landsmeet are great.

The characters though were surprisingly weak for the most part. Especially characters I previously loved like Alistair, Morigan and Leliana. I guess I have to blame the improved quality in characters we've seen in gaming over the years. The gameplay also got boring this time around. I'd still call it good but it's nothing great like I remember. The overall game felt very much like a 6/10 gaming experience where I felt it was a solid 9/10 before (note: I've played through this game at least 5 times over the years so this wasn't my first time going back).

I dread going back into Dragon Age: Awakening (which I'll be doing tomorrow). I wasn't crazy about that game before and I'm thinking it'll be awful now.

I'm most interested in DA:2. I LOVED the combat in that game and felt it FAR exceeding the original in terms of sheer enjoyment. The story was actually wonderful up until the end of Act 2. It failed to properly build up Act 3 and left me annoyed by the lack of investment in the last boss encounter. The characters were hit and miss. I particularly enjoyed Varric and Merrill. I look forward to finding out how this game holds up after Awakening.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
endtherapture said:
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.
I'll easily agree with the other three points, but I've always enjoyed arguing in favor of DA2's story when it comes under attack for being disjointed, so here we go! :p

The truth of the matter is that it's not "3 different plots" as there's a clear beginning, middle, and end...you just have to look for the true point to the story. The point of this story is to do what all sequels are meant to do: serve as a spring-board for the third and final installment. Consequently, most people tend to consider "Part 2" in most trilogies to be the weakest because the story just kinda...ends. Stay tuned for Part 3!

Clearly DA:I is going to revolve in some way around the civil war between the mages and...well...I'd imagine the rest of the world :p. And DA2 is the introduction to that civil war. Hawke plays a central role in the events that led up to the outbreak of the mage rebellion, and that's why the story is simply "A Day in the Life of Hawke." It establishes who he/she is: a refugee from Fereldin from when the Blight broke out. It establishes where he/she went: Kirkwall because there's family there. And it establishes his/her initial motivation: to earn enough money so that he/she and his/her family could move out of the slums. From there it's established that mages in Kirkwall are treated like fugitives under the vice-like grip of the Templar's commander. It's the rising tension between Templar and Mages that's the carrying theme throughout the entire game, and that's what half the story is about. The other half of the story is about just who Hawke is and how he/she rose from being a refugee in the slums to being one of the most important people in Kirkwall.

First: He/She goes on an expedition to the Deep Roads for fame and fortune and comes back with both.
Next: He/She - having already established a report with the Qunari - is called upon by the Viscount to help ease the tensions between the city and the Qunari when the Ari'shok himself calls for Hawke. Meanwhile various quests indicate that the tensions between the mages and templars are further escalating. Eventually, though, the Qunari get pissed and attack the city. Hawke saves the day and is now officially the savior of the city.
Finally: Tensions between the mages and templars finally erupt as Anders goes all crazy-mage-terrorist and blows up a church. As the official "Defender of the City", Hawke becomes the central figure during the spark which starts the mage rebellion. Which, in turn, leads to the events of DA:I.

Both the "Hawke's Rise to Power" plot and the "Mage vs Templar" sub-plot progress throughout the entire game. So yeah, while mechanically DA:II was absolutely atrocious - from the combat to the copy-pasted dungeons to the wave-formation enemies - the one thing that I will defend about this game is it's story. :p

P.S.: I fully agree with your thoughts on Merill and Anders, though. :3
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
You're forgetting a very important point:
5. Characters. Varrick is the only good one in the bunch. He's also one of the ones you can't put the moves on, because Bioware hates Dwarves.

Aveline and Isabella are all-right. They're both one-dimensional, but that one dimension is not actively offensive.

But Fenris, Merril, and Anders. Ugh.
Merril: Hey guys, you know that character from our Space Wizards game series who isn't terribly interesting or likable, but the internet loves her cause she's a "Kawaii-Desu Moe-Waifu"? Let's remake her, but have her be stupid on top of all of that.
Something bad happens due to her fooling around with blood magic despite regularly being told it's a bad idea.
Merril: "I'm going to keep fooling around with blood-magic!"
Anders: "That's unwise."
Merril: "I'm going to keep fooling around with blood-magic!"
Hawke: "This is a bad idea."
Merril: "I'm going to keep fooling around with blood-magic!"
Something bad happens due to her fooling around with blood-magic.
Merril: "Maybe fooling around with blood-magic wasn't such a good idea... I guess I'll keep fooling around with blood-magic!"

Fenris: "Hey everyone I played this neat game called Final Fantasy VII! It's got this androgynous guy with a giant sword who broods all over the place! It's awesome!" -Some schmuck at BioWare. (Paraphrased)

Anders: This might have been acceptable if they had simply made a new character, but they had to destroy one of the best characters in the franchise instead.
Souplex disapproves -35! Actually, since we're doing DAII instead... Souplex Rivalry +35? Does Dragon Age II think that if I hate it enough I'll schtupp it and that's why it's so actively terrible as to have been memory-holed along with Metroid: Other M and FullMetal Alchemist: Brotherhood?

Also; a minor point, but a point nonetheless: Everyone being bisexual just felt out of place. Isabella was already pre-established as bisexual so that's fine. Anders was established as pretty heterosexual back in Awakening. "All I want is a pretty girl, a nice meal and the right to shoot lightning at fools." -Anders. It just feels unnatural that everyone would be willing to schtupp me, and it possibly sends a bad message.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
I really would like to trash that game a lot more but if I'm being totally honest I have conflicting opinions on it.

To be totally honest it fixed a majority of the things that kept me from getting into the first dragon age (namely the combat, interface, the fact that your character actually talked and emoted through animation rather than standing perfectly upright and staring off into the distance bizarrely above the heads of any character he was talking to) and I know I'm in the minority on this but I actually really liked a few of the companions in DA 2 wherein every character in the first one barring Sten annoyed me.

Also I was really satisfied with the ending I got, wherein I ended up getting to kill the 2 companion characters I strongly disliked. Also the choices I made led to that obnoxious whiny anime-emo elf guy throwing a hissy fit at the end and I got to tell him to go fuck himself, then drop him like a little ***** in literally one attack when the game had me fight him later. I've never felt satisfaction like that from killing an NPC in a videogame and I never will again probably.

It's unfortunate that it was so hastily cranked out and its major flaws so blatantly noticeable.
 

Jak2364

New member
Feb 9, 2010
182
0
0
Only thing I liked better in DA:O was the story. That was definitely a thousand times better than the one in DA2, especially the expansions, I loved all of those. But other than that, I liked the combat in DA2 better, it felt much better to me, and still had a good amount of strategy so that there weren't any game breaking attacks.

One of the complaints I don't understand about DA2 was the "Copy-paste" level design. DA:O's level design wasn't much better in my opinion. It was still a bunch of long winding corridors with enemies in them, just with varied art? I seriously had to take a break from playing DA:O when I reached the Deep Roads. That place was putting me to sleep. I love both Dragon Age games, but level design isn't something I'd praise in either game.
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
RJ 17 said:
endtherapture said:
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.
I'll easily agree with the other three points, but I've always enjoyed arguing in favor of DA2's story when it comes under attack for being disjointed, so here we go! :p

The truth of the matter is that it's not "3 different plots" as there's a clear beginning, middle, and end...you just have to look for the true point to the story. The point of this story is to do what all sequels are meant to do: serve as a spring-board for the third and final installment. Consequently, most people tend to consider "Part 2" in most trilogies to be the weakest because the story just kinda...ends. Stay tuned for Part 3!

Clearly DA:I is going to revolve in some way around the civil war between the mages and...well...I'd imagine the rest of the world :p. And DA2 is the introduction to that civil war. Hawke plays a central role in the events that led up to the outbreak of the mage rebellion, and that's why the story is simply "A Day in the Life of Hawke." It establishes who he/she is: a refugee from Fereldin from when the Blight broke out. It establishes where he/she went: Kirkwall because there's family there. And it establishes his/her initial motivation: to earn enough money so that he/she and his/her family could move out of the slums. From there it's established that mages in Kirkwall are treated like fugitives under the vice-like grip of the Templar's commander. It's the rising tension between Templar and Mages that's the carrying theme throughout the entire game, and that's what half the story is about. The other half of the story is about just who Hawke is and how he/she rose from being a refugee in the slums to being one of the most important people in Kirkwall.

First: He/She goes on an expedition to the Deep Roads for fame and fortune and comes back with both.
Next: He/She - having already established a report with the Qunari - is called upon by the Viscount to help ease the tensions between the city and the Qunari when the Ari'shok himself calls for Hawke. Meanwhile various quests indicate that the tensions between the mages and templars are further escalating. Eventually, though, the Qunari get pissed and attack the city. Hawke saves the day and is now officially the savior of the city.
Finally: Tensions between the mages and templars finally erupt as Anders goes all crazy-mage-terrorist and blows up a church. As the official "Defender of the City", Hawke becomes the central figure during the spark which starts the mage rebellion. Which, in turn, leads to the events of DA:I.

Both the "Hawke's Rise to Power" plot and the "Mage vs Templar" sub-plot progress throughout the entire game. So yeah, while mechanically DA:II was absolutely atrocious - from the combat to the copy-pasted dungeons to the wave-formation enemies - the one thing that I will defend about this game is it's story. :p

P.S.: I fully agree with your thoughts on Merill and Anders, though. :3
If there's supposed to be a clear beginning, middle and end, then it just doesn't work very well. Because the game's pacing peaks at Act 2, then everything sort of resets itself for Act 3 and has to build momentum again. And Empire Strikes Back is everyone's favourite Star wars film anyway :p Act 2 was the best part of Dragon Age 2, and I don't really appreciate the entire game just setting up a story for the next game. Dragon Age isn't actually a trilogy anyway, it's a common misconception, but it's true.

It is also disjointed because lots of off screen stuff happens in the 3 year time jumps between acts. It's not organic, no one levels up, the City doesn't change, the companions don't change appearance, there's no change to the status quo, in between Prologue and Act 1 so much cool sounding stuff happens but none of it actually matters, and it just doesn't make any sense and doesn't feel good.

I'm sure everyone here knows the story was about Mages/Templars and Hawke's rise to power, however those were the worst 2 aspects of the story, with the Primeval Thaig and Qunari being the best handled. The story had an incredibly interesting concept however it's execution was utterly terrible, so that's why I think it's indefensible. It's like a souffle that had top notch ingredients and a great recipe, however it got served to you uncooked and flat. You wouldn't defend that so I can't really defend DA2's story apart from "it had potential".

Jak2364 said:
Only thing I liked better in DA:O was the story. That was definitely a thousand times better than the one in DA2, especially the expansions, I loved all of those. But other than that, I liked the combat in DA2 better, it felt much better to me, and still had a good amount of strategy so that there weren't any game breaking attacks.

One of the complaints I don't understand about DA2 was the "Copy-paste" level design. DA:O's level design wasn't much better in my opinion. It was still a bunch of long winding corridors with enemies in them, just with varied art? I seriously had to take a break from playing DA:O when I reached the Deep Roads. That place was putting me to sleep. I love both Dragon Age games, but level design isn't something I'd praise in either game.
Varied art is important. Essentially...what is any game? It's just a series of corridors you walk through til you reach the next level. Origins had human cities, Dwarven tunnels, elven forests and temples, tunnels under the earth, mountaintops, great plains, and oppressive swamps. All the dungeons were corridors but at least it gave you an illusion that you were traversing a massive open world, as opposed to literally walking around the 3 same maps in DA2 with different doors blocked off.
 

putowtin

I'd like to purchase an alcohol!
Jul 7, 2010
3,452
0
0
I've writen quite a few things on Dragon Age II, and as it's Sunday and I'm chillin' I'm gonna copy paste one that kinda sums up how I feel...

Dragon Age: Origins is a classic game, one that I have played more times than is probably healthy, however that does not mean its sequel is bad because it doesn't quite hit the same dizzying heights. I've argued for people to give Dragon Age II a chance since it was first released and I'll do so again here.... In the form of pro's and cons!

Lets start with the cons!
CONS

*Same environments used over and over.
*Lack of locations (most of the game takes place in the one city)
*Loss of Race Choices (Though to be fair, I normally picked Human in Dragon Age: Origins)
*Change of Combat System........... but

PROS

*Change of combat system... I know I put it down as a con, but I know loads of people who prefer the new system. Personally I'd like a mix of the two!
*Interesting Characters, with personalities to love/hate. (For me that's Fenris/ Anders)
*More information relating to Thedas (the world in which the series is set) and what is happening within it (The Qunari, the Tevinter Imperium and the mage rebellion)
*A personal one, but I love the soundtrack.

The Long and Short of It
If you want to continue your adventure in the world of Thedas, want a good game with fun characters, then give Dragon Age II a try. No it's not its predecessor, but not many games are!

(One final con, which those of you that have played (and read the tie-in comics) will understand why he's not, but I wish Varric was a love interest!)
 

Lupine

New member
Apr 26, 2014
112
0
0
bz316 said:
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.
I honestly don't think I could agree with this more. This is actually the reason, as well as the characters (well most of the characters...ANDERS!) that I found myself enjoying DA2. Despite the copy and paste going on, the meh combat, and iffy writing in certain segments of the game, the world still felt alive and conflicted. The different factions all obviously have points (though I feel the mages were sort of undermined by way too many blood mages) and as things play out you find that it isn't so easy to decide whom is in the right or in fact if anyone is in the right at all.

So, I guess that said, I'm cautiously optimistic about Inquisition and hope that they can marry the world building of two with the high points of Origins to make something awesome.
 

Gennadios

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,157
0
0
I feel that the entire series had potential but was hamstrung by it's own... BioWareness.

DA1 had the craziest BioWare 3 main storyquest syndrome I've ever seen. Each of the 3 branches lasted hours, you're waiting for the insanely long village dungeon to end so you cans change the characters in your party, but the village leads to a dungeon, and then a mountain, and 4 hours later you're still stuck with the same party you went into the village into... I didn't think it was as great as people said, it's 80% game and 20% muttering under your breath for it to get the the fucking point.

DA2 to me was nothing more than a microcosm of all the issues the Mass Effect series would eventually have. Rushed development cycle aside, the offscreen character development and the fact that every quest resolved however the fuck the writers wanted or had time to do it regardless of player input came into play in a big way during the endgame, and in an even bigger way in ME3.

Overall, eh. BW's flagship series is done and I never developed as much of a fondness for DA, I'm only playing it if its not on Origin and during a Steam sale.

To me, DAO was the flawed game with potenial and DA2 was supposed to be what makes or breaks the series... and that didn't go so well.
 

pvaglueman123

New member
Aug 6, 2009
135
0
0
To be honest, i'm not feeling the massive hate that DA2 gets. Was it mediocre compared to the first one? Sure. Was it a bad game? Not really. It was sub-par, like a 6/10 maybe a 7/10. It was enjoyable to say the least. It did have some problems, of course it did.
The story structure was all over the damn place. I would have liked to see the Qunari get more of a focus. Apparently, murdering one of thier political leaders leads to... nothing... Would have been cool to see the full might of the Qun bear down on Kirkwall rather than the mages. Also did every mage have to be summoning demons in thier basement? Was there even one nice mage in the game aside from party members? The weaksauce Act 1 could have been better ut at least it lead up to something, cementing Hawke and Co in Kirkwall and what have you.
The gameplay wasn't as tactical but i didn't really notice. I played DA2 first and played DA1 in a similar way so the gameplay problems didn't affect me in the way it did to others. Let's be honest though, who plays BioWare games for the combat (Besides Mass Effect). When i was playing KotOR i wasn't thinking "Oh man, clicking the button for Flurry over nd over again is very engaging" or "Critical Strike or Power Attack" i was thinking "HK-47 is so hilarious, i wish i could hang out with him more" and "Wow, look at the Star Forge, i can't wait for the plot developments that occur upon it" (Words to that effect anyway, saying it exactly like that makes me sound like a man from the 20's). Fair play to BioWare, they tried something different and it didn't work. At least they tried. Did the same thing with Jade Empire and i love that game, not for the (frankly, very "meh") combat but for the decent storyline. DA:I looks like the best of both worlds so there's that.

However, the game did have really memorable characters. Varric is a standout, naturally, but all the other party members are just as memorable and interesting. Thier small stories worked with Hawke's quite well. They might not have had massive impacts but they were still worth looking into. Awesome characters introduced by a meh game.

The game could have been a lot better, but i think that the hate for it is somewhat unjustified. I get it. I get why people don't like the game (It's really obvious, i mean that High Dragon was a pussy compared to DA:O's) but i still had a good 20 hours.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
I've been playing through DA: Origins and DAII in preparation for Inquisition...

And the OP is, still, directly on point with all of their commentary.

The PRIMARY thing that killed its potential was, undoubtedly, the ridiculously short development cycle and an overly ambitious Bioware trying to jam their usual 3-5 year cycle into a 1 1/2 year suicidal cramfest...DAII and ME3 were the results of EA's meddling.

Which is why Inquisition has gotten over double the time to work with.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
I finally managed to finish it recently. I think what helped make it bearable was that this time around I wasn't playing it immediately after completing the first game, so the comparisons weren't fresh in my mind. As a sequel to Origins, the game just fails, utterly and completely.

As it's own game however, I can't quite call it "good" since it still screwed up in so many major ways (partially as a result of being rushed and partially because some design decisions were just terrible), but it did do some things quite well. Many of the characters were interesting, and I really like the idea of the whole personal rising to power storyline they tried to pull off. They didn't exactly succeed with that story, really, but they might have with more time.

Hawke also felt like much more of a character in his/her own right than the warden commander, which is annoying if you're after the kind of deep customisation offered by Origins, but isn't necessarily a bad thing in its own right. It allowed lots of interesting personal moments, family connections and such that occasionally worked really well.
 

Sanunes

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
21
MirenBainesUSMC said:
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.
Not sure how Casey Hudson leaving has anything to do with Dragon Age since he really only was the development lead for Mass Effect.

The biggest issues I had with Dragon Age 2 is the game felt rushed which is unusual for a BioWare game, I do think they did a good job what they delivered with Dragon Age 2 for it took less then two years of development while overhauling a game engine. This issue branches into other areas such as the "wave combat" and the "dungeon of endless uses". I could a lot of promise in the game, but things felt disjointed because of the short development cycle and hopefully having Dragon Age: Inquisition in development for as long as it has been will fix those issues.

What I learned about the Dragon Age 2 since its release is mostly about what I learned about myself, I held BioWare to a much higher standard then any other developer out there. I would complain about some of the bugs I would encounter in Dragon Age 2, but be perfectly fine with the bugs in Skyrim. Combat in the game would be another issue I have, but The Witcher was different because... reasons.

Looking back at Dragon Age 2, I feel it was the Destiny of its time. It had a lot of promise, but it wound up squandered.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
What i most remember are brain-dead characters.
Seriously.
Anders, i get your trying to incite a war between mages and templars, but why blow up the chantry? Why not blow up, hmmm i don't know, the freakin Templar Headquarters. You know, attack the people that you are actually against instead of innocent peasants and clergy.
Oh, Bioware needed some drama and a reason for players to vote against mages for once? Ok that makes it totally not stupid then.
No, Merril it is not a good idea to summon a demon, ever. Oh i can't tell you and have to play along because this is a game. Well screw this then.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
I find it weird we're all supposed to dislike DA2. I've been warned off of it in game stores like it's going to break into my house and piss on my Xbox.

I liked DA2. But maybe it was cause I wasn't on the hype train, and had nothing to be disappointed by.

I enjoyed the romances, combat was a little so-so, but overall it was a pleasant experience and left me excited for the next one.

I don't get the DA2 hate.
 

Sanunes

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
21
Phasmal said:
I find it weird we're all supposed to dislike DA2. I've been warned off of it in game stores like it's going to break into my house and piss on my Xbox.

I liked DA2. But maybe it was cause I wasn't on the hype train, and had nothing to be disappointed by.

I enjoyed the romances, combat was a little so-so, but overall it was a pleasant experience and left me excited for the next one.

I don't get the DA2 hate.
For me I never really hated the game, I was disappointed in it for it felt like it didn't live up to its potential. Now I might be in the minority, but I don't think Jade Empire is that good of a game either for it felt BioWare had the same problems with it that they did with Dragon Age 2, for to me it felt like there was a "good half" and a "bad half" to that game because they either ran out of time or money or maybe both.
 

RICHIERICAN

New member
Sep 18, 2014
31
0
0
I played DA1, DA awaken, DA2, I liked how the way the flow kind of flowed to each of the games As far as DA2 it was rush it piss me off that you can only armor hawk but yet you can buy armor for the other people in you group but they can't use it! Dragon age inquisition can be a really great so far I like what I see and I really like the new dragon keep where you use some of your decisions from the last DA games you played Looks great!! Can't wait to use it! https://dragonagekeep.com/en_US/