Dragon Age 2 post mortem

[Burnouts3s3]

I'll speak as the resident Biodrone.

I don't hate Dragon Age 2, but I realize it's a heavily flawed game from Dragon Age: Origins. Most likely, the production team was told that Mass Effect was selling like hotcakes and they were told, very late, probably, that they would sell more if they made it more like Mass Effect... with a dev cycle under a year... while half of the animators were working on SW:TOR.

So, yeah, you get all of these disjointed elements and a clumsy attempt to make Hawke into the new Shepard (in fact, I have the distinct nagging feeling that if so many people didn't complain about DA2, Hawke was the planned protagonist for Inquisition). But it doesn't work. Merrill and Anders act nothing like their previous counterparts (it's explained in Anders' case, but even then the disconnect is jarring), you have Hawke sitting around for 3 years at a time, and you have elements that don't mesh together.

What bugs me is that you could've made this work with a simple fix. Change Merrill to be another Dalish mage in the same clan (like 'Berrill') and make Anders another Grey Warden mage and it would worked.

As it stands, I still play it, but it's not one of my favorites.

 

[spartan231490]

I hated DA: 2. As you said, so much potential to be a good game, I was really excited about it. What really killed it for me though, was the waves of enemies. Thing is, you could play it as a tactical style rpg like origins, I was even excited about the possibility to put it on a low difficulty and button mash for that new level of experience. The problem was, the enemies spawning in waves made tactical play impossible. You never knew how many waves were coming, or where from, or what level enemies would be involved. This basically meant that instead of being able to put your warriors in front and use your mages to tactically control the field, you had to use as little mana as possible in case the last wave had a large number of elite enemies. Even worse, you couldn't just find a corner and put your warriors in front, because 9/10 times enemies would appear out of nowhere in that corner. The only way to play was to keep your characters as close together as possible so when, not if but when, enemies appeared 2 inches from your mages, you could maybe manage to stun or pull agro before the mages were dead. Also, because you couldn't really deploy your mages tactically, you almost had to relegate them to a healbot. On the harder difficulties, if you played it any other way, you were going to lose your entire party in seconds and basically have to solo the entire fight.

Plain and simple, DA:2 failed because it was lazy as fuck. Instead of designing challenging encounters, they just spawned waves of enemies in a way that intentionally destroyed any tactical advantage you might have. Instead of having a diverse group of 24 abilities available based on class, you had about half that. And only half of them were any good. On the surface, every single player had their own set of abilities, but they were usually the same ability, with a new name and the numbers tweaked a little. Character A's short cone has more range and less damage than Character B's. Character C's has shorter range and a wider arc. Pathetic. They couldn't even design enough levels for the entire game, or even close to it. Instead, they had the same areas reused half a dozen times each. Even the weapon and armor availability tanked. Maybe 1/5 as many available items. Lazy ass design in every way. Even the story, you basically couldn't get a more predictable fantasy story. If any of you have played dnd for a few years, you probably have a character whose story is hawk's story. Loss of a father, destruction of a town, gathering of a party, and then save the city from invaders and stop or assist a rebellion. Hell, if I DMed a dnd campaign that predictable and boring, my friends would have my hide.

A lot of people like to say it would have been fine as a stand alone game. I call bullshit. Yeah, trying to pass that turd off as a sequel to such an amazing game certainly made it worse, but even on it's own that game would never be more than a 5/10, even to fans of the action/anime combat style and limited RPG elements. There was just too much lazy design for it to be any better, even with a generous bias.

 

[Mike Hoffman]

I actually just recently completed both the Dragon Age games and all their DLC (except Legacy) for the first time. I remember reading about Origins and being beyond hyped for it and I picked it up at launch, but halfway through I got distracted by another major release. After many attempts to play through it, just this past summer I finally started up a new game and ran through all the content for both games, and I loved them both.

Most of the complaints about DA2 are things I can understand, even if they weren't as big of a deal to me. I felt a little insulted by the repeated dungeons and waves of enemies, and the loss of tactical combat was jarring, but I adapted pretty quickly. The visual style took a huge turn, but I appreciate games trying something new, and it looks like that same mindset has led to Inquisition's visual style, and I'm into that.

The reason I'm so forgiving with these issues is that DA2 was fantastic in the areas that really mattered to me (and all of these are completely subjective). I loved the characters, their relationship to Hawke, my ability to really create a persona for Hawke, the story, and the many times the story made me stop and really think about my decisions.

Actually, I wrote a bunch of examples of what I loved about those aspects of DA2, but then I realized I could just summarize it with this: I really loved the story aspects of an RPG present in DA2. Enough to forgive the other, glaring issues and declare that it is a great game for me. Still, those issues are kinda bad and would keep the game from being more than a 4.5/5 no matter how much I loved the rest of it.

 

[Aerotrain]

Well, after some years it sticks out in my mind as the lowest point in Bioware's post-EA track record. In the filling cabinet of my mind it's filled under "rushed and disappointing". I harbor deeply resentful feeling towards it since at the time it felt like going to your favorite restaurant to order the much advertised newer version of your favorite dish only to be handed a can of tuna instead. It's not that I have anything against tuna, it's fine I guess, but it's not what I ordered, not what I was expecting and I'm damn pissed they had the nerve to serve it to me.

 

[votemarvel]

I don't think Dragon Age II is a bad game but it isn't a very good sequel.

As someone mentioned up above Bioware seemed to want to Mass Effect the series and they didn't need to, they needed to let Dragon Age continue to be Dragon Age. I really did feel it lost a lot of its identity.

Oddly I felt The Warden (who was silent apart from a handful of phrases) had a lot more personality than Hawke, who was a pretty dull person to be honest.

The squad I liked as much as I did those in the first game. The banter between them was brilliant.

Story-wise I agree that Act II was the best. What hurt it for me were the time jumps, I always had the feeling that the most important character progression was happening off screen. My one friend said after finishing it that he thought they'd end up releasing DLC to fill in those gaps.

I never really understood the love or hate the combat in DAII gets. I first played it on the PC and aside from a few minor tweaks, it was the same system as in the first game. The wave system could be annoying but it wasn't as if it happened in every encounter.

At times I really do feel as if Bioware are somewhat ashamed, not of Dragon Age II but of Origins. They seem to want to distance themselves from what made the first game so popular even after all this time. I look at the effort they've made to replicate the look of Varric for Inquisition and then at Leliana and Morrigan, they have Varric looking almost identical but the two ladies are nigh on unrecognisable. I watched the video featuring Leliana in Redcliffe and it wasn't until she spoke that I realised who she was. I know people change over time but this is ridiculous.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

Ugh, I have so many opinions on this the most divisive of games. No way will I be able to talk about it to my satisfaction. But I will try.

I like Dragon Age II. I think it is, altogether, a good game. I like Origins better, but not only is II a good game, it's not a whole lot worse than Origins.

Let's talk about the Characters. They are the main draw for Bioware. I think Dragon Age as a series has some great characters, better than most party RPGs.
-Morrigan may be a bit crazy with her "survival of the cruelest" philosophy, but I think she is quite compelling.
-Alistair is charming and likable; people call him whiny, but this is only in comparison to the impossibly stoic acceptance of hardship from action heroes these days. He laments his misfortunes like a real person, and then he goes out and does something about it.
-Leliana...well, some people like the accent. And I do like that she is a religious character who isn't usually preachy, but rather is concerned with living her faith as an example to others. And her backstory was interesting if vague.
-Sten is my favorite. The Qunari are fascinating, and Sten is just the best way to introduce them. He offers so little of his culture and people, but you nevertheless begin to get a picture of them if you are persistent. And he's a great character in his own right; he's a dutiful, driven, stoic man, who also has an eye for art, a sweet tooth, and is very curious about the heathens, so to speak. I love Sten.
-Oghren is pretty bland. I don't think anyone names him a favorite, as he is very one-dimensional, but he's the comic relief, so no one hates him either.
-Wynne is actually pretty cool. She's another person who knows what she is and what her place in the world is. She is unafraid and unapologetic, and still kind and caring. I like her, even if she doesn't have that much to offer beyond being a steady comfort.
-Zevran is not very deep. Not that he doesn't have personality, it's just that he doesn't seem to have anywhere to go as a character. He's a life-long assassin, he's jolly, he's flirtatious, he's a hedonist. He has no regrets and no direction. Not unlikable, just not compelling.

So overall, it's a good crop. I'll leave out the DLC characters for the sake of simplicity and the fact that not everyone gets it. Origins has a handful of very interesting and well-thought-out companions, and a good balance of personalities.

In DAII we have:
-Varric, who everyone knows is just the best character this game has to offer. He's smart, clever, and quite funny. He's a pragmatist with flair and a fascination with fancy. He's a self-interested mercenary with a great sense of loyalty to his closest friends. He's violent as well as merciful, and on top of all that complexity, he basically gets the plot started and plays a central role, even if you don't put him in your party. Varric and Sten are easily my two favorite people in Dragon Age.
-Anders. (Let's ignore the fact that he is drastically changed from Awakening) He really isn't very well written. Aside from constantly wailing about his persecution all the damn time, he makes the stupidest decisions. He is clearly deeply concerned with the plight of his fellow mages, but he is THE PERFECT example of why to treat mages with care. He is dangerous and untrustworthy, he is angry and misdirected, and he does all the wrong things. Not to say that this couldn't make for a good character, but in his case, it doesn't.
-Isabela is rough, selfish, and promiscuous, but also has a grudging streak of loyalty and caring that sometimes shows through. I thought she was a bit like Morrigan in this way, but she is certainly her own person. Beyond that, there isn't much to say about her.
-Aveline is kinda cool; she's basically a Viking shield-maiden, and not the typical archetype of "super badass chick who is also incredibly attractive but punches men who like her." She's reserved, has a lot of strength and drive, but is insecure about her value as a person. I think after act I she had very little to do, which is a shame as she has potential.
-Fenris is a bit of a problem. He is so divisive, because he clearly plays to the "brooding hunk with a tiny heart of gold" thing that some women just LOVE; but anyone he isn't aimed at finds him eyerollingly dumb. I'm not a big fan, but I think he is successful at being what the writers intended, and his revenge quest at least pays off well.
-Merrill is the female version of Fenris, designed to be the shy, demure, basically moe-type that some guys go nuts for. I am not one of those guys, but again, she isn't that bad. What's odd about her is that her story is actually very interesting; it's got magic, redemption, unknowable risk, and a woman forging ahead with her chosen path despite all around her trying to stop her. Unfortunately, everyone around her is clearly right, and her story only moves forward when she does something phenomenally stupid.
-And finally, Hawke's Sibling, Bethany/Carver. Yeah, they are very boring. Giving Hawke a family is a neat idea, but since his/her brother/sister only lasts for one act, there is no time to explore them and no reason to. Really, a waste of time.

On the whole, Origins definitely has a better crop of companions, but DAII is no slouch. Varric at least is really brilliant, and others like Aveline and Isabela are pretty good. I would say that this game does well as far as characters.

I am going to break here as this is already immensely long and I have lots more to say. I'll be back in a while.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Oh man, another post-mortem for DAII? How many's that now, 567? I lose count...

Played KotOR, Jade Empire, and have gone through the Mass Effect trilogy and both DA's on numerous occasions (and some of Baldur's Gate). And DAII remains one of my favourites. I loved the concept (if not the execution) of Kirkwall, the relatively smaller scale narrative, I preferred FemHawke to--- hell, any other talky PC ever, pretty much. I didn't find the characters as memorable or as distinct as Origins (or as witty), but they felt more nuanced, ergo a little bit more believable.

...though, fuck Anders, seriously. Fenris I can accept, seeing as he's broody fangirl fanservice, even if I've never been keen on him.

I loved Dragon Age Origins for its strengths, and accepted its weaknesses.
I loved Dragon Age 2 for its strengths, and accepted its weaknesses.

If I needed to prepare a headstone for DAII's grave, it would be; Here lies Dragon Age 2 - the best rush-job ever made... For its relatively truncated dev cycle, it was pretty darn amazing, and I judge it according to that.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

I mentioned Mr. Hudson because although he may not have been involved with DA in so far as, not being on the team making the decisions or even officially working on their DA franchise, he is the face of their developer culture, driving ideas which its very reasonable to assume that these folks inter-mingle and share their ideas/views when one or the other reaches out during the developer process.

On top of that --- the two whom headed the entire company also kicked rocks as well --- Dr's Muzyka and Zeschuk whom did have influences on their main titles.


I think this is probably the only game company I actually followed whom their leadership was. Its a fresh re-boot in my opinion so maybe the new minds will take that strong start and turn it around with DA3 and other upcoming titles.

 

[Amaror]

I don't hate Dragon Age 2, but I realize it's a heavily flawed game from Dragon Age: Origins. Most likely, the production team was told that Mass Effect was selling like hotcakes and they were told, very late, probably, that they would sell more if they made it more like Mass Effect... with a dev cycle under a year... while half of the animators were working on SW:TOR.

That's the thing that makes the least sense to me. I thought often how DA2 turned out as shitty as it turned out besides the low budget and short time. That they were told to make it like mass effect would explain some things like the shitty dialogue wheel, or the action oriented combat. But the thing is Mass Effect did never sell better than Dragon Age. DAO is Biowares best selling game to date.
It baffles me that they tried to change so many things that didn't need changing, while they were on that tight schedule.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

I would agree that killing Fenris was a big *smile* moment. I never used him for anything and couldn't stand the constant hating and ranting. Every time a decision was made - 20, -15, -30. There was no saving that dude, he wanted a grand exit stage left --- he certainly got it from my Hawke.


Anders... was... disappointing. Using my help and camaraderie to commit a terrorist act upon the Chantry and making things worse for mages everywhere. I mean who could blame the Templar's half the time? The Mages that were presented in the game were always one step from total blood-demon worship fanatasim. Really the big problem was the oppressive relationship between the Chantry using the Templars as their shock troops to do their bidding and the entire forbidden nature of a Mage's life. To be locked into a tower for the rest of your days? Really? Why --- then --- no one should be surprised that fissures to hell are opening because you pushed powerful individuals into a corner in which Demonic influences would seem the correct answer from the fears that survival enacts. So the Osama Bin Ladin of Magic was just waiting to happen and low-behold! An ex-deep roads Warden with internal issues AND a phantom living inside to boot!


Its probably due to how I play the game, I would have liked to have arrow shot Isabella as she tried to skirt away while Kirkwall burned.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

Part 2 -- (See part 1 above)
So, how do the stories measure up?

DA:O certainly has a few issues. It is hackneyed, it is long and poorly paced at times, it is a very typical hero saves the world from ultimate evil story. Fortunately, this old, old formula is more of as platform for the details than anything. They didn't try anything new in the overarching plot because they wanted to focus on the incredibly detailed lore and political intrigues that they offered. I don't think the story suffers much from the cliche set-up.

However, it can seem a lot of the time that the Warden and friends are literally the only reasonable people in Ferelden. No one else seems to care about the darkspawn, and are far more concerned with their petty personal gripes. Especially Orzammar. Seriously, every dwarf there should know the importance of battling darkspawn. There are a lot of stupid decisions made, in general.

But, the game does do an excellent job of world-building. The lore is deep, old, and interesting, and they give it to you very effectively.

DAII's story is, as many have noted, a real departure from the Bioware formula. And considering how much flak Origins gets for being unoriginal, I don't know why DAII's set-up is also so criticized. I think it was a great idea to tell the story of a less important person with less influence on events. Someone who just wants to get by, who has a past and a family and personal concerns. I quite like the idea.

Kirkwall, in some ways, doesn't feel like it fits into Dragon Age. I think that's because it is outside Ferelden, which was all of Thedas we had seen so far, and because of the dramatically changed art style. A style I thought was striking and original. So again, I don't see why DAII gets hate for this.

Having the story set in one single city is risky, as it strictly limits the environment style and variety. Compounded by the repeated level designs in what are supposed to be different places, Kirkwall feels small and rather poorly designed. I think it may have worked better if Hawke did some more travelling. Seeing other city-states in the Free Marches would have been cool.

Now, there are a lot of deep problems with DAII's plot. The Templars seem to be unnecessarily tyrannical, and Meredith is either nuts from the start or just a paranoid sadist. And the mages, who are supposed to be sympathetic, always and I mean always manage to prove the Templars right. I know it was supposed to be a depiction of a gray-shaded situation where both sides have legitimate points, but all it turned out to be was a terrible attitude by the templars and just a stupid amount of evil mages. Seriously, how in the hell does every mage in the Kirkwall circle know blood magic? What kind of stupendous fool is Orsino? He seemed so reasonable, passionately but peacefully protesting Meredith's treatment of his mages, all the while learning enough blood magic to endanger the whole city! So stupid.

The Qunari plot is excellent. The only issue with it is it only lasts two acts, and is forgotten for the third.

So of the two main plots, one is great, and one is a good idea executed quite badly. Overall, they took a risk, and it paid of with very uneven results. I can only hope that both plot threads continue into DA:I.

To be continued...

 

[ThriKreen]

Not sure how Casey Hudson leaving has anything to do with Dragon Age since he really only was the development lead for Mass Effect.

I mentioned Mr. Hudson because although he may not have been involved with DA in so far as, not being on the team making the decisions or even officially working on their DA franchise, he is the face of their developer culture, driving ideas which its very reasonable to assume that these folks inter-mingle and share their ideas/views when one or the other reaches out during the developer process.

On top of that --- the two whom headed the entire company also kicked rocks as well --- Dr's Muzyka and Zeschuk whom did have influences on their main titles.

I think this is probably the only game company I actually followed whom their leadership was. Its a fresh re-boot in my opinion so maybe the new minds will take that strong start and turn it around with DA3 and other upcoming titles.

This is what confuses me, people follow certain project leads and figureheads of a studio, but don't follow the actual developers on the actual game project (and in particular, how it differs from one to another, especially a sequel).

 

[maxben]

I REALLY liked the story, but the reused areas, how small they were, and the awful combat (both mechanically and the waves) just killed it for me. I don't even care about mechanics, I've enjoyed game with awful mechanics because the story was great, but in this case I couldn't get past it. I don't know why, but I tried playing it again recently and got halfway through before giving up. I love the Dragon Age world and lore, all the politics and stories. I liked that DAII was a more intimate story, and in many ways more mundane than Origins. That's why I just find DAII disappointing more than anything else.

 

[AngryPuppy]

If Dragon Age 2 wasn't a sequel and was released on it's own merits, people would have loved it because, yes, it was a great game. As some pointed out, it had its issues (Reused areas etc.) but it was still great.

 

[endtherapture]

If Dragon Age 2 wasn't a sequel and was released on it's own merits, people would have loved it because, yes, it was a great game. As some pointed out, it had its issues (Reused areas etc.) but it was still great.

It might have been even less well received if it wasn't a Dragon Age game. People wouldn't have preordered it because it would've been a new franchise/title, so there wouldn't be the huge ready made install base, and the game would simply be a low budget, tattered around the edges action RPG.

 

[EternallyBored]

If Dragon Age 2 wasn't a sequel and was released on it's own merits, people would have loved it because, yes, it was a great game. As some pointed out, it had its issues (Reused areas etc.) but it was still great.

People likely would have been kinder to it, as much of the actual rage was definitely fueled by the changes to the strategic combat system, and the nature of the original game. I doubt it would have been a particularly well loved game though, without the hype surrounding Origins it likely would not have sold as well as it did, and while it wouldn't be so hated, I don't see it picking up a ton of popularity either.

Separated from origins, it would probably have been largely received as a slightly above average game, but much like games like Kingdoms of amalur, it wouldn't have made much of an impact as far as popularity or potential sequels goes, as a sequel to Origins it inspired a lot of rage, but by itself I can't see it as being anything other than a forgettable game with a couple interesting ideas. Given the games shoestring budget compared to normal AAA titles though, it might have still made a profit even without the Dragon Age name.

 

[Phasmal]

I don't get the DA2 hate.

Can't really see how. There was a radical change in design principals and objectives; naturally this would result in a backlash.

On top of that there's the obvious stuff:

- Rushed product.
- Worse graphics.
- Poor encounter design (wave-combat)
- Streamlined inventory management.
- Shitty New artstyle.
- No companion customization.
- Less class customization.
- Crappy cameos.
- Three barely connected story-arcs that can only play out thanks to immense stupidity on all sides.
- The ending.

Etc, etc.

Spoiler: Okay, but

Meh, I liked the game. I didn't have high hopes and wasn't on the hype train, I had nothing to be disappointed by. It wasn't DA1 but I wasn't expecting it to be. I get why people don't like it, I don't get why some people act like the game is the WORST THING EVAR, or that it personally wronged them.