Dragon Age 2: RPG Players "don't like change"

[Casual Shinji]

You know what the real difference is between Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2?

- Dragon Age: Origins allows you enormous breathing room to create your own character and story within the frame of a catastrophic event.

- Dragon Age 2 only allows you to make decisions within a characters predetermined path.

This coupled with the bland visual design, characters and story makes DA2 the equivalent of a rice cracker.

 

[Susurrus]

Most of the complaints I've seen regarding conversation wheel are suggesting it sees a reduction in RPG elements, and compare it to BG/BG2. Clearly, I'm not alone in feeling that it reduces RPGness. It worked in Mass Effect but I didn't feel it worked in Dragon Age.

In DA:O, the linearity was bad in the deep roads, and largely fine elsewhere. Awakening improved on the linearity of the previous. The linearity in the demo was painful.

From what I could see in the demo, and subsequently confirmed, many spells got cut out because they were useless/redundant etc. Some of the ones I regularly used were cut for this reason. That's an annoyance. I already thought the spell list was low.

Sure, the art style is subjective, I accept that, but it certainly has leanings towards the button-mashing type of console games.

Thank you so much for commenting on my status as 'not a bad person'. I totally build up my own self-esteem entirely based on the opinions of nameless, faceless people.

Reduction in RPG elements? What's your definition of RPG? If it's "total freedom of expression", then you're not going to find it here or in any other CRPG, and you're likely going to have to resort to telling erotic stories around the campfire in Goldshire to approach the kind of character building freedom you get in PnP. If it's about picking conversation options you feel best reflect your character, then DA2 is no worse than any Bioware game including its forebearer, and is arguably significantly better than KOTOR or ME with their rigid "Heroic Good Guy" or "Slavering Bastard" options.

What is linearity? DA:O had small maps with defined paths you could travel on. DA2 has small maps with defined paths you can travel on. One is not a sandbox game and the other a shooter on rails. Both have a small amount of flexibility in how you approach certain quest hubs, but one is not notably different than the other in terms of linearity.

Your impression was incorrect. The skill system is not reduced in complexity.

Subjective as hell and now highly leading. Please explain how an art style implies "button mashing".

Ok, to be fair, its not only conversation wheel, but also voiced dialogue/restricted PC. It means that you can no longer give the spin/tone to conversations. The pictures on the convo wheel don't help, and the voice is even worse. If I want to play a pragmatic person, that's fine, but if one of the responses I pick fits "evil guy", one "witty" etc, then I just feel like I'm being rather schizophrenic. The problem with the convo wheel is it identifies which dialogue says what, and with what tone, rather too rigidly, leaving you picking paths through the convesation based on that, not on what the player thinks is reasonable. This is in no way helped by the voice-acted main character. It was fine in Mass Effect because you were becoming Shepherd, a man with a huge history before even ME1. That's great. It's not so great when you've got a new character, that part tabula rasa, part fixed character..

The button-mashing point was leading, I suppose - but what I meant was a frenetic, bounce-around style, where everything happens fast, everything is rather jumpy, and its impossible to tactically plan - which is all supported by the wave system of enemies, etc. The art style fits with the game, but its not a type of game I like, and it certainly doesn't come under RPG, in my opinion.

I noticed the linearity a lot more - and let me be clear, I'm talking about linearity of areas - in the Deep Roads in DA:O, but that kind of made sense, as it was inside a building. Where it doesn't is outside. Yes, Origins had areas outside that were kind of linear (the Dalish Forest, for e.g.), but at least multiple paths around a square area gave the impression of a wider forest. At least in the demo, there was one totally linear path, and apart from a skybox view of the distance, there was nothing nearby that gave me any more clue to my surroundings. it was just one long path.

To clarify: Are you stating that there are more/the same number of spells as in DA:O?

 

[Jaded Scribe]

As a huge fan of DA2, I want to offer an opposing view.

1) Homogenization of locations:

Go to any neighborhood where it was all built in the same 1-2 years. Most of the houses will look pretty much the same.

Many of the caves/hideouts you visit are the same ones. The region is fairly small (which fits the story). You're only going to have so many locales. To me at least, it makes sense that the cave that housed bandits in Act I could be converted for use by rogue mages in Act II, three years later.

The higher graphics quality also requires a lot of work, and under deadlines a compromise had to be made. I actually enjoyed it, and found the solution they came up with for coping with their limitations to be more than acceptable. By barring off some areas and opening others of a house or cave between acts, you still get variety and interest, while making something that fit what they could do with X dollars and Y time.

2) Talent Trees

I felt these were better than their DA:O counterparts. The 16-talent trees felt bloated at times. I felt that the division of spells in DA2 worked just fine, without losing anything of substance. Most of the original abilities are still in DA2, just adjusted slightly.

3) Combat Difficulty

While I grant that fights are easier mode-to-mode (i.e. Normal Difficulty - Normal Difficulty), I found dialing up the difficulty took care of it. Unless you were consistently playing at Nightmare mode on DA:O, you should still find a difficulty that challenges you. And to be honest, even in DA:O, combat felt largely like button-mashing unless you were playing on higher difficulties.

I appreciated the removal of friendly fire. I found that to be annoying and frustrating in DA:O. I'll grant they could have left it in as option, but for me it was a welcome change.

My husband started playing DA:O recently. He LOVES the story and character interaction. He hates the combat. Feels standard to him, and not what he's interested in. By toning down the combat on Easy/Normal, BioWare opens itself to people who care more about the story.

4) Choices

I felt the choices presented to you in DA:O came down to pretty arbitrary decisions. I'm trying to stop the Blight. I have no particular interest whether I have mages or templars, elves or werewolves, or golems. These choices were also highly localized, and aside from which armies you have available at the end and possibly pissing off or losing a companion, there were no greater consequences.

This is not to say I didn't enjoy the choices in DA:O, but I do appreciate that you have one major choice in DA2: Templars vs Mages. It keeps the story focused, where in DA:O, the second act of the game (the 4 ally-recruitment quests) felt like 4 disparate parts rather than a cohesive whole.

5) Companion Gear:

Yes, you can't upgrade your companions' gear with what you find laying around. On the other hand though, it allowed companions to maintain their "look". Can you really picture Merril running around in this:

Spoiler

Or Varric in this:

Spoiler

By having upgrades available for the companion armor, you still improve their armor as the game progresses, but you avoid mis-matched sets making your group look like an armory threw up on them, or just outright out of character.

 

[Susurrus]

Jaded Scribe: I played Origins through on Nightmare twice. I would have played DA2 on nightmare, had I bought it.
You don't really seem to have engaged with any of the complaints I've actually made about it...

 

[Redem]

I think Bioware probably would have managed to dodge the repetitive dungeons claims had they edited their map a little bit more, in order to cover-up the dead-end and the unused part on the map.

Mass Effect 1 had even less variety in its sidequest and yet people complained less

As for inventory, I think people would have complained less had the character look changed as you were upgrading them, even if they didn't have custom armor

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ok, to be fair, its not only conversation wheel, but also voiced dialogue/restricted PC. It means that you can no longer give the spin/tone to conversations. The pictures on the convo wheel don't help, and the voice is even worse. If I want to play a pragmatic person, that's fine, but if one of the responses I pick fits "evil guy", one "witty" etc, then I just feel like I'm being rather schizophrenic. The problem with the convo wheel is it identifies which dialogue says what rather too rigidly, leaving you picking paths through the convesation based on that, not on what the player thinks is reasonable. This is in no way helped by the voice-acted main character. It was fine in Mass Effect because you were becoming Shepherd, a man with a huge history before even ME1. That's great. It's not so great when you've got a new character, that part tabula rasa, part fixed character..

The button-mashing point was leading, I suppose - but what I meant was a frenetic, bounce-around style, where everything happens fast, everything is rather jumpy, and its impossible to tactically plan - which is all supported by the wave system of enemies, etc. The art style fits with the game, but its not a type of game I like, and it certainly doesn't come under RPG, in my opinion.

I noticed the linearity a lot more - and let me be clear, I'm talking about linearity of areas - in the Deep Roads in DA:O, but that kind of made sense, as it was inside a building. Where it doesn't is outside. Yes, Origins had areas outside that were kind of linear (the Dalish Forest, for e.g.), but at least multiple paths around a square area gave the impression of a wider forest. At least in the demo, there was one totally linear path, and apart from a skybox view of the distance, there was nothing nearby that gave me any more clue to my surroundings. it was just one long path.

To clarify: Are you stating that there are more/the same number of spells as in DA:O?

Okay, that's a fair comment. There were a couple of times where the words coming out of Hawke's mouth seemed tonally "off", or was something I wasn't expecting. For the most part, however, I felt my dialogue choices more or less fell in line with what I wanted, and in a couple of spots caught it bang on. The tonal shifts from "nice" to "rude" to "caustic" aren't quite as drastic as you might be lead to believe, and I found the overall tone to be more neutral in comparison to previous entries (the worst offender here being KOTOR, where the "evil" option was just comically over-the-top). Personally I found it very difficult to go back to an unvoiced character after Mass Effect. The dialogue felt "flat", and lacked the cinematic verve of its sci-fi brethern. This, of course, goes to taste, but the switch to full voice has its pros as well as cons.

The pacing is definitely faster, and THANK GOD. I was watching my girlfriend play Origins last night, and actually took over for her to get her through a tough fight, and I found the pacing to be agonizing. Watching her swing that two handed axe was like watching paint dry. It's not that DA2 has perfect combat...it doesn't. But it's not a brainless, tactically devoid mush of frantic key jabbing either. Playing on hard, I was pausing every 2-3 seconds to reposition, issue new commands, shift targets, stun, etc, etc. I had to be careful where I positioned my DPS, they had to be close enough to support each other, but far enough apart so if one got mobbed another did not. I had to keep anyone who caught aggro constantly on the move until it could be re-established. I had to make use of class-ability combos on tough bosses so I wouldn't get bogged down on their mountain of hitpoints and get overwhelmed by the trigger of a new wave. I had to manage cooldowns conservatively, keeping some abilities back for the arrival of reinforcements. If anything, it was a RICHER tactical experience for me than DA:O, and it was head and shoulders above Awakenings, in which the difficulty curve was borked completely and I was able to faceroll through every encounter on hard without even blinking.

I suppose an argument could be made that DA2 is impressionistically more linear than DA:O, but when weighed against actual open-ended games like Oblivion they're both holding hands at the far opposite end of the spectrum.

I haven't sat down and counted them, but there are an equivalent number of trees, and those trees have more flexibility and feel more robust. If I had a complaint, it would be that, like in DA:O, there are too many active abilities and toggles and insufficient passives, which is irritating because STA pools on Warriors and Rogues tend to be small.

 

[Astalano]

*sigh*

RPG's haven't really progressed since Baldur's Gate 2 and Fallout 2. What I'm talking about is improvements in quests, more impact on gameplay through choices, more choices of playstyle, an actual great working dialogue system, which I'll elaborate on below, great, realistic combat that gets rid of the stats (I'll elaborate below), more interaction with party members and more flexibility with party members (I'll elaborate below), NPC's that have their own motivations and shape the world around them, not through scripted events (e.g. if you challenge governments they may or may not start a revolution, they may welcome or shun you depending on your reputation=some may like if you're selfish and others might hate you for it, for example and some of your reputation will only be seen by high ranking NPC's and not the common citizen), combat not based on death, but on a choice between winning and losing your stuff or being captured that shapes the story in different ways (e.g. if you're captured in DAO by werewolves they may not respect you and be more aggressive and quick to throw you in some sort of dungeon or bite you and try to turn you into one of them, which makes your mission more personal), etc.

1. Working dialogue system

What I mean by this is giving the player more dialogue options. If you're going to have voices you must have multiple voices and if you highlight one of the shortened answers, it should be expanded upon until you stop highlighting it or you should be given the option to see the whole text automatically. Moreover, all dialogue options should be gray and never separated into good/bad/snarky. Furthermore, you should be able to start dialogue while walking. I don't understand why this isn't a feature yet. I shouldn't have to stand still to blab on to an NPC and other party members should be able to cut in even if they weren't originally in the conversation, depending on proximity and such. Finally, persuade shouldn't be a skill. It should be a matter of finding information and using information to persuade someone in a logical way. Bioware and other companies seem to believe that having a better persuade level makes your voice more like Morgan Freeman or something. In the real world, persuading is based on your familiarity and trust level with people and how well you're acquainted with events, not your looks or voice, but your argument itself. This creates choices based on whether you want to find out more or just finish quickly with a situation and such. You could initially have your character stutter, but he should become more confident as you try to persuade more. Or you can have your character be a mute throughout the whole game if you so please, and let your actions speak for you.

2. Realistic combat and getting rid of stats.

When I play DAO, I want archers to use cover and have archer battles. 1 or 2 hit kills with arrows and a Fallout style targetting system. Allies with shields use the shield to block and you SEE and HEAR the clang of metal against metal. You can also modify them with different fighting styles, like telling Alistair to use the shield more offensively or Sten to be based on counterattacks over brute force. 1 hit potential kills with everything, but the emphasis is on blocking and avoiding strikes. This makes all classes deadly and useful, especially mages, who become even more of a threat. Skills need not be taken out, but you can maybe prioritise the head with your archers or the limbs to cripple combat ability to serve your melee fighters. If I hit a guy in the shoulder I want to see him pull the arrow out or at least seem pained. This of course presents new ideas for fighting enemies like the undead, who feel no pain and thus, different party combinations are necessary for various encounters, which mages best for fighting spirits and demons, archers best for standard enemies and melee's best for possessed beings and against dudes in heavy armour. Stats should be removed almost altogether or simplified or made based on choice. For instance, you can choose the route of your character at birth, picking two traits. Dexterity makes it easier to use short weapons, strength makes all damage output except for mages more potent, stamina makes your abilities consistently powerful (while abilities never have a cooldown, repeated use of them makes them less effective, but strength also levels up stamina slightly, willpower is used for magical resistance and magical damage output and constitution is gone, only a trait based at birth. There may be others as well, but basically, you can choose to have a more agile, smaller character or a large, stockily built character who's more resilient or a standard frame based on strength or a slim frame for magic use and so on and so forth.

Continuing, stats for weapons should be removed entirely. One example where stats make games stupid is in DAO, in the Dalish origin. Master Ilen gives you a bow, which has worse stats than the bow you already have. Although the bow he gives has a lot of value that has nothing to do with the stats, the stats make it disadvantageous to equip it and thus, get in the way of the story and your character.

3. More interaction with party members.

Let me give an example:

You're running from a golem that has ambushed you. One of your party members was cut off from the party as he/she went to finish off an enemy. Your mage can choose to remove the blockage, but if you do that, you won't be able to get the loot. So you don't choose the goal and the loot and you save your party member. As you wander into camp, your party member comes up and presents you with something:

"Hey, we know we couldn't get that loot, but we all pooled our money and got you this"

*she presents you with a brand new Dalish longbow bought from a merchant*

Later on, you stop using it and you lose the approval of your party as a whole, while some, like Morrigan, may approve of you chasing greater power.

This is just one example of incorporating everything in the game, from simple loot and such, to fuel interaction with your party members.

 

[SageRuffin]

When you call yourself "Dragon Age 2", people logically expect a bit more of the same, but with some additions. When you call it a sequel, people expect the mechanics to be improved upon, they expect a more PC focused game, a long, large story, and plenty of other things.

If they simply called it "Dragon Age: Chronicles of Kirkwall" or something, there would be a lot less hate.

For once, something I can agree with. It's a (very) strong chance that if this was a spin-off there'd be a lot less bile flying around.

But it's not bothering me too much. Aside from quest markers not showing up when I want them to, I'm not bothered by the game. Now if you'll excuse me, my rogue FemHawke has some skulls to drill...

 

[Twilight_guy]

My only problem with this is that its all so subjective. We can show that one game is different from the other but labeling one as "flashy" or one as "true RPG" is entirely pointless. What there needs to be is some concrete definition that can be applies in order to compare things. Language is a fuzzy thing and sometimes words don't work very well. I think an objective analysis and examining that one game has X while another doesn't and why do we value X more is really more useful then just random hate and then counters to random hate that seem to pop up everywhere. All the arguments I hear are far to nebulous for me.

 

[lazysquirell]

I, unlike the OP, have played DA2 so allow me to rip it to shreds. First and foremost if there was ever, in the history of gaming, a game that was poorly slapped together and rushed out of the studio in the sole attempt to cash in on the success of it's predecessor it's Dragon Age 2. Everything in this game reeks of laziness.

Let's talk about combat and the notion it's "streamlined". Bull shit! It's dumbed down to the point of being damn near a button mashing hack and slash game. Every attack is "press button to make something super awesome" happen. The smart tactics based combat of the first one is thrown out the window in an attempt to dumb down the game to cater to the larger sloping browed console audience.

Next, let's kick a dead horse some, there are the maps. Does anything scream laziness like using the same three (maybe four) maps over and over and over again? This is Bioware, people expect better from them. The person who made that decision deserves to lose their job. That is the kind of thing I would expect from the lowest kind of indy developer not a company like Bioware.

Then there is the decision to have the enemies spawn out of thin air in waves. Really? Really? Compare this, again to the smart tactics driven combat of the first one for a minute and tell me this is anything but an attempt to artificially and needlessly prolong fights.

Now lets talk about items. Oh yeah, items. Laziness rears it's ugly head again rather prominently in this area. Why is the main character the only one I can upgrade to any real degree? The main character is fully customizable but they couldn't be bothered to take the time and apply that to the companion characters as well? Then there is "junk" which reeks of the developer just throwing random shit in to pad out drops more.

Oh and the conversation wheel. I understand that it's made for your typical console gamer and as such having pictures go along with the text can be helpful but for those of us that are literate it's just the same three options for every bloody conversation and it is just boring and repetitive.

For a game that was supposed to a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate it plays and feels more like the love child of Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins if it was aborted halfway through and left to rot in the sun. It was obviously designed by committee and dumbed down to cater to the absolute lowest common denominator and in doing so took what was once a promising franchise and shit all over it.

Bottom line is that Bioware is slowly becoming just another cog in the soulless machine that killed and devoured it. This is the first of what I expect to many upcoming releases that are needless and insulting cash grabs. The Bioware I used to praise heavily is dead and buries and whatever this company is that took it's place can go bugger themselves for all I care.

Oh please. Arrogant much? So I'm illiterate because I like a game and console gaming... I see no flaws in that logic at all. Bottom line is you have an OPINION other people have a different OPINION get over it and stop acting like the judge jury and executioner.

 

[Susurrus]

Lazysquirell I urge you to read OP. Xanthious's point is put in rather disingenuous terms, and I've tried to make it clear in OP that it's NOT some elitist console/PC divide (really), but.. well, read the OP.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I didn't play more than the Demo

Not the exact quote, of course, but what I want to address.

I've argued a lot about this, and have generally tried to distance myself since it was getting ridiculous.

All I see now, is some colossal marketing failure. The game is a pretty solid game, not incredible, and all in all, probably not quite as good as DA:O. But it is noticeably better in some area.

However, for whatever reason, the Demo they put out, and the marketing for the game, seems to have completely PO'd a certain percentage of the populous. So MUCH so that they will write long posts about the reasons for not liking the game, without having played it.

This is insane to me, but I'm not really trying to address that, more than I wonder what it is that the Demo or marketing killed in people so bad. Why is second hand rhetoric so easy to spout in THIS occasion?

These are what I think caused this:

1) The demo was too easy. Since they shifted the difficulties down in the game, the demo ended up getting the ass end of things. The 'fast' gameplay it engenders seems very VERY different from DA:O. In reality, though, most people who played DA:O wouldn't have enjoyed playing it on 'easy' anymore than they enjoy playing DA2 on Normal.

2) Disabling inventory in the Demo. You can't even go through your inventory, or try out different item combinations on Hawke. This accentuates the very real removal of NPC armor items. However, it also likely fools people into think that you do not equip things to NPC's, which is not true. You have a belt, amulet, and two ring slots on each NPC, just like Hawke. You can also equip runes to their armor, and upgrade their armor at certain fixed points during the game. But since we skimmed over this, and there is a demon in the room already, no one cares.

3) Skimming past the story. Other than Varric and the Seeker, the actually story of the game is very VERY quickly skimmed through to get to the Isabela encounter. This is really not a good idea, though I know why they did it. It re-inforces the idea that the game is all about combat, and makes the character interaction feel a bit more shallow. In reality, the pacing of the game is much different. Isabela isn't encountered in the first 10 minutes after landing in Kirkwall. In fact, narrative wise, there is an entire year of game before she shows up. But the Demo makes it feel like a brisk, little interaction, part of the game.

4) Outside the demo, poor Press Management. We all likely know the 'press x to do something awesome' blurb. It is terrible because it gives people the wrong impression. The comment was made in regards to character animations being made more fantastical, it wasn't intended to make the game sound simpler. In reality, the game gives you a lot of tactics slots to use, and contains substantially MORE in depth combat strategies than the original game. This one line, and a few others like it, are just killer.

5) It is different. Say all you want about human nature, but people are very much put off by things they expect to be similar, but find out are different. The art style is different, the animation style is different. It uses a dialogue wheel instead of a dialogue list. When you combine all the other things in here, each difference is an opening for someone's personal bias to show through. Especially for those NOT inundated with the game. By the end, the animations might not feel weird anymore. The dialogue wheel will become rote and you won't care. Or whatever. The point is that because these differences (which ever ones you aren't sure about) exist, they give you addition fuel to throw on to everything else.


In conclusion: I think a poorly scripted demo, and marketing blurbs hurt the game far more than any actual faults it has. I wish they would release a new demo for it focusing on slightly different aspects, to give people who weren't so sure, a better chance to form an educated opinion.

 

[Laxman9292]

SNIP

1) OK, so you're saying there is an objectively bad change with no real objectively good change, so objectively, it's a change for the worse. Where's the argument again?

2) BG2 expanded the world, expanded the classes, revamped the entire UI, and gave us an entirely new story. It doesn't have the number of gameplay changes that DA2 had over DA:O, but it was still quite a different game, and a vast improvement everywhere it innovated.

3) I'm not pretending that my own subjective tastes aren't influenced by stuff I like and react poorly (at least at first) to things I perceive as different in a bad way. But I'm not gonna come and spout off like my subjective opinions are fact without either hard evidence or a completely rational argument behind them. In this case, the rational arguments have already been stated by myself and others elsewhere a myriad of times. If you choose not to listen to reason, you are a fool. If you have your own rational arguments for why you think a change is good, by all means, make them. Just don't attempt to hide behind the red herring of "you hate it because it's change" to avoid having to defend what you actually say.

1) I do not even think it can be called an objectively bad change. It is just different, rather than a sprawling world that provides varied locales but fails to make a real connection with the area, DA2 has limited areas but are highly detailed and the fact that there are few makes the player intimately familiar with each area and makes the location more meaningful.

2)I never played Baldur's Gate (either of them, I have a statute of limitations on games that are over a decade old. Most games that everyon harps on about that are older than dirt are typically dated as hell and are only glittering jewels to the hopeless fanboys that cannot let go.) But it seems to me that those changes did not really make it a different game. While they expanded the universe and polished up the UI those features never affected the core gameplay (i.e. using the same engine and combat (D&D's atrocious 2e system)). And using a different plot to call it a different game is just stupid, although I guess nowadays having a different plot from the prequel is a struggle for some (Mario Galaxy 2 I am looking at you.... grrrrr).

3. I really cannot say much as I hav yet to buy DA2 or play BG 1 or 2, but I can say that there are very few changes that can be empirically or universally accepted as good or bad, Like printing the games on a slice of bologna, and even then your pets wont complain about that. Regardless of what changed you will have fanboys who hate it because "You needlessly tampered with our precious game when we would rather have more and more of the same", and hipster tossers who are quick to assume that "You just can't handle it. You are so behind the times grandpa stop living in the past'.

Point is: Both groups suck. Just play the damn game and if you like it then good for you, buy the next one. If not the oh well, stop throwing a fanboy hissy fit, you do not matter, you will not make a difference, give up. No one likes a fanboy. Regardless of which group you are in, stop trying to ram opinions down each others throat.

 

[The Common Hours]

Here is a solution...
If you dont like it then dont play it.... If you are going to complain about it, the Bioware forums is a better candidate for your voice on the matter to be heard.
I find it so weird that people spend so much time on things they hate/dislike, kinda contradicting themselves.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

What a surprise another i dislike DA 2 topic ... just like the dozen plus we had all before.
Only the OP wants to feel special he/she started a new one and not joined one of the MANY dislike topics around.

You'd think there was a pattern or a reason for so many of these threads popping up... but it can't be, must be coincidence and they're all haters!

http://i.min.us/immPqa.png

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6716182/1

Q: Who are you and what is your job on the DA2 team?

A: Hello! My name is Yaron Jacobs, lead level designer of the game. I'm Israeli and I've been working here at BioWare for 8 years.

Q: Could prolonging development time for the game result in a better variety within the city itself and avoiding reused areas, as seen in the game?

A: Obviously, more time would enable more areas and bigger variation. Honestly, we did not expect this to be such a big deal, but it seems the subject gave rise to a significant number of complaints by both critics and players alike. We listen to the reviews and we will try to address the issue in future games.

Q: Why are the city's streets not as crowded as one can expect from a city as congested as Kirkwall? Is it due to technical limitations?

A: Yes, this is completely due to technical limitation. We had more people crowding the streets in early stages of development but we had to cut the number to be able to cope with the limitations of game consoles and low-end computers.


Q: Does every battle consist of enemy waves? What is your answer for all those people that claim the lack of ability to know the number of waves and where they will pop up causes a battle that consists of reactions instead of tactics and planning?

A: Part of the tactical game is adapting to changes. The waves might feel different, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not agree with those that think the wave pattern is terrible as of itself, but I do agree that there are things it's possible to do in order to improve the use of the waves. We can use them less often and improve the breeding mechanic, for instance. All in all I think the waves are an excellent addition to the game.

Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance.

Looking at that interview, is Bioware's devs that removed from reality? Geez.

 

[Susurrus]

I think that's fair as far as it goes. Unfortunately, none of the reasons you mention are the reasons I disliked the demo - and those reasons that I had seem to have gone to the core of the changes, and the core of the game itself.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think that's fair as far as it goes. Unfortunately, none of the reasons you mention are the reasons I disliked the demo - and those reasons that I had seem to have gone to the core of the changes, and the core of the game itself.

Your reasons reflected your personal experience. They didn't necessarily go "to the core" of anything. This has been an ongoing problem in this thread, and in this debate in general. We have a lot of people saying "Yes, yes, I understand that this is only my opinion, but my opinion is RIGHT!".

 

[Nimcha]

When you call yourself "Dragon Age 2", people logically expect a bit more of the same, but with some additions. When you call it a sequel, people expect the mechanics to be improved upon, they expect a more PC focused game, a long, large story, and plenty of other things.

If they simply called it "Dragon Age: Chronicles of Kirkwall" or something, there would be a lot less hate.

Does nobody see how ridiculous that is? Why does the goddamn name of the game matter so much to people? It baffles me.

People should just stop with trying to decide what a game should be like and then being disappointed when it's not like that. This issue is almost making me angry.

 

[Zeroresistence]

Like it or not, the fact is Dragon Age 2 disappointed many people for many reasons. Said people have chosen to go online to vent their frustrations, probably because their friends/loved-ones aren't terribly interested in listening to them.

Except that almost every hate topic is about all the fans of DA:O hate DA 2. That is NOT the case some fans like DA 2 more or even the same. Thinking your opinion is the same as all the fans in the world is just being arrogant.

Yes many people dislike the game. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. What do are NOT entitled to is speaking like they are speaking for the whole community.

http://www.vgchartz.com/

Dragon age 2 700 k
DAO 3.2 Million

Anything else you wana add?[/quote]
Yes Dragon Age was released over a year age so its pretty obvious that in that time it would have more overall sales than something that hasnt even been out a month. Also don't assume that everyone hates dragon age 2. I liked both Dragon age and Dragon age 2 despite there flaws which they both have. But i respect your opinion because thats what you think.

 

[Susurrus]

I think that's fair as far as it goes. Unfortunately, none of the reasons you mention are the reasons I disliked the demo - and those reasons that I had seem to have gone to the core of the changes, and the core of the game itself.

Your reasons reflected your personal experience. They didn't necessarily go "to the core" of anything. This has been an ongoing problem in this thread, and in this debate in general. We have a lot of people saying "Yes, yes, I understand that this is only my opinion, but my opinion is RIGHT!".

You misread. The reasons I disliked the demo were some of the core design decisions of the game. That's why I don't like it, and that's why I didn't buy it. I didn't say necessarily that those are what is wrong with the game itself, objectively.