dragon age 2 whats with all the hate?

[Waaghpowa]

If you don't believe me find a friend with the first game on PC & then try it, compare it to the PS version. Its a completely different game.

This is correct, I first played Dragon age 1 on ps3 and I thought it was good. Then I played the PC one, never touched the console version since and played it more times through.

 

[Pietato]

I heavily dislike Dragon Age 2.
I have not played the full game. For all I know, it could have a wonderful story and the greatest combat system this side of Dwarf Fortress.
I did, however, play the demo for Dragon Age 2.
In the demo, you are not allowed to use your inventory.
And that's when I stopped playing the demo, uninstalled it, and decided to never look back.

 

[Smooth Operator]

The game was a rush job, and it really shows.
And when you put it next to DA:O it feels like a small expansion pack, but it's sold as a triple A title at full price... maybe you can guess why people got upset.

The really troubling thing is not more people get upset, clearly showing BioWare they can just do yearly stamp outs at full price and make the same money, probably even more.
So you are responsible for the decreasing game quality, if you eat the sh*t without question then sh*t is what they will feed you.

 

[justnotcricket]

--

The idea isn't that console gamers are less intelligent, but that they're "Casual" in the sense that they're not enthusiasts like pc gamers are, it's not just about the games but also the Tech. Consoles are intended to be convenient and so a lot of people who play them don't want to have to invest the time.

for pc gamers it's a hobby. The assumption is that people buying consoles just want a time waster.

Oh, that's a shame =( It's probably true for some console gamers, but what about the people who use their PC solely to play solitaire and bejeweled? (Nothing against those games or the people who play them, but I'm guessing they fit into this 'casual' bracket). I consider (console)gaming to be one of my hobbies, and although I can't trick my console out like a PC enthusiast can, I don't think it makes me any less of a games enthusiast. A hardware enthusiast maybe, but that's not really the issue when you're talking about core gameplay is it?

 

[SteveeVader]

Well after finishing it this weekend I kinda do not know what is with the hate.

YES they took some elements from mass effect 2 like interface and combat BUT the combat in ME2 was pretty freaking flawless so if it's not broke don't bother trying to fix it.

My main gripe is THE PLOT it certainly was not bad at all pretty fab and knowing that my home girl flemyth is still alive is more awesome. Characters were very good with excellent voice casting Eve Myles as Merril is just genius and really helps define Dalish/Elven imagery. But my key issue with the plot is where it fits overall. I think I understand that possibly a secret order is trying to remerge and the heroes of Feradin and Kirkwall and other region possibly Orlais will reunite in DA3.

It shows though how bioware can certainly handle the 3 act system and do it rightly because it might pay off for DA 3

overall DA 2 for me is easily a 9 / 10/10 just because it has energy and is not generic like herp derp shooters nowadays nice to play a reliable RPG

 

[justnotcricket]

OK...but how is removing one spell 'dumbing' something down?

Sorry, but i htink you'll find he was using that as an example. What he's getting at is as you lose particular features of the technology, you also lose any built in gameplay features that will be built onto it. So thats why we went from a game where you had 20+ abilities to one where you could have 9. You also went from a game where tactical combat took both the WASD moevement keys & the mouse command keys to a game where you must stop and pause for the PS3 & so they made the game into one lacking the tactical edge so controller using systems could play without lose of functionality. Hence it was dumbed down for the console & console play. If you don't believe me find a friend with the first game on PC & then try it, compare it to the PS version. Its a completely different game.

But...you still haven't explained why that makes it 'dumber'. Isn't a game with fewer abilities more challenging because you have to plan a bit more carefully what you choose? (I'm not saying it's *better*, just not easier). How is any tactical edge actually *lost* because you have to pause the game and distribute commands to your party? Once again, not saying it's more *comfortable* or *efficient*, I just don't see how it is, ultimately, less functionally effective. Hell, when Dragon Age Origins came out, I saw some PC screen caps, and was envious of the more top-down view you could have, and the greater (mouse-induced) freedom you could have over selecting one or more party members, but I fail to see how making the control system less intuitive and more awkward is actually making for less of a challenge. I repeat: I don't support making control interfaces less comfortable, but neither do I see it as a reason to insult the intelligence or, uh, gamer integrity (?) of console gamers. Console gaming does not require less dexterity or intelligence than PC gaming. They're two different molded plastic and metal boxes with two different molded plastic input devices. Different skills are needed to use each. While I can totally understand that PC gamers would be unimpressed with a loss of PC-style control, I still can't see how that makes the game any *less* challenging, even if it makes it harder in perhaps the wrong ways.

 

[Waaghpowa]

--

Game play can, and has, been limited by hardware. As stated by another poster on this thread using the example of persistent bodies, removing them means removing an element of game play, that being the raise dead spell.

Crysis 2 is another of the the most recent games to be hindered by hardware limitations. Things like Field of view and lower player limits in multiplayer (16 player limit, which the original had double or more). Granted I still like the game, but it falls short of what it's original pc exclusive predecessor had.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

The only major problems I have with Dragon Age 2 are as follows:

1. The fire looks like it was drawn in with highlighters. Do not like.

2. Remodeling the darkspawn was totally unnecessary. In my opinion, they looked 50x better in Origins...especially the Ogres..........

3. The fact that most of the dungeons are re-used MANY MANY MANY MANY times. They got old. Fast.

4. Dragon Age 2, from my perspective, really did not feel like a sequel to Origins. It had little, if anything to do with Origins itself. Sure it had many elements from Origins, like the chantry, mages and demons, the Circle, Templars, and darkspawn. But I just feel like this game had almost nothing to do with Origins in itself, other than a little bit of a change in backstory.

Other than that, I really liked Dragon Age 2. I wish they could have done more with the Qunari than they did. The combat was fast paced and fun, which was a refreshing change from the battle system in Origins. However, there are aspects of damage calculation in Origins that I do wish were carried into DA2, like Armor Penetration for example. I couldn't give a crap what my DPS was. There are some obvious flaws, but looking past them, DA2 is a good game in itself.

 

[Eltarsin]

Console Boss Fights
Stupid multipronged console style boss fights. I only recall a single boss fight where at some point the boss didn't vanish from the battle field, leaving you to fight minions as they shot at you from safety.

Um... there is perfectly reasonable explanation for this. If the bosses actually stayed on the field all the time they would... die way too fast for you to even notice they classified as bosses.

2)The lack of balance in the leveling system. I sort of feel that this game punishes you if you wanted to try and make a truly stat-balanced character. Now, I know you don't need to, and that is why it isn't a huge issue, but I did feel that, as a rogue, I was almost *forced* to dump all my points into CUN and DEX just so I could have half a shot at opening the locked chests. I *know* that you don't need high CON and STR as a rogue, because you're not tanking, but a little more room to put points into WIL and CON would have been nice. And yes, I realise I could have just gone nuts on the CUN attribute of Varric or Isabela and used them, but it would have meant I had to cart around a bizzarely spec'd character through every quest in case there was a locked chest in it.

"Bizzarely spec'd"?... You do know that if you dump enough points into Cunning you can make your rogues virtually impossible to hit, right? On a normal difficulty at any rate... The thing with rogues is that if you follow the not so subtle guidelines and do create a Dex/Cun character you end up with a almost ultimate killing machine, the ability to open locks is just an added bonus.

As for the game itself I would say it's not a bad game but one that clearly shows that its been rushed. It has a potential but in many cases fails to fully realize it and in some cases seems to show lack of simple playtesting[1].

[1] I mean, really. The wave mechanic? I guess, it's to prolong and make fights a bit tougher? But in many cases it actually makes fights a lot easier. For example, the only way to stop my rogues was to stun him and some bosses have attacks that do just that but... said attacks also have a dead give-away animations and as long as you won't be able to run away from them quite fast enough normally, it's ridiculously easy to just target some bloke that just spawned on the other end of the room and hit backstab to teleport out of the way of the stunning atack... Something some playtesting would pick out quite easily I imagine.

 

[justnotcricket]

--

Game play can, and has, been limited by hardware. As stated by another poster on this thread using the example of persistent bodies, removing them means removing an element of game play, that being the raise dead spell.

Crysis 2 is another of the the most recent games to be hindered by hardware limitations. Things like Field of view and lower player limits in multiplayer (16 player limit, which the original had double or more). Granted I still like the game, but it falls short of what it's original pc exclusive predecessor had.

Alright, but is that really console gamers' fault? You could maybe fault the developer for not being bothered to make the adjustments necessary for the console game, but leave the features in the PC version - I mean this particularly in the example of DA at hand; with the differing tactical control mechanics. Console gamers didn't collectively *ask* the developer to make the PC version 'less functional', or to put it less combatively, the same as the console version - well, I know I certainly didn't. I guess console gamers would be unhappy if the PC gamers got the raise dead spell and they didn't because the versions were different, but all I'm saying is that there must be middle ground, like it seems there was in the first DA? I.e. raise dead unfortunately has to go, but PC gamers still get tactical mechanics that suit the mouse and keyboard, while console gamers get tactical mechanics that suit the controller. If DA: O had this (more or less, which is why PC gamers are complaining about DA 2) then it can't be impossible to do.

 

[justnotcricket]

2)The lack of balance in the leveling system. I sort of feel that this game punishes you if you wanted to try and make a truly stat-balanced character. Now, I know you don't need to, and that is why it isn't a huge issue, but I did feel that, as a rogue, I was almost *forced* to dump all my points into CUN and DEX just so I could have half a shot at opening the locked chests. I *know* that you don't need high CON and STR as a rogue, because you're not tanking, but a little more room to put points into WIL and CON would have been nice. And yes, I realise I could have just gone nuts on the CUN attribute of Varric or Isabela and used them, but it would have meant I had to cart around a bizzarely spec'd character through every quest in case there was a locked chest in it.

"Bizzarely spec'd"?... You do know that if you dump enough points into Cunning you can make your rogues virtually impossible to hit, right? On a normal difficulty at any rate... The thing with rogues is that if you follow the not so subtle guidelines and do create a Dex/Cun character you end up with a almost ultimate killing machine, the ability to open locks is just an added bonus.

Oh, I know...I just would have liked the *opportunity* to balance my character specs. Knowing that you can just pour all your points into DEX and CUN and become invincible makes it a bit too linear for me. Hm, that sounded arrogant =S. I just mean that I like to be able to customise my character a bit more, so that I'm not locked into the same 'assassinate' routine all the time. And I must be playing on hard or something cos pouring points into CUN doesn't seem to make my character exactly 'unhittable'. Also some more WIL would have been nice. Rogues are a bit broken in DA 2...but still fun. Plus if I play as a rogue I feel obligated to choose all the 'joking' (rogueish, f you will?) dialogue choices, which makes for some entertaining conversations. =D

 

[Ravison]

The issue really is the fact that when you want a game in a series that originally ran on the PC, which has, what, 50 keys? not to mention any location on the screen where you can click with the mouse using 2-20 mouse buttons? to run on a console, which last I checked has something like, 8 buttons, the D pad and a couple joysticks, the experience is going to be completely different. For an RPG like Dragon Age, the controls on a console requires a completely different style of game, where everything is easily controlled with simply buttons and joysticks.

The problem with this is that Dragon Age: Origins is a game that plays more like World of Warcraft than Jak and Daxter. Both games are fine in their own right, but making a sequel to a game that was originally designed for the significantly more flexible control scheme of a PC which is designed for the more limited controls of a console, and then porting it back to the PC and telling the fans of the first game that it's comparable is just bound to hack people off.

Honestly, the PC/console dichotomy is a lot like having an amphibious airplane or a boat, making a really epic boating area and trying to sell tickets to the airplane pilots. Sure, the boat will probably be able to go faster, but the extra cost and capabilities of the airplane is wasted when it's stuck in two dimensions.

 

[Madkipz]

http://s13.directupload.net/images/110310/96mlcvdl.jpg

sums it up quite nicely, i mean its not like you cant visit the bioware forums and join the thousand of fanboy defenders.

Does not change the fact that the game is mediocre at best. Heck if not for the Dragon age name, it would be considered worse than Two Worlds.

Thing is your title is missleading, you are asking why all the hate? Because a sequel is supposed to build on the good and improve the bad. I agree combat is more fluid, but id rather fight loghain than the Arishok.

Why? because its not a retarded 30 minute console mash.
Same thing with reinforcements, while combat is sluggier in DA:O it is considerably faster because it does not have reinforcement mechanics or elite guys with millions of hp.

Reused maps and textures is so prevalent in this game even GREG who gave it a solid 10/10 comments on it.

its trying to be half a hack n slash rpg and half oldschool Combat RPG like baldurs gate, its just leaning on the hack n slash side of things more now and that is closer to its true nature, they would get more fans if they just fully made it a hack n slash rather than appease both yet please nobody.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I've been playing it for two weeks, and I'm guessing I'm about halfway through it. I can definitely understand why some people feel it's weaker than Origins, but the score-bombing that occurred during the first days of release is completely unjustified. A lot of those people probably had that opinion worked out in advance, and are now actually playing through the game as we speak, despite convincing themselves that it's terrible. The entire thing reminds me of Comic Book Guy after the 'Cosmic Wars' movie: "Worst Cosmic Wars ever. I will see it only three more times...today."

Personally, I think it's more fun, but less immersive. And full of a number of astoundingly stupid design and story decisions that are offset by the huuuuuuge number of quests.

 

[Waaghpowa]

--

Game play can, and has, been limited by hardware. As stated by another poster on this thread using the example of persistent bodies, removing them means removing an element of game play, that being the raise dead spell.

Crysis 2 is another of the the most recent games to be hindered by hardware limitations. Things like Field of view and lower player limits in multiplayer (16 player limit, which the original had double or more). Granted I still like the game, but it falls short of what it's original pc exclusive predecessor had.

Alright, but is that really console gamers' fault? You could maybe fault the developer for not being bothered to make the adjustments necessary for the console game, but leave the features in the PC version - I mean this particularly in the example of DA at hand; with the differing tactical control mechanics. Console gamers didn't collectively *ask* the developer to make the PC version 'less functional', or to put it less combatively, the same as the console version - well, I know I certainly didn't. I guess console gamers would be unhappy if the PC gamers got the raise dead spell and they didn't because the versions were different, but all I'm saying is that there must be middle ground, like it seems there was in the first DA? I.e. raise dead unfortunately has to go, but PC gamers still get tactical mechanics that suit the mouse and keyboard, while console gamers get tactical mechanics that suit the controller. If DA: O had this (more or less, which is why PC gamers are complaining about DA 2) then it can't be impossible to do.

I never meant to imply that it was the fault of the console gamers. The fault is part developer for not tailor making a game per platform but rather copy pasting it, and the other part is with consoles themselves by simply being restrictive hardware, therefore limiting certain elements of game play. As fearful as some people are about the PC version of Deus ex, I'm at least optimistic that the fact that another studio is devoting their time to the PC version could actually turn out good because they're not splitting their attention and making a single game to run across all platforms.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

I've played DA2 for a good 6-8 hours now, and I believe I can answer.
- Boring and unengaging story
- Extremely limited and repetitive environments
- Companions that bored me to tears
- Bullshit new combat. Not only is the "wave" system ridiculous "onoes enemies just pop out from everywhere when you think you've taken them all", which once happened like 4 times in one fight. It wouldn't be so bad if everyone above "standard grunt" didn't have insane amounts of HP that, by gosh, my feeble mage just can't widdle down with an Etched staff, 21 magic, fireball and Pyromancy. And I breezed through Origins on Hard.

Those are the main reasons, for me, and I won't be playing it all the way through. Good job, BioWare, making even a hardcore fan hate the game. I really wanted to like it.

 

[justnotcricket]

--

Game play can, and has, been limited by hardware. As stated by another poster on this thread using the example of persistent bodies, removing them means removing an element of game play, that being the raise dead spell.

Crysis 2 is another of the the most recent games to be hindered by hardware limitations. Things like Field of view and lower player limits in multiplayer (16 player limit, which the original had double or more). Granted I still like the game, but it falls short of what it's original pc exclusive predecessor had.

Alright, but is that really console gamers' fault? You could maybe fault the developer for not being bothered to make the adjustments necessary for the console game, but leave the features in the PC version - I mean this particularly in the example of DA at hand; with the differing tactical control mechanics. Console gamers didn't collectively *ask* the developer to make the PC version 'less functional', or to put it less combatively, the same as the console version - well, I know I certainly didn't. I guess console gamers would be unhappy if the PC gamers got the raise dead spell and they didn't because the versions were different, but all I'm saying is that there must be middle ground, like it seems there was in the first DA? I.e. raise dead unfortunately has to go, but PC gamers still get tactical mechanics that suit the mouse and keyboard, while console gamers get tactical mechanics that suit the controller. If DA: O had this (more or less, which is why PC gamers are complaining about DA 2) then it can't be impossible to do.

I never meant to imply that it was the fault of the console gamers. The fault is part developer for not tailor making a game per platform but rather copy pasting it, and the other part is with consoles themselves by simply being restrictive hardware, therefore limiting certain elements of game play. As fearful as some people are about the PC version of Deus ex, I'm at least optimistic that the fact that another studio is devoting their time to the PC version could actually turn out good because they're not splitting their attention and making a single game to run across all platforms.

I wish it could be possible to tailor make games to platforms, but I suppose the developers would say it was too expensive =S We can dream, though, right?

 

[dyre]

I was pretty horrified at the reviews of DA2, and I considered not even playing it, but after completing the game (in about 30 hours or so), I must say I'm confused where all the hate comes from.

A few problems with the game
1. Lack of customization - ok, a bit annoying, but I can get over that. Customization basically only meant a different intro act and a few changes in dialogue in DA:O
2. Lack of character interaction - probably the biggest problem. I like the Mass Effect series over the Dragon Age series, but one thing I've always valued in DA:O is the massive amount of dialogue you could access with each character.
3. Copy/pasta dungeons - yeah, w/e. It's annoying, but it's not too big a deal in the first playthrough
4. Ending - uh, some closure would be nice...I guess that's what DLCs are for?

But otherwise, the story improved (I liked how instead of the typical "go to these 3 cities and deal with 3 problems" sort of deal, DA2 slowly builds a main conflict over the several acts, and the climax was pretty goddamn climactic), the combat was smoother (albeit a bit too easy. Haven't tried nightmare mode, but I don't usually do second playthroughs, so...), and voice acting was a nice touch. The Friendship vs Rivalry thing was interesting, but I'm not sure why being a jerk and being a rival is treated the same way in the game

 

[Nomanslander]

Well, imagine how pissed off most Halo players were when they bought Halo Wars without reading the back of the box to find out it's a damn RTS....0o

 

[justnotcricket]

Alright, but is that really console gamers' fault? You could maybe fault the developer for not being bothered to make the adjustments necessary for the console game, but leave the features in the PC version.

Actually no. Crysis 2 could not keep up hardware wise on consoles. So again this is a hardware issue. But don't worry the PC PVP was ruined by cheating players all using aim bots. I saw a guy not using an aim botthe other day i confronted him about it & he said "oops, forgot to turn it on, LOL."

I guess console gamers would be unhappy if the PC gamers got the raise dead spell and they didn't because the versions were different, but all I'm saying is that there must be middle ground, like it seems there was in the first DA?

Why must there be a middle ground? do i not get to purchase a good car, because you can't afford a good car... An how come you can purchase a good car & when i can't afford to? Or did you not notice that PC gamers constantly get fucked over in console to PC ports. Ghostbusters no PVP in PC, crappy controls (Demonstone, Spiderman Shatter Dimensions, etc), lost content for no reason, no port at all, limited release to the PC version (Transformers: War for Cybertron which still has not been released on PC in Australia).

As i said before if Bioware is going to make a PC game, make a fucking PC game. Do not make a console game on the PC. Its a waste of time & a waste of resources... specifically my resources.

-M

To mix metaphors: if you object to my car budget impinging on your car choices, then don't buy any game that was made cross-platform. If you can't buy the car that I can afford to, then get a console and enjoy whichever version of whatever is better.

I seriously believe there is a middle ground, even if it's some sort of state of each game having advantages and disadvantages that are not dependent on the other versions. Like OK, the PC game can have the raise dead spell because the PC (well, any PC more powerful than a console?) can handle the bodies, but the console game gets some other spell that has the same damage result/benefit to the player but does not rely on processing power. And each game gets the appropriate tactical interface. I guess the developers will cry '$$$..Impossible!...$$$' though, so it looks like we're stuck for the moment.

Believe it or not, I can understand your annoyance at what you feel is a game that has been trimmed to fit another frame. If I could play new games on my PC, I'd probably feel the same way. The only thing I've never understood about this whole debate is the use of 'dumbing down'. People have given me good answers as to why they feel sad and disappointed that their PC game has had corners cut on it to make it fit onto consoles, but not why this in any way reflects on the intelligence or skill of the console gamer. Like you said, it's a hardware issue. Perhaps you don't see console gamers as less intelligent, but this prejudice seems to go had in hand with this debate. Just like console gamers retaliating with 'entitled PC elitist', the whole thing reeks of people blaming and insulting other people for stuff that is not their fault.