Paying 60 bucks for a game without a level of polish expected by bioware? With day 1 DLC? With large parts of the games relegated to DLC?
The reuse of areas? Look, I know PSO was great, but in these days gaming companies might be able to afford more than a handful areas.
They also ever so slightly changed the art direction to something more lighthearted, for some reason...
Look, I could go on for a while, but it's a an average game if it hadn't been made by bioware, where it becomes not that great.
Clearly bioware isn't making RPGs that I like anymore and that's OK. I just won't buy them anymore instead of getting angry and thinking I'm entitled for them to make the games I want.
they start the game and you are awesome and it's fun but then the game tells you "that's not what happened, the game is not this good" and you get launched into the mediocrity of the first game...that's why I hate it.
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.
It's less that console players are dumb, but more about developers greatly underestimating the console gamer. Because there are so many "randoms", people who will pick up a game to just jump in and play but do not have the time/patience to learn a complex set of controls, the Developers seem to get this idea in their head that most people who play on an Xbox are dimwitted mouthbreathers. They then try to cater their games to this nonexistent majority. Then the gamers, who tend to gravitate towards PCs, feel screwed over when they pay 60 bucks for a game that insults their intelligence, which leads them to direct their aggression, wrongly, towards console gamers.
We shouldn't get pissed at the console gamers, we should get pissed at the Developers who think console gamers are retards. That attitude isn't helping anyone.
I guess if you're going to get angry at anyone, then you can really only get angry at the people who are making the games and who might have misjudged their market. But then I'd rather not get angry at all. there are so many angry people on the internet, if we actually sent a politely worded letter to the developers they'd probably be so shocked they'd make the changes immediately ;-P
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.
Its not "entitlement," any more then you feel entitled to be allowed to drive around in the new car you just payed a large amount of money to purchase. I purchased a PC GAME & what i got was a console game... Even though we were told it was a PC GAME.
If the console cannot keep up with the game, then they give up the right to possess it. Or at the very least make a PC version & then knock the corners off for the less powerful console market (like they did with Crysis 2). Its not fair to the people who payed a large amount of money for that product, to not recieve that product. I payed almost $100 AUD for this game (because the American market continue to fuck us over in game prices), only to find it was not a sequel to Dragon Age in any way shape or form.
And thats not cool. But the main problems outside of the game play i listed on the first page & no one has hit on any one of them except the use of the term consolization, which was a throw away statement at the end. Feel free to go back and take a look at what my complaints actually were.
Alright, but from your responses it doesn't seem like you feel that 'consolization' is a throwaway issue here...but whatever, you are allowed to have whatever general objections you like to DA 2 (or any other game), as we all do. My question (for which -sole- purpose I quoted your post) was simply seeking clarification about this whole 'dumbing down' issue. You gave your thoughts, I responded, and I think I understand what you wanted to say with your objection to 'consolisation' and what you see as 'dumbing down'. I don't agree with all of it, but such is life. At the end of the day, I just wish we didn't have to have this schism between 'console gamers' and 'pc gamers'.
EDIT: Oh, and I think if you check which country I'm from, you might find we actually have it even worse than you in terms of pricing...
I liked the game, my only complaint is that it feels like it would have been better if they had made it more like kingdom hearts if they wanted it to be all fast paced and involving and whatnot. The combat just seemed odd, a mixture of sorts that just didn't feel right. Kind of needlessly constricting.
The game is ...mediocre. At best. It's fun sometimes but had the firm who released it not been Bioware, it wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. The combat started out alright...I mean, it was less tactical for me since I tended to pick spells out of every line and was now restricted to only two branches of spells in order to get the powerful ones...but in the end it got tedious, boring and significantly less fun. And you couldn't really escape it since you were attacked by apostates, assassins and thugs while walking down the street to go to the bar.
The cooling off period was a killer...I could only use heal about once or twice per combat. I just used all of the spells then twiddled my thumbs until they came back again. I know the mage was overpowered but now it's just ridiculous.
Kirkwall was a bore. Complete bore. And the Hanged Man, for reputedly the best (and worst) tavern around...was quieter than society tea party. It was the details that made Baldur, it was the details that still shone, admittedly less bright, in DA:O and it was the details that lacked in this game. Fenris' Mansion still had corpses around after six years which made me inclined to believe he drew people around just to kill them. It made him a bit more interesting than the usual "Bah! Mages! Kill! Bah! Slavers! Kill! *grumbles*" so I went with that.
The characters were there just to hint to you "Yes, mages are nice.Look, I own a clinic / No, mages are bad! Look at Tevinter / Mages are good! I want to restore history! / Bad! Look at the chaos in the city!" ...in the end I just hung around with Varric who was the most normal of them all. The events seemed forced and you were pushed around in order to do them. By act 3 I had no moral, emotional or even need-based connection to what happened.
Also, while the wheel of dialogue was better than the ME one, you were still limited to about 4 answers. Which sometimes didn't say what I wanted to say. Hawke was amusingly snarky and mean but I wish I would have had more than 3/4 answers. And why doesn't anyone age? Or change clothes?! Kirkwall must smell awful...
I guess if you're going to get angry at anyone, then you can really only get angry at the people who are making the games and who might have misjudged their market. But then I'd rather not get angry at all. there are so many angry people on the internet, if we actually sent a politely worded letter to the developers they'd probably be so shocked they'd make the changes immediately ;-P
As someone else said, if you don't complain when you are fed shit, don't be surprised when all they feed you is shit. Bioware already knows we are unhappy & now we are just making sure they know how unhappy we are.
Only just saw this to reply to - apologies for not putting it on the previous reply.
If Bioware already knows how unhappy you are, what does throwing tantrums do, except possibly make them less inclined to indulge your requests or listen to your complaints? I agree that numbers are key in swaying a decision, but after that, a clear but calm request is better than an angry one.
I like the Game. The Combat no longer puts me to sleep, the game isn't unfairly difficult now, and The Graphics/Art style is pretty.
HOWEVER
The game centers too much around The Mages Vs Templars Conflict. It alienates a Hawke/Player playing as a Warrior or Rogue. Also Why is Blood Magic considered so evil? I mean yes it can be used for evil reasons (Mind Control and all that) but that can be said for ALL forms of Magic in Dragon Age. Also The Companions aren't nearly as well written. Your brother is a whiny *****, fenris is the worst Final Fantasy character ever and the female guard from the opening just kind does...stuff. Also your Rogue companions seem really underpowered. The game also picks really useless points to Autosave. Hell I'm at boss fight in the game right now that doesn't have a autosave in front of it - What idiot decided not to put an autosave point there?
By far my biggest problem is the Fact that your not the Warden. My character had a crap ton of loose ends to be tied up by the end of Witch Hunt! (DA1 SPOILERS AHEAD) Will I ever see Lealina again, am I still the Warden Commander, Did I leave my position as an advisor to Allistar, am I alive, What happened to my dog and my companions from witch hunt, does Flemeth come after me for killing her, where's my kid and what is morrigan doing with him, what happened to Zevran I had him agree to hang with me so where was he in Awakening and Witch Hunt, and who is commanding the Wardens in my absence?
All because Bioware wanted to turn DA2 into Mage Effect I didn't get ANY of these questions answered (At least not thus far - I'm only a tiny ways into DA2).
Fair warning: I won't respond to anyone who reply to my post just to avoid any assholes who want to spoil and ruin Dragon Age 2's story for me.
One last random comment about DA2's story:
Why does Hawke wait a year in Kirkwall before heading to the dalish camp to complete his end of the bargain with flemeth???
i liked the game. yeah it was'nt as epic as origins and they made some changes from that game i didn't like. like why cant i change the armor of my companions, and some of the darkspawn were changed visualy.
but on the other hand, i liked the way the story was told and i like the way it was more political. but it went not far enough.
I get that some PC gamers don't like the sequel to Dragon Age Origins, but compared to previous games by Bioware, and games by other companies, DA2 is by far a better game. Just because DA2 isn't better or as good as DA1 doesn't justify the hate. Relax, calm down, and get over it. The sky isn't falling, and PC gaming is going to be okay, trust me on that.
lets start with trivial, and work our way down to glaring: (spoilered for length, sub-spoilered for actual spoilers)
the players' combat animations; sword and board/ 2-handed were certainly too slow in origins, but now combat borders on JRPG/anime level in how effortlessly they swing 5-pound metal sticks and jump ten feet, mages fling around for no discernible reason and spend so long with the final attack in their combo that it often causes someone dying or a cross-class combo to be missed because i couldnt cast in time while hawke was spinning around like an idiot. this would be irrelevant, but combined with one looping combo instead of randomly playing and distinct animations, and you flinging around like an anime character while every enemy is restricted to normal, human levels of dexterity, the game starts giving that final fantasy effect; you know, where however cool a certain ultimate attack or whatever is, you really get sick of seeing it a thousand times every battle until it loses all coolness? every fight is like that after the prologue.
the gore. a very simple problem here; if everyone explodes from being tapped on the shoulder, exploding, and consequently every level of gore below it, becomes rather meaningless. whereas in origins you had simple deathblows, which were way gorier than anything in DA2 by the simple fact that they were rare. when 20 enemies in a row explode into blood, there really isnt much point in having blood if its practically a requirement of every fight to have something explode; we've nothing to aspire to with our kills, and killing an enemy becomes less satisfying than them falling into piles of blood and bones like in old-school RPGS.
the gameplay. oh, the actual gameplay itself is fine, it might even be improved...but id never know, because the actual fights are absolutely terrible. instead of just fighting a group of enemies that each pose their own challenge, you fight wave after wave of exploding idiots spawning from the god damn ether. origins had its moments where it felt like a dungeon was going on too long, but DA2 makes every. single. fucking. fight just as bad as a 4-level sewer level. enemies will spawn from thin air right next to your mages and kill them before you can possibly do ANYTHING about it, you never know how long a fight will go on for, you have no idea what to prepare for,and all strategy goes out the window as most fights in the game devolve into trial and error in the random fucking spawning, tediously killing a dozen worthless peons, and hoping assassins dont OHKO someone. on top of that, on the PC you HAVE to pause; not to issue any commands, but just to target the damn enemies, swinging the cursor back and forth in an effort to find whatever magical spot the game has designated as the target, usually having to click on some space of air that somehow the game thinks is an enemy.
the characters. they have no conflict with the player thanks to the rivalry system that replaces realistically mixed feelings about your various party members with a few dialogue changes before they sex you up. varric is the only mildly interesting one, then agian he is laid out from the opening cutscene to his every action and line of dialogue to be your friend, so its hard not to like him. fenris is a final fantasy protagonist, he has the physique, hair, weird clothing, and constant brooding, and is given a few instances of him doing/saying non-broody things in a very vain effort to balance his character, except they forgot to add anything likeable. isabella is a pirate slut, and thats about it. again bioware fails to with the very awesome premise of having a character that also houses an otherwordly creature, and anders is a one-trick pony who does NOTHING but whine about mages; there is seriously nothing else to his character (he is at least better than wynne). merrill is an idiot of titanic proportions, and it pains me how many people find her 'adorable'; niavety is one thing, bioware goes WAY too far with it and just makes her virtually blind to any sort of reality; she exhibits nothing but ignorance the whole game. as for the rest of your party, and frankly every other minor character, the game really leaves me liking nobody; it tries so hard to be 'dark' that there is no light; everyone is either an asshole or so perfectly balanced that they are perfectly boring, so why should i care about any one of them?
the story. suffice to say it has the same problem as the characters; making me care about nothing. again it tries so hard to make everything 'flawed' that it glaringly overwrites anything positive, and leaves me thinking, "well, this world is a piece of irredeemable shit no matter what i do". spoilers ensue.
templars versus mages? how more one-sided could that argument be? pretty much EVERY SINGLE MAGE other than you sister proves the chantry's point. orsino gets a major idiot ball moment where he decides, not that blood magic is needed to win, but that turning into a flesh monster and attacking your own allies will somehow help. and then for some god damn reason, the mages WHOSE SIDE YOUR ON attack you. every other mage is either an abomination or power mad, or stupidly about to get possessed merrill. or blowing up a church instead of maybe your actual enemies anders. or of course hawke, who no matter how you play them by merely progressing through the plot fucks up everything, which proves how apostates can be dangerous in so many other ways. the templars on the other hand turn on their insane leader, who is given the 'insaniy' excuse to remove all questions and doubt and other interesting character traits that would make meredith a sympathetic villian by just flat out making her agenda a case of the crazies. oh, and lyrium gives you super powers and the ability to animate statues now; i didnt know lyrium was actually kryptonite, which exhibits an ever increasing amount of nonsense abilities as the plot demands. and then of course we are given a non-ending where hawke 'disappears' presumably so bioware doesnt has to write them into DA3, because they again shot themselves in the foot by providing a cliffhanger to an immensely customizable hero that cant realistically be written into any form of sequel. same problem as ME2 where the main plot is a disjointed throwaway and everythings in the side-quests and characters; but i could not like these characters if i wanted to, so ultimately the plot of the game makes me feel the ONE THING no story should ever make you feel; nothing.
the combat somehow manages to be even more tedious than origins thanks to the waves of randomly spawning enemies, pointlessly overblown gore, and general PC port feel. the characters leave no impact. the story is one big circle down the drain of a crapsack world that never lets up to get me to actually care about it. the character progression is lacking, items are blatantly copied with the same names (the ever creative 'belt' is my favorite), same picture, merely different numbers, 2/3 of your inventory is trash because you cant even replace your party's armor while they retain the same look. there is no personal conflict that isnt contrived into the main plot, and it its efforts to create a morally gray world creates more of a morally black one that leaves me worried and caring about nothing. everything goes to complete shit no matter what you do, and your boring party has more importance than you do.
and up until now i havent even mentioned the same 2-3 maps used with no alterations save some rocks blocking off a path used for all the dungeons. well, thats may opinion, if you disagree, great, ill respect your opinion if you respect mine (asking for respect on the internet...stupid i know). i see the game as 1 step forward 3 steps back - more like a drunken wobble forward, listing sideways into the wall, and 3 steps back - but if you dont hold the same opinion of DA2, i dont consider you an idiot or a fanboy, so please refrain from trolling me if you feel differently; god knows its an argument that does not need to be repeated, im just answering the OPs question.
1.That the hawke family history made you kinda have to be a mage or you dont get the whole story
2.If you are be mage and do magic infront of templars they dont do anything -_-
3.All the clothes for the mage class should of just have been a t-shirt saying HI IM A MAGE because they are all mage looking cloths.
4. Even if i was a mage i felt like joining the templars not because every mage starts using blood magic its bloody anders bitching all the time about the injustice of mages and i swear he was like that in awakening.
but DAO story wasnt better than DA2 because it was just theres the darkspawn(orks) now fight even though DA2 isnt amazingly better but atleast more you can do with it.
I wondering who you will play in DA3 back to the greywarden or hawke because i'll like to play my dalish elf coz they have been really improved from DAO coz they actually stick out now in a crowd
Hmm let see, I liked Dragon Age 2, I finished it three times just to see all the different combos and 'story' but I didn't see it as a sequel, for me it was more along the lines of a rushed expansion pack.
Sure even when making a 'bad' game Bioware did an OK job, I just feel they gave up to much to cater for the console style of play and even tho combat can be faster sometimes and fun, it gets boring quick, not to mention the c/p scenery really annoyed the crap out of me.
For something that is considered a sequel story is kinda short and bland, location options omg not again please ... (If i see Kirkwall one more time I will kill myself). Companion options disappointed me.
Origins was much more thought out, challenging (even on normal until the patch) and felt like an RPG where your choices mattered, in DA2 I didn't get that feeling. (I mean camping enemy spawn points? O rly Bioware?)
Also Anders, ffs when did he turn into the whiny ***** from DA1? Whaa whaa poor mages poor mee wha haa! Seriously when I got the option to kill him I didn't hesitate one bit.
p.s. Guess Bioware working on SW: ToR has it's price...
@Frotality: I totaly agree. A lot of little things getting in the way of something that could have been good if they had spent less time messing with the engine & more time focusing on the story.
They barely had a year to ship it, there wasn't really time to do anything proper.
Clearly EA is pushing BioWare to make them a franchise like Activision's CoD... scary sh*t, and even scarier is the fact most people like this treatment.
I'm enjoying it so far. It's different to DA:O, and if I was expecting the sequel to be just like the first game then I might be a bit peeved. But I wasn't so I'm not.
If I had to grumble, I'd say I'm not as attached to the characters as I was in DA:O, though that might come with time. And I miss being able to talk to them whenever I want - having to wait until they decide to talk to me can be a little frustrating. I also kind of miss the equipment management of the first game, where I could chop and change everyone's gear at will. My biggest gripe would be that the Hold command doesn't always make people stay where they're meant to be - Varric in particular has a nasty habit of deciding to ignore me and go charging off into eleventy million enemies.
The boss fights and waves of enemies that cater to the 'consoles'? Actually, they remind me more of my time raiding in EverQuest than any of my console games. I was a bit surprised at first, and sometimes the relentless waves of bad guys spawning behind my defences grates my nerves a bit, but once I realised that was the direction the game was heading in, it was easy enough to adjust.
It's not my favourite RPG of all time, but neither is it a load of old bobbins. There is joy to be found there, if it's given a chance.
They dumbed it down for consoles and they reused the same maps over and over again.
But other than that, it was great. I loved the setting, the characters (especially Merrill) and way the story was told. They tried to be innovative in these areas instead of repeating what they did in DA: O and anyone who complains about them are just disappointment they didn't get a repeat of DA: O (and would you really have wanted that?)
Combat got a bit repetitive at times but not annoyingly so and I would have liked to see more of the Fade but those aren't major issues. It was a great game. Innovation is something that should be praised in this industry. Especially when done well as it was in Dragon Age. I swear, the gaming industry fanbase is nearly impossible please. When developers spew out brown CoD replicas you scream "Stop doing the same thing" but when they do something innovative you throw a tantrum.
The combats pretty boring. Having enemies pop up behind your archers and mages constantly removes any tactical thought because they die so quickly its not worth moving them, better to leave them and have them deal with the threat themselves.
The endless vanish system didn't help either, be better if cunning was a score like it was last time to see things in stealth, after all, its uses are pretty low as is.
The characters well... weak, did i care that such and such left? not in the slightest. Does it matter i cant use XYZ any more? no. Do i feel like i betrayed any of my characters when i chose to do something? not really...
Not when putting alistair to death in DA:O made you atleast think it was a harsh choice. I didnt even like him, yet i still cared that one of my team was being taken from me. the characters this time are just meh, nothing really outstanding or particularly amazing about any of them. The arishok was a stronger character than about half the party. And he's in it for what? 20mins screen time max? thats how bad it is.
First I do think DA2 was a good game, I do however also agree with almost all cons that people have against it. (Or those that liked origins anyway)
I think DA2 missed a lot of the RPG feeling that Origns had going. Though I liked my male quirky Hawke, I would rather have had him as a companion and the main character a blank sheet and pref one without a voice. The reused maps where somewhat annoying and I do feel that the combat was dumbed down.
no, you are trying to pick a fight, fanboy style over which system is better. Were as i'm saying if you are going to make a PC game, make a fucking PC game. Do not make a console game, for the PC. Its no different then if Sony started making playstation FPS games, that not only required the use of a keyboard & mouse, but the entire game was based on there use.
I only just recently got back into the RPG thing after about a 20 year absence. And while I play them on a console, I can easily see why there's a lot of anger about the switch-over from PCs.
With FPS, it mostly came down to less precise aiming and a different weapon switching mechanic (the other changes happened for other reasons, not that it was on a console). Far Cry & Crysis are both PC exclusives that utilize a lot of the so-called changes brought about by the consoles, including recharging shields; and it's embraced by PC fans.
RPGs seem to be much more menu driven, so switching from PC to console is a much more fundamental shift. With the console market being more potentially lucrative (unless your game is a MMO) means that a lot of simplification is going to happen... and people used to a much more complex and rich system are going to find console-oriented offerings to be lacking.
Just as we make a distinction between Western and Japanese RPGs, I think we'll probably see a distinction arise between console and PC RPGs. I think taken on their own terms, a console RPG is a good experience, but as they refine the system for console play, it's going to drift further and further away from its PC roots.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
