Dragon Age II has a 3.4/10 on Metacritic, WHY!?

Gammaj4

New member
Nov 18, 2009
212
0
0
I the short time of the demo I played, I found the controls to be at the worst kind of cross between a Torchlight and Elder Scrolls. In the end, I felt it was entirely unplayable.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
1- The game is very different from the first aka fan rage

2- The game on PC had a time lock so while console players could play, us PC fellows had to wait till 12am cali time. There was apparently a lot of rage on the forums about this to the point where Bioware was deleting threads.

3- Some of the DLC was on the disc already

I would say some of the above reasons, I only know #2 because my friend was raging over it, I ...decided to draw till the timer was up and play.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
danpascooch said:
[
Woah, text wall.

You bring up some good points, I actually didn't mind Mass Effect 2 so much though, I felt what they lost in exploration and inventory they gained in character development.

Well, there isn't really much of a give and take between character development/story and the gameplay elements. There isn't any reason why you can't have both, especially seeing as the two are frequently developed by seperate groups of coders. The guys designing the combat system for example are not the same people doing the voice acting, or making the cinematics. That's one of the reasons why there are such huge design teams involved.

There is no real reason why having voice actors record some decent quality in-character banter, in any way influanced the lack of an inventory system, reduction of the skill system, and transformation of the combat into a shooter when it comes to "Mass Effect 2". Especially seeing as the meat of the character development and storytelling still took place in areas seperate from where the combat and action was happening (ie shipboard conversations, and wandering around in space stations and such talking to people).

There are two reasons why we have seen "Mass Effect 2" and "Dragon Age 2" dumbed down as I pointed out. One is quite simply that the guys putting up the money probably demanded they do so to try and appeal to more casual gamers. Shooters generally outsell RPGs, even if RPGs are still a major market. An investor/producer wants the best possible returns, which is why you see so many attempts to try and hybridize these things. With the shooter market having more people, the development is of course directed to focus in that direction. The other reason is quite simply that "Bioware" has been juggling lots of balls in the air at once right now. Both the original "Mass Effect" and "Dragon Age" games were developed where the entire resources of a more focused team could be directed at them. "Dragon Age" in paticular was developed over a long period of time, which is one of the reasons why they said a lot of the enviroments showed their age. The less depth you put into the game, and the less control/understanding of what is going on with the mechanics that you give the players, the easier a game is to program. "Dragon Age 2" simply put has far less variables involved, and making it easier also means that people are going to spend less time trying to master mechanics to figure out their way past problems. "Mass Effect 2" in comparison was pretty much cake compared to a serious RPG, as shooters are much easier to design, no real numbers involved like "accuracy" to determine hits and misses make it a simple matter of aiming a recticle, the shooter mechanics also let them fudge things like damage, damage resistance, and the like.

The point here being that I don't think they simplified and dumbed down the rest of the game because they had to in order to "tell a better story with the cinematics". Heck, to be entirely honest there isn't even any good reason why voicework for the player character required them to cut down on the options. Games like "Saint's Row 2" demonstrated that they can have multiple voicetracks for the main character, and let you select the one you want. Albiet this DOES mean hiring some extra voice actors, or perhaps having some do double duty.

Probably the biggest excuse that can be made for Bioware, (other than talking about "selling out" to non-RPG gamers due to the demands of their producers) is their involvement with "Old Republic Online". They've hired a lot more people, diluting their original talent pool, and have most of their best talent focusing mostly on the 300+ million dollar project at the demands of their boss doubtlessly. That means that a lot of design corners are being cut. On a lot of levels acting like what we're seeing is the result of them "catering to a more profitable audience" let's them maintain some integrity as talented designers... compared to them simply not being able to do any better in their current state.

I wouldn't be surprised if despite some of the names involved, a lot of the things that gamers have been complaining about in Bioware's most recent single player games were actually crapped out by uncredited interns. "Ooops, well computing the stat variables on every member of the party having seperate armor locations, not to mention ensuring all of those models work with the armor textures is a lot of work and complicated. We'll cut down on the gear, and not let the NPCs wear armor to make it easier, and then claim it's to enhance the characterization if we're ever questioned".
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
I thought we already did this thread today. In fact I am fairly damn sure I already posted in a thread about the DA2 scores. Anyway it is probably the MW2 thing but regardless of how the people reacted it was important to keep them. So from what I can assume is Bioware has managed to alienate their fanbase somehow.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
People have different opinions about different things. If the game still interests you, then play it. Ya, a lot of reviewers were a tad bit lenient on it, but the game is probably still worth it.
 

Lexodus

New member
Apr 14, 2009
2,816
0
0
Brian Hendershot said:
Lexodus said:
The first game was 'too hard', and now they've changed the difficulty, they're bitching again. These people aren't worth listening to; they're practically bipolar, or just love having something to complain about (hipster scum).
Speaking for the hipster scum (not to be confused with guys who wear women's clothing cause it's cool mind you) we would like you to change your insult to either bunchy of bitchy PC elitist or bunch of whiny trolls. We don't want to be associated with such people. That is all.

Also, I am idk, six hours into the game and they only complaint I really have is Flemmeth's new look and the fact my companions can't wear armor persay.
But you can't be a hipster, you haven't finished your sentences with 'or whatever' and you haven't said 'Dragon Age used to be cool until everyone started liking it"! :p
But yes, the above would also work.
 

Saviordd1

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,455
0
0
danpascooch said:
I haven't had the chance to pick up my preorder of Dragon Age II yet, I plan on getting it later today, but I did look up some reviews, and while critics seem to love it, it has a user score of 3.4 on Metacritic.

Now I'm worried, the Metacritic user score is 3.4, which is so bad it's usually reserved for one of two cases:

1.) They did something specific to cause rage that results in spams of unfairly biased reviews (such as Modern Warfare 2's drop of dedicated servers)

2.) Only a few people reviewed it so far, and of them is an ass.

Well, 178 people rated the game, so it's not #2, and they aren't complaining about a specific nerd rage or single facet that caused hate (don't jump down my throat about my comment on MW2, it was just an example, I know dedicated servers are important but the majority of Metacritic user reviews about them read as if the change from dedicated servers murdered their parents), they are making broad statements about it being linear and bland. This does not bode well.

Does anyone have any explanation for this? Is the game really just crappy? I know Metacritic has some quirks but please don't just post saying Metacritic has no grounding in reality, 200 people don't just wake up and say "hey guys! You know what would be funny? If we all collectively pretended this particular game was terrible!"

EDIT: I think I have an explanation, it's possible that the people who absolutely hated it were motivated to immediately get on Metacritic out of rage, and that the more mild mannered people who are busy playing it right now either haven't gotten around to rating it yet, or don't plan to (believe it or not that logical explanation was given to me by a Gamestop clerk of all people, I guess there is hope for the world yet)
I'm going to guess they have the concerns that I do but like most idiots decided that they didn't need to play the game to take it as fact...idiots
 

Brian Hendershot

New member
Mar 3, 2010
784
0
0
Lexodus said:
Brian Hendershot said:
Lexodus said:
The first game was 'too hard', and now they've changed the difficulty, they're bitching again. These people aren't worth listening to; they're practically bipolar, or just love having something to complain about (hipster scum).
Speaking for the hipster scum (not to be confused with guys who wear women's clothing cause it's cool mind you) we would like you to change your insult to either bunchy of bitchy PC elitist or bunch of whiny trolls. We don't want to be associated with such people. That is all.

Also, I am idk, six hours into the game and they only complaint I really have is Flemmeth's new look and the fact my companions can't wear armor persay.
But you can't be a hipster, you haven't finished your sentences with 'or whatever' and you haven't said 'Dragon Age used to be cool until everyone started liking it"! :p
But yes, the above would also work.
Whatever man, I am so obscure that even hipsters haven't heard of me. Haha, I have yet to find out if that is a good thing or not though 0.o
 

Ridleyi

New member
May 20, 2010
7
0
0
Those reviews were there within 24 hours of the game's release.

It got zero bombed by trolls, that's all there is to it.
 

Manchubot

New member
Sep 9, 2010
95
0
0
I wouldn't immediately have gave it that low of a score, but after playing for 5 hours I give the game a 6/10. Whenever you take a game as wildly popular as Dragon Age, then make a sequel that's way different from the predecessor your going to get huge amounts of hate and love in pretty equal increments. I played the demo and disliked it so I made sure when I got my copy not to use any of the DLC codes that came with it so I was able to sell it to a friend who didn't pre-order it the signature edition for what I paid for it. The frequent issue I had with it was I very much disliked the pace upgrade it received. Sure the dialogue is nice, but I wouldn't have beat the game to finish the story I was intrigued about buried in a game I didn't wanna play at all which is why I never figured out the last 2/3 of Mass Effect 2.

I do admit to my 6/10 being out of disappointment otherwise I would probably give it a 7/10. I just felt the speed was of an unnecessary pace to the point of being silly with a greatsword swinging almost as fast as one can tap the X button. In combination with the over flashy animations which seemed so needless and took the fun out of the finishers at the end after seeing such a display like being given way to much cake and feeling sick at the end of it all (though I do give credit to the skill and time sunk of the dev team for the animations.)I just had a hard time taking the game very seriously and combat really just urked me the wrong way. In the end I just felt if I wanted to play an action rpg with alot more emphisis on the action I would have popped in Demon's Souls which would give more emphasis on various aspects of combat. I felt it was far more engaging then repeatedly tapping x button and adding in combos I just found myself playing with one hand on the controller and sighing while taking a look out of the window every once in awhile or getting up and stretching. I just didn't find the same satisfaction I did from overcoming the battles I had in Dragon Age 1 where I found myself using all the characters and constant rotations to keep me frantically busy with the style and flash at the end of the enemies life on occasion which made it all the sweeter.
 

icame

New member
Aug 4, 2010
2,649
0
0
Butthurt Fans of Outdated PC RPG's that complain when anything strays away from the same damn formula they love so much. A new art style? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THEN IT MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK NICE! IT MIGHT NOT LOOK GENERIC ! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Something has actually been done to make the combat exciting? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Damn I hate these kinds of people. Hard to know who many of them have actually played the fucking game.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
uanime5 said:
I didn't like DOA2's demo because the ogre kept killing me and I couldn't reduce the difficultly. Maybe this annoyed a lot of people as well.
The tricks is quite simple once you notice the new mechanic, you can run away from melee attacks, so using that to your advantage suddenly you can beat the entire demo with only 1 guy.
I'll go out on a limb here, I'm guessing you can pretty much beat the entire game that way aswell.

OT: People need to learn metacritic scores are useless, even the worst piles of dog dirt will get into the 70+ range, and with spamming fanboys the user scores are just pure random.
 

Turing

New member
Dec 25, 2008
346
0
0
I've put maybe 10 hours into it so far.
Gameplay mechanics ARE simpler than Dragon Age Origins, but thats not necessarily a bad thing.

So far its a very solid game, so far as I understand the game will span 10 years in Kirkwall and those 10 hours I've played I'm still in my first year, with lots of interesting sidequests.
 

Itsmemario

New member
Aug 13, 2010
15
0
0
First off I played Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2. I didn't like the first game very much, it felt a bit "stiff" and the plot seemed to move at a slow pace.

However Dragon Age 2 really improves and actually skips over the boring parts and gets you right in the action. There's always something to do and it's nicely made so that you're always gripped to see what happens next.

As for the battles there's clearly an element of strategy involved but the difficulty is rather "all over the place". I found myself easily taking down groups of 1-4 (or even bosses) much easier than I would take down a group of 20-30 less skilled individuals. That being said the new combat mechanics are very cinematic and less involving.

Personally if you want a good RPG this is it. It may not be the best, but what's there is nicely made, humorous and filled with good ideas. The implementation may need a fix, personally I had hoped for a more action oriented control scheme and I hope that in the future we will only control the main character and center the action more on him/her.

I'd say it's an above average game, if you want numbers I'd go for 8/10.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,461
0
0
Really?

Wow. And its not like spore were they all got angry about something not actually the fault of the game?

Odd.