Dragon Age II Review

[Warachia]

If the game fails to stimulate your mind, I have no idea what would, the game offers numerous outcomes for several sidequests, some end up affecting the main quest, what you say and do has a much larger impact than any other game made by Bioware, so I fail to see why you seem to imply it is nothing more than go here and kill this.

Also, kill animations aren't new, the first game had them, and more of them.

It is the the process this game and this genre has submitted itself to, that is annoying me, the slow decay of the standard of what a game can demand and is expecting from its recipient.
I have no problem if a game is made more consumer friendly if it changes the parts that rely on luck, reflexes etc. But if they take the parts away that rely on calculation, patience, planning and strategy that is something i cannot tolerate.

A Computer RPG in contrast to a Tabletop RPG is defined in its perception by its gameplay mechanism, more precisely its combat mechanism (and not the world immersion, storytelling etc.). And this is exaclty where every major game made huge concessions in order to make the extra cash. The blending of Action Adventure and RPG is leaving the RPG Genre as a shadow of its former self. Today RPG Elements (skill system etc) are included in nearly every genre. But the defining aspect of tactical combat (in the best case a sophisticated turn-based system), deep character and party customization are increasingly geared to a simplistic experience. You cannot make a great game when you try to appeal to two different ends of a pole.

DA2 (like DAO, ME and the other current big budget RPG's in that regard) is a good game but not a great one it could have been if it had decided what it wanted to be. And compared to its self-proclaimed roots it defenitly lacks the basics of an old school Computer RPG (and those include if you like it or not the numbercrunching, micro-managment and slow paced tactical combat). For me a game has no right to label itself a Computer RPG if the core of the gameplay is an Action Adventure with a MMO UI slapped on, even if the dialogue, writing and characters are well made.

The game does have luck planning and strategy, just turn the diffuculty up and you'll need plenty of each.

Aside from that, NOW I see where you are coming from, but it seems to be that this isn't your kind of game in particular, as opposed to the game being bad, for me the most improtant thing is writing, when you imply the game is not mentally stimulating I thought you were reffering to the story and character choices, not the combat.

While this might not help, try the pc version, or at least look it up, they tried to keep that one as close to DA:O as much as they could, including an auto attack, so you don't need to mash a button, and more tactical based combat.

 

[Warachia]

If the game fails to stimulate your mind, I have no idea what would, the game offers numerous outcomes for several sidequests, some end up affecting the main quest, what you say and do has a much larger impact than any other game made by Bioware, so I fail to see why you seem to imply it is nothing more than go here and kill this.

[snip]

This isn't a new thing in gaming. The fact that Bioware has only just done it means diddily squat to non-Bioware fans. Sidequests with alternate endings doesn't make for good story telling either.

Give us another example of DA2's excellent story telling.

How about side quests that affect your characters, character developement and what those characters think of you and the world around them not by the events in one side quest but in several that involve that NPC, and can even affect the main ending of the game and the epilogue aside from choices made in the main game.

Heres an example of how to do a sidequest well, you finish a quest, it says quest complete, but you remember there was something earlier in this quest that people mentioned but nobody followed up on, so you go back there, following up on your own without any clues given to you by the game, and suddenly when you ask questions, you are given a new mission, and whether or not you found this mission will have implications of what happens later.

A final point, bringing different party members with you to different locations can affect what happens in the area, an example would be Fenris and the Arishok, and what you ask them at that time will lead to new dialogue choices later that you otherwise would not have gotten.

 

[seraphy]

Oh wow. How did you miss enemies spawning out of thin air? Reused areas? Lack of diplomacy?
You seem to have ignored every bad design choice that they threw on this game.
Just odd.

 

[Perfice]

I can't wait for this game. I'm getting it tomorrow bitches! I played the console version of Origins and while I loved it the downfalls of the console version tended to get me down it also made me sad that I had to play on Casual that's just insulting. When I get Dragon Age 2 Imma gonna be a mage! I cast flare bitches!

You are calling it: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.


So it falls flat on its face on actual gameplay? that bad huh?

I feel like you were trying to make a joke but either I didn't get it or it wasn't funny.

inventory / gear management: gone
talents and abilities: linear and streamlined.
the mass effect wheel: top is paragon, middle is stupid and bottom is renegade.
Amount of pausing the game during a fight or putting actual thought into anything other than who you want to be friends with: 0
So basically anything that required you to do something is gone, its now an interactive movie with choice. Not much of a game.

Not that i dont mind movies nor complain but to call it the pinnacle of rpgs is an insult to baldurs gate. ^_^

Lol, people take things so friggin personal, it's hilarious.

 

[Perfice]

Oh wow. How did you miss enemies spawning out of thin air? Reused areas? Lack of diplomacy?
You seem to have ignored every bad design choice that they threw on this game.
Just odd.

In the words of Yatzhee, I suppose they 'misinterpretted their own opinion.'

 

[Crystalite]

Oh wow. How did you miss enemies spawning out of thin air? Reused areas? Lack of diplomacy?
You seem to have ignored every bad design choice that they threw on this game.
Just odd.

In the words of Yatzhee, I suppose they 'misinterpretted their own opinion.'

I really don´t think that is the issue here.
Ok, probably for some it is, but anyway.
The issue is not that he liked the game. Heck, I love it! But that does not make the flaws non-existent or irrelevant. When reviewing a title, much comes down to opinion. But it is (in my opinion at least ;-)) the task of a reviewer to cover as many aspects of the game as possible.
And if it does not bother him that the leveldesign, i.e. the repetition is pretty awfull and tedious, that should honestly not hinder him saying that.

That said, the reactions in this thread are very much a surprise to me, anyway.
Who buys a game based on one review and then shouts at the reviewer!? I bought the game based on no review, at launch, and hence live with the flaws, and guess what: I live very well with myself without anyone to blame!

 

[Crystalite]

Excellent storytelling? Did the reviewer beat this game and/or how much did EA pay him?
There's no way in hell he played through to the endgame.

Ah yes, while I´m at it:
There is a significant difference between storytelling and the actual story that is told.
The story ends in nowhere, one of the most dissapointing cliffhangers I know, and up to that is... well... I could not bring myself to care all that much, I must say.

How it is told, however, is pretty original and unique. How many games do you know with a framed narrative that actually have an unreliable narrator?
I loved how the narrators perception, embelishment and a fair share of wishfull thinking coloured what we see and play.

Also: Show of hands who saw the final twist coming?
No, thats not a spoiler, there is always some final twist.
It certainly had my jaw drop, if maybe not in a very good way.
*insert creative curse words*

 

[Perfice]

Oh wow. How did you miss enemies spawning out of thin air? Reused areas? Lack of diplomacy?
You seem to have ignored every bad design choice that they threw on this game.
Just odd.

In the words of Yatzhee, I suppose they 'misinterpretted their own opinion.'

I really don´t think that is the issue here.
Ok, probably for some it is, but anyway.
The issue is not that he liked the game. Heck, I love it! But that does not make the flaws non-existent or irrelevant. When reviewing a title, much comes down to opinion. But it is (in my opinion at least ;-)) the task of a reviewer to cover as many aspects of the game as possible.
And if it does not bother him that the leveldesign, i.e. the repetition is pretty awfull and tedious, that should honestly not hinder him saying that.

That said, the reactions in this thread are very much a surprise to me, anyway.
Who buys a game based on one review and then shouts at the reviewer!? I bought the game based on no review, at launch, and hence live with the flaws, and guess what: I live very well with myself without anyone to blame!

I can understand that, you do need to put in the flaws of a game and try to make it as unbiased as possible so the reader can decide whether they're going to enjoy it on their own. If this was his point that I'm sorry for misinterpreting.

However, there are a large number of people whom seem to get angry by the fact that a game they had a low opinion of had gotten a good rating. It's like they believe the game creators were personally trying to piss in their cereal and say 'See, I can make a game you hate and still pull in a million-person fan-base.' This happens especially with many EA games I've seen, like the publishing company just Loves to personally piss off 'hardcore' gamers in their mind.

I agree with you, I don't think I've ever bought a game after reading a review for it. Usually I buy it from reading the back of the game case and looking at the cover and I'm hardly disapointed.

If he had posted in a way that seemed calm and informative, just stating the fact there was hardly any discrediting aspects in the review, I'd understand. However, his post seemed like he was personally angry that anyone had thought the game deserved a good review at all.

That's why I was saying you shouldn't accuse people of misinterpreting their own opinion on a game.

 

[citizenerased0]

First time poster. I am a longtime browser of Metacritic and arrived at this review in curiosity of the 100 score given by this publication.

I am a video gamer of 25 years and an aficionado of games on both consoles and PC's (since the days of Dragon Warrior and Betrayal at Krondor). I have played all the Bioware classics from Torment, BG1&2, NVN, even MDK (remember that one?) While I have not played Dragon Age 2 I am shocked at the resistance to this game by fellow legions of hardcore RPG fans. There MUST be something terribly wrong with this game when an entire community revolts as what is taking place on Metacritic.

As an avid reader of reviews from the days of EGM and GamePro I find it disappointing that the lion's share of critic reviews on Metacritic are completely out of whack with the end user base. I hope this online backlash to DA2 will teach the critics to have some integrity and to review games as objectively as possible instead of giving wildly fanatical scores. EGM rarely ever gave 10's back in the day and you KNEW a game was perfect when you saw a 10 - for example, Street Fighter II on the SNES. DA2 is no SFII.

T

 

[Gennadios]

Excellent storytelling? Did the reviewer beat this game and/or how much did EA pay him?
There's no way in hell he played through to the endgame.

Ah yes, while I´m at it:
There is a significant difference between storytelling and the actual story that is told.
The story ends in nowhere, one of the most dissapointing cliffhangers I know, and up to that is... well... I could not bring myself to care all that much, I must say.

How it is told, however, is pretty original and unique. How many games do you know with a framed narrative that actually have an unreliable narrator?
I loved how the narrators perception, embelishment and a fair share of wishfull thinking coloured what we see and play.

Also: Show of hands who saw the final twist coming?
No, thats not a spoiler, there is always some final twist.
It certainly had my jaw drop, if maybe not in a very good way.
*insert creative curse words*

This unreliable narrator ruined the game as well. Did you notice how DA:O had so much respect for Revenants and Dragons that they'd mostly be fought as single enemies or as the heads of very small retinues? DA2 very much felt like Varric was embellishing the s*** out of the story.

"Not just an Elder Dragon! But Backed up by a Mature Dragon! With 20 f****** hatchlings!"

The focus on making the game epic just landed the pacing flat on it's ass. Or maybe it was just the heavy overuse of the same enemies.

As far as the final twist goes, what Anders did wasn't forseen, everything afterwords definitely was though. You could see the final battle coming a mile away.

Spoiler

What angered me the most is that I couldn't just leave the both sides to their pointless BS. Really, they were both insane and I found it insulting to be stuck taking sides. It's not like much would have changed, a few mages would escape, spark a reward, bla bla. Maybe Meredith would have survived into DA3 though.

The storytelling was there, the choices weren't.

 

[Perfice]

First time poster. I am a longtime browser of Metacritic and arrived at this review in curiosity of the 100 score given by this publication.

I am a video gamer of 25 years and an aficionado of games on both consoles and PC's (since the days of Dragon Warrior and Betrayal at Krondor). I have played all the Bioware classics from Torment, BG1&2, NVN, even MDK (remember that one?) While I have not played Dragon Age 2 I am shocked at the resistance to this game by fellow legions of hardcore RPG fans. There MUST be something terribly wrong with this game when an entire community revolts as what is taking place on Metacritic.

As an avid reader of reviews from the days of EGM and GamePro I find it disappointing that the lion's share of critic reviews on Metacritic are completely out of whack with the end user base. I hope this online backlash to DA2 will teach the critics to have some integrity and to review games as objectively as possible instead of giving wildly fanatical scores. EGM rarely ever gave 10's back in the day and you KNEW a game was perfect when you saw a 10 - for example, Street Fighter II on the SNES. DA2 is no SFII.

T

The entire community isn't.

Alot of people either don't really care or think the actions of a single employee don't reflect on the entire company itself. There are also people who think his review was completely understandable or he's allowed to review a game even if he works for the company itself.

I'm with the not really giving a damn group.

EDIT :: Wait, why post that here? This thread isn't about the review from Metacritic. There is a thread about it on this site, if you look there you'll see the people I'm talking about that think he was entitled to write any review he wants.

 

[Olikunmissile]

If the game fails to stimulate your mind, I have no idea what would, the game offers numerous outcomes for several sidequests, some end up affecting the main quest, what you say and do has a much larger impact than any other game made by Bioware, so I fail to see why you seem to imply it is nothing more than go here and kill this.

[snip]

This isn't a new thing in gaming. The fact that Bioware has only just done it means diddily squat to non-Bioware fans. Sidequests with alternate endings doesn't make for good story telling either.

Give us another example of DA2's excellent story telling.

How about side quests that affect your characters, character developement and what those characters think of you and the world around them not by the events in one side quest but in several that involve that NPC, and can even affect the main ending of the game and the epilogue aside from choices made in the main game.

Heres an example of how to do a sidequest well, you finish a quest, it says quest complete, but you remember there was something earlier in this quest that people mentioned but nobody followed up on, so you go back there, following up on your own without any clues given to you by the game, and suddenly when you ask questions, you are given a new mission, and whether or not you found this mission will have implications of what happens later.

A final point, bringing different party members with you to different locations can affect what happens in the area, an example would be Fenris and the Arishok, and what you ask them at that time will lead to new dialogue choices later that you otherwise would not have gotten.

None of that changes the fact that it isn't a new concept and has been done before, by better games. Going to areas with different characters and getting different speech choices was in the first Dragon Age. When it comes to the side quests, Hell just look at the fallout games. Not so much Fallout 3 but some of that was there in New Vegas. But I mean Fallout 1 and 2. Hell look at Wasteland. (Old game)
The concept of multiple ended side quests has been around in gaming for generations of consoles and personal computers. Same is true with side quests that help shape a story.

I'm saying DA2 does not deserve any praise for things that have been done before, better.

 

[Natarooma]

Why do people keep using Baldur's Gate as an example for 'best game ever'? This is a tired statement, please update the record.

Games are evolving, gaming is evolving. It used to be that you had to seriously do research to be successful at a game, had to keep three thousand things in mind so as not to fuck up your skill trees and progression, and woe betide you if you made one little mistake. Of course, people who like to over-complicate their gaming experiences will always be dissatisfied with games that cut out a lot of the fuss and just give you all the good parts. They will feel that games are not interactive enough, engaging enough, or challenging enough.

However, I feel that bringing up a game from a bygone age as a measuring stick is going a step backwards. If you loved the 'classics' and thought they were more involved and engaging, that's fine! That's awesome! Play those! Replay those!

I worry about minuscule details all the time at work, when I'm playing a game, I don't want to feel like it's a job. That's not to say I couldn't do all that, I've played games in the past where you had to pay an inordinate amount of time to several variables concerning your character and spend at least 10 minutes procrastinating over whether or not you're screwing yourself eventually. I just prefer not to do this if I can help it. Not everyone sees it the same, but that's my take on it.

 

[OnionBaby]

This has to be one of the funniest reviews I've read in recent memory. I, for one, would love to play this version of Dragon Age 2.

"(On consoles, Dragon Age 2) manages to takes its place among the best looking games of this generation."

"In fact, like Uncharted 2 and Empire Strikes Back, Dragon Age II is the rare sequel that improves upon its already excellent predecessor."

"I could point out the improved combat and graphics till there's blood covering my face, but BioWare is one of the few companies that uses the advanced computing power available to modern game designers to let you actually play a role."

"Bottom Line: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be."

LOL comedy gold bro, comedy gold.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Oh wow. How did you miss enemies spawning out of thin air? Reused areas? Lack of diplomacy?
You seem to have ignored every bad design choice that they threw on this game.
Just odd.

What is the problem with enemies spawning out of thin air? Have you played any classic RPGs before, where when you are walking about the land and then a random enemy encounter happens. It is an RPG staple.

Reused areas? The game takes place in one relatively small area, which means that their is a set number of places the player will be able to go. But still, reused areas would be a problem if the game took place over a short period of time like a few days.

The one thing I have heard people complain about on reused areas is that "oooh, new enemies and treasures appear in these samey areas or reused areas".

Well think about this: The game takes place in parts, each part being a year. In the real world, if a place is vacated or cleaned out, maybe police come and clear out a crack house or something, after that new people might move in or maybe people that were busted at said house come back and start their organization all over again.

So with DA2, you may have cleared a place out of baddies and treasures but who's to say that within that year or maybe a couple or three of those years, more baddies with more treasure take up residence in said place you have been to before.

And since each part is a year, I wouldn't even complain if I did a quest in an area and then the next quest I got was in the same area with new stuff, because I can easily look at my play time as some accelerated time where it is possible that the time that passed between the first quest and the second quest in the same area was actually a time span of a week or two, and within that week, more baddies came along and took up residence in that same area.

This isn't hard to see. The problem is that some people go into a game with a closed type of mindset. When something they find strange or bad happens, they don't take the time to think about what might be a reasonable way to look at something that makes said thing not strange or bad.

And on the diplomacy thing...Meh, don't care.

 

[Crystalite]

[/quote]

Excellent storytelling? Did the reviewer beat this game and/or how much did EA pay him?
There's no way in hell he played through to the endgame.

Ah yes, while I´m at it:
There is a significant difference between storytelling and the actual story that is told.
The story ends in nowhere, one of the most dissapointing cliffhangers I know, and up to that is... well... I could not bring myself to care all that much, I must say.

How it is told, however, is pretty original and unique. How many games do you know with a framed narrative that actually have an unreliable narrator?
I loved how the narrators perception, embelishment and a fair share of wishfull thinking coloured what we see and play.

Also: Show of hands who saw the final twist coming?
No, thats not a spoiler, there is always some final twist.
It certainly had my jaw drop, if maybe not in a very good way.
*insert creative curse words*

This unreliable narrator ruined the game as well. Did you notice how DA:O had so much respect for Revenants and Dragons that they'd mostly be fought as single enemies or as the heads of very small retinues? DA2 very much felt like Varric was embellishing the s*** out of the story.

"Not just an Elder Dragon! But Backed up by a Mature Dragon! With 20 f****** hatchlings!"

The focus on making the game epic just landed the pacing flat on it's ass. Or maybe it was just the heavy overuse of the same enemies.

As far as the final twist goes, what Anders did wasn't forseen, everything afterwords definitely was though. You could see the final battle coming a mile away.

Spoiler

What angered me the most is that I couldn't just leave the both sides to their pointless BS. Really, they were both insane and I found it insulting to be stuck taking sides. It's not like much would have changed, a few mages would escape, spark a reward, bla bla. Maybe Meredith would have survived into DA3 though.

The storytelling was there, the choices weren't.

Ok, here we can only agree to disagree, I think. I liked Varric as a character, and I liked his "style" of making everything over the top.
Reuse of enemys was a pain, yes.

Spoiler

And I did mean what Anders did, and in effect, what the entire story was actualy about. Not the final battle, that was not a twist.

I do agree with you on the thing with the sides, it angered me to.
But maybe moreso that I could not quite see the point of the whole thing... Or make me root for the mages of all people, seeing as they almost all turned out to be no better than terrorists.
Or rather that I could think of quite a few ways to really help, only I could not.
Can I please just leave? ;-)

In effect, the player can not change anything, because he is not really the protagonist, Anders is. But there was no way the game would get a player to do what Anders did, so we are stuck with the observer role... Yeah, I dont like that either.

But apart from that, I thought the characters had great charm, and I enjoyed talking or just listening to them a lot.
I like the game, but I would certainly never compare it to DA:O, of course.
Just want to be clear on that, as a sequel to the first game, it is a massive disapointment. But its not all bad, and I had fun with it. I even had fun with the combat, even though it was realy simple. But I like shooters as well ^^
I don´t mind an easy game now and again. And to be honest, I did not expect this to reach the quality of DA:O, the same way I did not expect DA:O to be like Baldurs Gate.

 

[Warachia]

If the game fails to stimulate your mind, I have no idea what would, the game offers numerous outcomes for several sidequests, some end up affecting the main quest, what you say and do has a much larger impact than any other game made by Bioware, so I fail to see why you seem to imply it is nothing more than go here and kill this.

[snip]

This isn't a new thing in gaming. The fact that Bioware has only just done it means diddily squat to non-Bioware fans. Sidequests with alternate endings doesn't make for good story telling either.

Give us another example of DA2's excellent story telling.

How about side quests that affect your characters, character developement and what those characters think of you and the world around them not by the events in one side quest but in several that involve that NPC, and can even affect the main ending of the game and the epilogue aside from choices made in the main game.

Heres an example of how to do a sidequest well, you finish a quest, it says quest complete, but you remember there was something earlier in this quest that people mentioned but nobody followed up on, so you go back there, following up on your own without any clues given to you by the game, and suddenly when you ask questions, you are given a new mission, and whether or not you found this mission will have implications of what happens later.

A final point, bringing different party members with you to different locations can affect what happens in the area, an example would be Fenris and the Arishok, and what you ask them at that time will lead to new dialogue choices later that you otherwise would not have gotten.

None of that changes the fact that it isn't a new concept and has been done before, by better games. Going to areas with different characters and getting different speech choices was in the first Dragon Age. When it comes to the side quests, Hell just look at the fallout games. Not so much Fallout 3 but some of that was there in New Vegas. But I mean Fallout 1 and 2. Hell look at Wasteland. (Old game)
The concept of multiple ended side quests has been around in gaming for generations of consoles and personal computers. Same is true with side quests that help shape a story.

I'm saying DA2 does not deserve any praise for things that have been done before, better.

You weren't asking what it did better, you were asking what good storytelling bioware did before, and I gave you three points.

Actually, what Dragon Age does better thatn any other game is party members that affect almost every quest, as a short pointer.

I wouldn't use the argument "shouldn't be praised for something done before and better" because that would mean almost everything now would be slated. Is it too much to ask for a game to be judged on it's own merits as opposed to being compared to games in the past that have nothing to do with them?

I'm a big stickler for story, and as I've stated before, that is why I love bioware games, you can love previous games like the fallouts, and go right ahead, I just want people to keep creating new and better stories, if you play older games over and over, eventually you know everything and it ceases being fun, that is when you have to take a step back and look at what you need, for me it was a different kind of story told in a different way, for example, I DON'T want to rescue the princess, save the world, or let my characters live long peaceful lives, I want a unique story that I can react to, that I can slightly alter everytime I play through it, and DA2 satisfies that nicely. Yes I do realize this last point was a personal thing, but at least DA2's story was unique.

 

[SAMURAJ]

Let's see:
-Dragon age origins is in my opinion the best rpg,I played all the rpg for pc and i must say I am in love with DAO !!!!

-DA2 is a good game but in the same time a disgrace for Dragon age !!!
-there has been no improvements but they manage to fuck up all game elements (fighting,interaction with characters,inventory is a joke-for brainless kids,spell and skills-wtf there is no dual wielding with 2 swords or axes..........and a lot more)!!!
-only the story seems to be created by Bioware,everything else is created by drunken little minded children !!!!

I lost all faith and respect for Escapist,giving this wanna be Dragon age thing 5 stars is a disgrace !!!!

 

[svenjl]

So SAMURAJ...umm...talking about brainless kids...

No improvements? F**k up all game elements? A story created by drunken minded children? Wow (sad shake of head).

It's really hard to know how to respond to posts like that, but in defense of the review and the game itself, I can't resist having a go. I'll start with a point of agreement (the only one!), in that I also thought DA:O was the best RPG I had ever played at the time. I stopped PC gaming a couple of years ago because I couldn't afford to keep upgrading, so I was thrilled that Origins came out on 360 and amazed by the gameplay and story.

I had DAII on pre-order based on Origins and the interviews and gameplay demos that were shown by Bioware. I have put about 24 hours into DAII and just love it. Here's why I refute your inane comments:

1. Nicely upgraded graphics. Some changes are subtle, others more stark, but the overall effect for me is cleaner looking, better textured and less chunky environments and characters. I wouldn't do DAII the injustice of visual comparisons with other games, I just think the visual style works really well while retaining a feeling of familiarity from Origins.
2. A terrific, complex story with plenty of political, religeous and relationship intrigue and nice twists so far. I find it really compelling to control a character in the midst of this. I have found most of the quests to be directly related to the tensions between Templars and Mages, various smuggler or mercenary factions in Kirkwall, companions and Hawke and the Qunari and city leadership.
3. Fantastic combat that has fundamentally not changed! People who suggest this is now a hack-and-slash action RPG either haven't played the game or are fully incompetent. The ONLY change instituted is from auto-basic attack to player controlled basic attack. Everything else is the same! The radial menu options are the same, the abilities interface is the same etc etc. If multitasking between basic attack, abilities, tracking party member status and the menu during combat is too difficult may I suggest you find another hobby?
4. The only big change to inventory is the lack of armor customisation for party members. Aside from Varric's weapons which is always Bianca, you can equip all party members with weapons, special items and so on. This is after all a story about Hawke, not a group of Grey Wardens, so it fits with the story and setting that some things be locked out in order to focus on the main character. It's an irrelevant issue to me in the context of the story.
5. There are a vast array of spells and abilities across the classes, with some outstanding cross-class combination possibilities. There is, like in Origins, great depth here and some tough decisions to make as your party numbers grow. You can't have everything as a character, so it's important to choose wisely an create a good balance of spells and skills across the board.
6. How the heck has interaction with characters changed in terms of function and outcome? The conversation menu is different to look at, and Hawke is fully voiced, but the variety of options and choices to make is true to Origins (btw - why are you so aggrieved that Bioware has made some changes to the game. What exactly is wrong with that?). The results of your choices in conversations can be profound, subtle or have little effect at all which seems pretty true to life.

As for The Escapist reviewer, he has simply put forth his honest opinion - which for him, me, and you is a subjective issue. I object almost less to your opinion than to the way you have stated it. I have found DAII to be an exciting, complex/deep gaming experience in terms of the story and gameplay.

 

[SAMURAJ]

-only the story seems to be created by Bioware !!!
-story wos ok,i liked the origins one better but this one was epic too !!!

-combat wos to boring,it felt like...on a second thought i didn't felt it at all !!!
started on nightmare,not a real challenge,no killing blows,to fast movement and attacking very unrealistic,spells look like shit (not all of them),and why did they put thet horrible, ugly, stupid so-called killing blow !!!

-inventory was killed and i don't mean only inventory,you need to see the whole picture !!!!
-and thet really pised me off !!!

I found dragon age 2 to be a nice story,if they only didn't try to turn it into a game
-thets a joke,DA 2 is a great game but it isn't even close to dragon age origins !!!!

I respect that you can give Isabella to Arisok !!!