Dragon Age II Review

[Warachia]

Best review on the site, dripping with the sarcasm and subtleties that exposes a truly mediocre game for what it is.

Let's be honest when has a good game ever been made in ONE YEAR with an expansion for the first one in between?

Bioware and most major studios RARELY IF EVER work on one game at a time, they started working on DA 2 far before the first one ever came out.

this will be my last reply in sequence, because these four arguments I replied to sum up sum up everything negative people say about the game.

 

[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.

 

[darthcendiarygrenade]

Listen, guys. This whole thing is getting ridiculous. A witch hunt seems to be going on for reviewers that have been "paid off" by Bioware/EA, and for all I know, some may have been. I'd be shocked to find out that Bioware was responsible, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. As for EA...well, let's just say that they're not exactly a shiny beacon of all that is right with devs
But all of this aside, I would like to say that I have faith in the Escapist and its community. I do not believe that this review was paid for, and I do not believe that Mr. Tito is abusing his position. Regardless of how some may feel about this game, it is a serious thing to question a journalist's integrity; especially one who (in my opinion) has demonstrated professionalism throughout his tenure here. All I ask is that people really think this through before they start throwing accusations around, and recognise the differing opinions many have.

Thank you.

 

[Pinky's Brain]

All of the things you've said are things that bioware said would not be in the game in every interview, aside from the impressive graphics

Copy pasting, poor environmental detail and some really bad looking NPCs withstanding.

deep customization

Apart from itemization of your party (leading to the problem that the only viable tank at higher difficulties is a Hawke tank).

and the deep chat system is still there

Well that's debatable, a lot of people felt constrained by the wheel and unable to make meaningful choices in dialogue.

 

[Bostur]

I honestly wonder if you guys are playing the same game that I am. You are all entitled to your opinion, of course, but I honestly loved the game and enjoyed all of the features I discussed in the review. Many of he complaints you have, I describe in the review, but they just weren't dealbreakers for me.

I wonder the same. I can only assume that the console version of DA:O was lacking in so many respects that DA2 seems like an improvement. The upgrades to the combat system that so many reviewers mention seems to be completely missing from my PC version. It's exactly the same engine with some features missing and a few extra bugs. In practice it works much worse due to the poor design of the maps and the encounters.
As a player I feel I fight the UI a lot more than the opponents in the game.

The game looks rushed and reeks of mediocrity in a lot of areas. Some of the shortcomings may be minor but slowly adds up on the big list of annoyances.

The story is completely uninteresting and is nowhere near the quality of ME1, ME2 and DA:O.

The game has some gameplay value for sure, but its hardly a "Pinncale of RPGs".

From the perspective of the PC version a 6/10 seems more realistic.

 

[Smokej]

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.

 

[Olikunmissile]

Wow, I've never disagreed with a review so much in my years on here.

I'm not hating on you Greg, but take a look at this. The "official" reviewers blow this game's balls to death, while the consumers hated it.

Can you see where people are coming from?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragon-age-ii

 

[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.

 

[0effect]

If this a 5 star game then Torchlight is a 10 star game. I enjoyed Torchlight more than this 5 maps in the entire game, linear hack/slash, rush job that is Dragon Age 2.
And when did exactly equipping armor to your companions become a task heavy intellectual activity that should be avoided?

 

[Warachia]

All of the things you've said are things that bioware said would not be in the game in every interview, aside from the impressive graphics

Copy pasting, poor environmental detail and some really bad looking NPCs withstanding.

deep customization

Apart from itemization of your party (leading to the problem that the only viable tank at higher difficulties is a Hawke tank).

and the deep chat system is still there

Well that's debatable, a lot of people felt constrained by the wheel and unable to make meaningful choices in dialogue.

A good complaint, and one I agree on, I just wish you had posted it in your original argument.

provided you upgrade her armour aveline is still viable, also the only thing that you can't add to your party is the armour, which turned into my main source of income, which ended up working really well considering what some things cost.

That goes to a more personal level as I had no problem making meaningful choices in the dialogue, and as such I would rather not debate what changes from person to person.

 

[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.