Dragon Age II: The Truth

[Saviordd1]

I've been reading messages about "Dragon Age Rage" for the last few days, while playing the game pretty heavily, and decided I want to clarify a few things here. Especially seeing as I think people have had difficulty articulating what they are trying to say, or at least not being able to point fingers at specific problems.

Before any discussion about the operation of the game, sub-systems, options, or any of that stuff there is one thing both sides have to understand. This project was a rush job compared to the first one, and no amount of fandom, or beating around the bush can change that. This is what is at the root of a lot of the complaints. If the game wasn't a rush job, then really Bioware needs to work on quality control with it's employees because the game is really sloppy. Whichever case it might be, I think Bioware being involved in so many projects simultaneously is hurting their development. Rather than having a quality team it focuses 100% on a given project, it has it's people spread out between "Dragon Age", "Mass Effect", and "Old Republic Online". The latter project probably has their best people involved most of the time (no matter where the names show up) simply because their bosses doubtlessly demand it due to the reported hundreds of millions of dollars involved. No matter the specifics I think this is hurting Bioware.

What is sloppy about the game? Well understand that in the first game you had a ton of differant enviroments you could explore, and a main quest that you could pursue the various parts of in any order you wanted to (and move between them). DA2 on the other hand has not only a very linear structure, but is also set up in such a way that it re-uses the same exact maps constantly. Whether it's a main quest or a sidequest, you pretty much visit the same regions (Docks, Coast, Lowtown, etc...) and the only differance is what enemies spawn.... for a large part of the game. In the first game you kept going to new regions, and most importantly the enemy encounters were all carefully placed and balanced, and frequently start out in logical places for the trappings around them when you reach them in the map. Not only is DA2 reusing the same exact areas constantly, but the enemies tend to just suddenly appear. Where in the first game the challenge was largely to beat another band of bad guys you spot flat out, in DA2 you wind up fighting waves of opponents. You have the first guys that appear, then you have other guys literally falling out of the sky, or just mysteriously appearing to replace their comrades as you chop them down. What challenge is present frequently comes from having no idea what your actually going to fight, since you might start out fighting say eight thugs, but then see more thugs with bigger health bars appear, or even mages that were not there to begin with suddenly spawn in the flight when you've killed enough stuff for them to pop out of the queue. The overall effect is similar to old JRPG action-RPGs like "Sudeki" where you enter an area, and monsters just spawn until it opens the way to the next area (or in this case completes the quest, or lets you move on). In short it's really badly done, ESPECIALLY when you compare it to the first game. However "Dragon Age: Origins" also had a longer development cycle (which is why some of the first areas made showed their age), and apparently the full resources of Bioware invested specifically on it, with all their best people in the project.


Now, I can see how the above design appeals to some people. After all it's less about tactics as much about killing, and of course it means that players don't have to explore to find the monsters and treasures and such in quite the same way as the first game. It's hard to get lost, with less options making it far less intimidating, and of course the monsters just popping out of nowhere makes the combat pretty straightforward. If your a big player of action games, you probably think this kind of "wave fighting" is good because it's more of what your used to... overcoming raw numbers, as opposed to more of a focus on invidual combat and specific actions.


When it comes to the more frequently commented aspects of the game, such as the lack of customization options and such, there is no way around the simple fact that there is less there. Characters only have one weapon type they can use, and whole skill sets from the first game are missing. Some characters like Varric don't even have a weapon TYPE to choose from, but instead have a single weapon integral to them which upgrades itself as you play.

Above and beyond the "dumbing down" that this represents, it means that you really have very little choice in your party. If Hawke has not chosen a specific role, then you have to use the NPC that does that job in a lot of situations. There is pretty much one tank character, a DPS warrior, a ranged rogue, a melee rogue, and two mages both of who have damage abillities, but one of who can be a healer if Hawke isn't one (and if Hawke isn't a healer, you pretty much need to bring him along). You can't choose the characters you want to use based on who you like, and then customize them to do the jobs you want. Say if you had your main character in Origins as an Archer, you could say make Leliana a dual wielder. If you wanted your character to be a tank, but enjoyed Alaistair's banter with Morrigan, you could build Alistair up as a two handed fighter, if you hated Alistair you could build Sten or Oghrim up as sword and shield fighters to replace him. This isn't an option in this came, Aveline uses sword and shield, and can never use any other weapon, she can't even switch over to a bow. Fenris uses a two handed sword, you can't turn him into a sword and shield fighter. If you happen to want to play a rogue or mage with a seriously criminal bent, you have no choice but to literally drag the captain of the guard around with you (and listen to her whine when you RP that way) when you need a tank.

I can understand how a lot of people who thought Dragon Age: Origins was too complicated like a lot of the changes here. Differant stroke for differant folks. However, at the same time this is a sequel, and what we're looking at here isn't an improvement on what was there beforehand, but rather scrapping the entire thing and re-doing it. I might feel differantly if it was done well, but it really wasn't. Honestly I don't think they were "innovating" but trying to pass off a sloppy design job as being improvements.

I'll also honestly say that the vibe is entirely differant from the first game, and by this I don't mean a "more intricate and personal story". I mean, the first game seemed like a well written work of western fantasy, like "Lord Of The Rings" in game form, the combat seemed like what squaring off with bad guys should be in sword and sorcery. The issue with "DA2" is that I feel like I'm in a bloody Anime, I mean instead of having to actually set up, or flank for a backstab, a rogue can literally teleport behind his enemies... not to mention throwing grenades around (flasks) like he's Batman or something. It doesn't help when you have dockside dregs jumping into battle like Ninjas as fast as you cut them down with your over the top attacks. The overall effect is such where I have trouble seeing it as the same world as the first game, never mind the same sense of reality. If the first game was Jackson's "Lord Of The Rings" trilogy, this one is Tarantino's "Kill Bill". It's fine to have fantasy games that have differant takes on the genere, but not within the same series.

In the end I don't think there will be any universal consensus here, however these are my thoughts on the subject. I think both sides are getting too extreme in their arguements, and also not bothering to really look at how the game was put together. With more time to create more zones, add more companions so you could have some choices for differant playstyles to counterbalance the lack of customization, and work out the combat balance and "spawning" so you don't basically wind up in say a town square watching low-rent thugs with amazing ninja abillities leap off buildings (or fall of invisible kites or whatever) into battle, it would have been workable. Also while I can understand wanting to make combat a little more flashy and active (even if I thought it was fine before), there is such a thing as overkill. This is a fantasy game, but Dragon Age was going for a degree of realism as opposed to the logic of some anime where "anything goes if it's cool". This is sword and sorcery, not kung-fu theater, and rogues should not be spot teleporting and throwing chemical weapons from a bottomless utility belt (I pick on the rogue because it's the worst offender for sheer "WTF were they thinking").

To be fair I think most reviews are too top heavy (for a lot of reasons). Very average games wind up with a 7 or 8. On the Therumancer 10 point scale, I'd give this game a "4" with a "5" actually being average. The rating being slightly below average largely because of the quality of the first game in the series (which it failed to improve on), and sloppy design, no matter what the actual reason is, there is no way around the simple fact that you keep running around the same recycled maps while monsters appear out of nowhere. There is no excuse why there couldn't have been more areas to explore, and really they should have put more time into individually setting and balancing the encounters rather than swarming the player with waves. People who give this game a "sucktastic" 1 or 2 rating are being a bit too brutal, but honestly I can think of a lot of RPGs where the developers put more time into the design instead of dialing it in, and letting the dialogue and cut scenes hopefully carry it. I think it's unfair for a truely impartial reviewer to rave about this game under the circumstances. In fact the cynic in me thinks that even with top heavy reviews anyone giving this a 4.5 or 5 on a 5 point scale or anything above a 7 on a 10 point scale can be considered substantially biased and probably a sign of where a lot of the DA2 advertising dollars went. Professional reviewers can't bite the hands that feed them, and a rating like mine is thus impractical, but at the same time with games like this you usually see ratings where you can read between the lines.

Perhaps as time goes on DA2 with retroactively grow on me. Rated at a "4" for me, understand I am having fun with this game, however out of all the RPGs I've played I doubt this one will stand as one of my all time best gaming experiences. It's a new game (as opposed to oes I've played heavily) so it gives me something to do, but I'll be very surprised if when I look back at the year this game winds up being one of my top picks. Sad, because I REALLY wanted to like this game, despite my griping about the whole "Hawke" thing, I was hoping that Bioware would blow me away like they did with "Origins" and dispel my doubts. Honestly, walking away from it, I'm not quite as annoyed with not having origin options, or even with the reduction in overall complexity, as much as I am with just how sloppy and reptitive it gets.

Seriously, keep track of how many times you wind up running through the same areas for diffrant things. I mean in Origins I DID revisit certain areas (like the cities where the merchants were) a few times, but as the plot went on the areas (Forest, Deep Roads, Mage Tower, Redcliffe) were all distinctive and it did a good job of making me feel like I was experiencing new things. I can only beat thugs down in the same slum so many times before I start to feel it's a bit too repetitive.

Honestly, Im done arguing, hate the game, yay, well done, bravo.

I love this game, its good in that im enjoying it, anything beyond that is a useless detail.

Love or hate the game, thats your choice, i dont get why everyone has the need to post it EVERYWHERE, if you want to put up thoughtful complaints go to the bioware social website so that THE DEVELOPERS can see them, honestly anything less seems like minor trolling or just ignorance (not trying to be mean, but ive seen this topic way to many times in the last 3 days, with varying levels of stupidity)

I can give you points for at least thinking about you problems with it unlike most of the haters though, almost all of the complaints that people make are horribly supported. "THE GRAPHICS SUCK BECAUSE THEY DO" is not a valid argument

 

[Therumancer]

I'll also honestly say that the vibe is entirely differant from the first game, and by this I don't mean a "more intricate and personal story". I mean, the first game seemed like a well written work of western fantasy, like "Lord Of The Rings" in game form, the combat seemed like what squaring off with bad guys should be in sword and sorcery. The issue with "DA2" is that I feel like I'm in a bloody Anime.

For me Dragon Age II actually felt very 'sword and sorcery [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_and_sorcery]', but I attribute that terminology to a very specific vein of fantasy literature. I equated it before that if Dragon Age Origins is Martin or Tolkien then Dragon Age II is Howard or Brust. It really falls into a lot of the tenants of sword and sorcery writing - more personal stories, more action focused and often more fantastical.

The lead designer, Mike Laidlaw, actually confirmed my suspicions on this when we asked him that - see here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108190-Dragon-Age-II-Q-A-with-Lead-Designer-Mike-Laidlaw.3].

I'll concede that Sword And Sorcery as opposed to Anime was a bad way of defining it since Sword and Sorcery is a genere where Anime is more of a family of styles that can be used to tell tales of a variety of generes.

The point here is that Dragon Age is an ongoing franchise set in the same universe, and sharing the same reality. A radical change in styles, akin to having totally differant authors with totally differant world settings, does not work. When they decided to make this new game part of a franchise by using the same name and putting "2" on the end, they were declaring it to be a continuation of what they were doing before. Dragon Age 2 however is NOT grounded in the same reality, while there are decent works of fantasy that use very similar conventions, they do not belong in the reality that had been defined. If they wanted a game based around this sense of reality they should have started an entirely new franchise.

When a new author decides to start writing someone else's universe and changes things around, you'll notice that even if the work is fine in of itself, fans of the series itself usually give EXACTLY the same reaction we're seeing here, and have that work declared non-canon. This is exactly what we're seeing here, and if Bioware has half a brain they will keep that in mind, work more in the old format, and when enough time has had make it clear that 2 is no longer part of the universe's canon officially, or if they must use the general story, dismiss it as elaboration on the part of our dwarven narrator while still ensuring this style of things will never return again to the series.

As far as the combat goes, again whgat we're dealing with is a matter of poor design. Heading through a cave and seeing monsters ahead of you and fighting them, okay that works. However having the monsters just appear out of air? That doesn't work. Having a bunch of thugs suddenly pop into existance in the middle of the fight, or jump off rooftops? I mean crap I've had spiders the size of elephants just suddenly materialize in this game. That's sloppy, and no amount of justification can change that.

Having opponents appear in waves is not "tactical", in fact you could say that it's the opposite in most cases because you have absolutly no idea what is actually going to be involved in any given fight. you can be battling spiders and have undead and shades pop up towards the end of the fight, or have a rage demon, assasins, or mages that were impossible to account for because they hadn't spawned yet suddenly appear in the fight. Really they turned the entire thing into an excecise how quick you can burn down the mobs, and "tactics" are largely replaced by exploiting a combo system which amounts to having your characters
use certain moves in a specific sequence.

I mean it's fine if you like the game, me I think it's a bit sub par as I've explained, it's not "OMG it needs to be burned" material, or some kind of outrageous affront by it's very existance, but it's not all that good. What's more there are apparently a LOT of people who think like I do even if they aren't articulating themselves in detail, or not focusing on as many things that bug them at one time. People are acting like "Dragon Age Rage" is undeserved, it's not, right now I think the people who think that Dragon Age 2 was an improvement in the franchise are a minority and they should probably be a bit more graceful in accepting that instead of being offensive because people have valid complaints about the game.

One of the reasons why I am willing to be so direct about things is that when I first started doing Dragon Age and had bad guys falling out of the sky, and monsters just popping up, I figured that HAD to be some kind of graphical glitch or a bug. I went looking for solutions and then found out "nope, that's just how this game is" and ran into numerous other people who had the same exact thoughts. When your dealing with a game that has intentional spawn mechnaics that make people think their computer is on the fritz because they are exactly like bugs other companies correct, that's a good sign your looking at a really badly made game.

 

[Slycne]

snip

Hey now, I just defended it on having a story more steeped in Swords & Sorcery instead of High Fantasy, but I'm happy to respond with my thoughts.

I think in the long run I would rather developers try new things, and sometimes slip up, with their series instead of just retexturing and slapping a numerical increase to the end. The general consensus among gaming communities is a fatigue of seeing the same games being created over and over, why the sudden change of heart? I certainly don't feel that they are in some way beholden to fans to deliver that exact same experience, obviously baring ridiculousness of say Dragon Age Kart Racing. They should be free to take risks and can accept the repercussions if those risks turn out to be failures.

As personal example of this experience repetition, I had a lot of fun running through the single player of Starcraft II, but the multiplayer failed to connect to me on the same level as the first game did. And maybe that's just because I played a lot in the beta for content on the site or I just have more disposable income a decade later to not get engrossed in a single game, but I'm certainly not walking up early on Saturday morning just so I can play without risk of someone needing to use the phone and disconnecting me like I used to. I think that's in no small part to that game really only delivering on an almost identical experience, though still a good game.

Getting back to Dragon Age, maybe it's just a faulty memory, but I remember there being a few times in Dragon Age: Origins where monsters were spawned in. I don't think it was as prevalent(mostly during survival or hold out style quests), but I do recall it at happening in Redcliffe.

Honestly the combat didn't bother me as much as a few other things. The things that really stands out in my mind of everything negative about my time with the game were the repetition of the maps and other immersion breaks. If you had to go back to the same area fine, the story was structured outside of the "compressed epic week" that most other RPGs fall into(which is somewhat to its favor), but my issue was that maps got reused without even some of the little details being cleared up. I one I recall most was traveling through the cave in Sundermount, you were just told that no one goes up the mountain anymore, let alone in this cave. So what do you come across walking through there a full on - fire, bench, tools, pack, etc - camp. All it would of taken was a single npc or even a note dictating the journal of some person apparenrly crazy enough to brave giant spiders for some mineral/item and it could have been this interesting moment of surprise. Without it, it's just something that stands out as someone not paying attention and removing those assets. Other little things bothered me, like the whole reason you had to fight through all those spiders in the cave was a rock slide blocking the path, but coming out on the other side, you can see all you would needed to have done was scale a few rocks hardly no bigger than my car. I can stab a dragon in the face, but I can't shimmy up a rock?

I don't have any overall problems with the Dragon Age Rage, everyone is entitled to their opinion, although I think bombing it with low scores is a bit childish. My only issue with it is one that seems to have been slowly growing in the CRPG community. The idea that mechanics are what intrinsically makes and RPG an RPG. I think about where CRPGs came from and I understand how this feeling came about, but I think it's wrong, at least for me. Rules and mechanics grew out of the need to adjudicate actions. Which lead to stats and what not so that the strong fighter had a mechanical bonus at say fighting and knocking a door in, where as the nimble archer was more capable of eluding opponents and fighting with a bow. What makes these games so much fun though isn't the mechanics, it's getting to interact with the world on a deeper level. My magic-user in our long running D&D campaign has upgraded his robes all of once and I contrast that to people complaining about not being able to force a companion to wear a specific piece of armor. I can't help but feel they're missing the point a bit. Granted this is due to the early adoption of RPGs not being able to deliver on such branching player agency. So mostly only the mechanics remained intact through the years, and this has in turn been ingrained in a lot of peoples minds. To encapsulate it into thoughts that might be more easily understood for those who are not big tabletop fans - what brings me back to say for instance Baldur's Gate isn't that I can tell Minsc wear Ankheg Armor, but that if I fail a mind altering saving throw against a bounty hunter and kill the inns keeper or alert and kill the guards by stealing an item in plain sight, that's not the end of the game and it maintains the freedom to continue from there. We are finally starting to see some return to choices mattering and having ramifications down the line sometimes even across titles, and we are too busy complaining about the structure that grew up around those choices.

Getting back on topic, ultimately I still had fun with the game, it was not without its satisfying moments.

Spoiler: spoiler

Putting Quentin down with an Assassinate some how really resonated with me as being this almost befitting moment.

And I found myself getting into the experience in subtle ways like never selling off Wesley's shield and holding on to the book the Keeper gives you.

Without going through every detail, I think the devs tried some new things - some I felt worked well, some didn't and some I was neutral on. I don't like 10 point scales because I think it's a broken way to recommend games to people. I would say that Dragon Age II is decent and I enjoyed the overall experience enough that I would recommend it to fans of the RPG genre, but I don't think it will have the resonating staying power with me that other titles have that I would tell everyone to at least try once. I'm going to continue to replay the Baldur's Gate series because I think it's absolutely fantastic. I might play Dragon Age II again, once or twice more.

 

[Shaoken]

Although I haven't gotten around to playing the game yet (see my thread in this section for why), wasn't the PC version of Origins done a full year before the Console versions? I don't get why people are calling it a rush job when it seemed like Bioware was already making DA2 before they even had DAO out the door.

 

[ParadoX5o5]

I do agree with you on some points of this game.
The fact that almost all of the indoor segments of the game, and occasionally a few outdoor parts, are just re-used with no effort to conceal the fact that its a copy is rather disappointing. I really did expect more from Bioware in this regard, they certainly had the time to add some diversity with the level design. The mini-map doesn't even conceal it either, at times a felt that I had more to explore in an area, only to realize that the area exit was right in front of me, and an entire two thirds of the area is inaccessible.

There's other things, like the conversation system not being as indepth as the previous game. It's taken a more Mass Effect route of having the nice option, the snarky option, and the dickface option, with one to three more on the other side if your feeling adventurous. I appreciate that the main character has a voice now, but would've liked to have had a dialouge system akin to the one in Origins, just a minor grip.

On the plus side, I'm happy with what they did with mage characters. I played a mage in both Origins and DA 2, and 2's mages are the superior. I actually felt powerful, that the whole backstory where mages are feared and kept under watch constantly, was actually justified in DA 2. In Origins, mages felt a bit weak. The staffs that mages are restrained to could only shoot out little pew pew bolts in various colours and not much else, while in 2 it's more dynamic. Sure they're now slightly bigger pew pew bolts (depending on what kind of staff you are using), but they look effective now. Spells look nicer and more damaging as well. Even the magic that enemies did felt like it could mess up city life in a huge way, especially what Anders did towards the end.

The leveling up system I did like though. The one in Origins was great to, but the one in DA 2 made it seem that the characters themselves decided what they were. Isabella is strictly dual knives because it fits her character, the same with Varric, Aveline and the others. You could break that a little with mage characters, as there are no limits on what they can learn and use, in terms of the skill tree.

In terms of location, maybe thats all that is in the surrounding area. The first game had you in Ferelden, which is rather large and varied in where you can go. This one has you in The Free Marches. It could just be that Kirkwall, Sundermount and the other areas near it are the only thing of note.

All in all, I think it's a pretty good game. It's lacking in a few areas (cough... level design... cough) but it makes up for it by having an intriguing plot and varied characters. Plus the combat isn't bad at all.

 

[Therumancer]

[
Apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying on the genere thing. I thought you misunderstood me and felt afterwards my analogy was bad so was seeking to correct it.

That said, I'm not saying that the industry as a whole should provide the same exact experience again and again. We are however dealing with a game that is placed within an existing franchise, and set within the same world and "reality". When they tacked on a "2" and continued the franchise the idea was to create a game for the people that liked the first one, "more of the same" because it's the same franchise. I'm not opposed to some of the stylistic changes in of themselves, or the reduction in complexity of the game in any kind of absolute sense, I simply think they should have created a new franchise for that. If they use the same name, and promote the game as a continuation of the first one, they shouldn't be surprised that people who bought the game because they wanted more of the same (having really liked the first game) are POed about the changes.

To use Baldur's Gate as an example, the second game was a direct continuation of the first game. Also the engine and the mechanics were the same. An RPG that was popular in part due to it's complexity and adherance to the AD&D rules of the time was expanded to be more complex by adding things like kits into the game as opposed to basic character classes. More abillities and options were added by way of improvement, the game was not stripped down and given a fundementally differant set of combat mechanics and then called an improvement.

Also, understand that I am not calling Bioware incompetant, or screaming about "The EA Devil" or anything of the sort. I have been saying they did a sloppy job, because even in their effort to appeal to a larger audience they failed. As much as some people tell themselves that the problem here is victimization by a tiny group of trolls, that's not the case, their ratings are slipping because they managed to PO everyone accross the board by producing a subpar game, and not even doing the changes they put into the game well. Other games have been victims of smear campaigns by angry trolls, but it doesn't affect the
ratings like we've seen here. That's why "Dragon Age Rage" is so noteworthy.

I say Bioware did a SLOPPY job, because honestly I think this project was rushed and hurt by the way the company is divided between so many projects and full of so many new people (and probably interns) working on the projects due to their expansion. I think a lot of the changes were not done to streamline the game, or even to REALLY appeal to a larger audience, but to cut corners. I don't think their removal of the abillity to put armor on your companions was to increase the RP potential, but because it's easier than going through the trouble to ensure that all of the armor sets work with all of the availible character models and look decent. Also, I'll point out that selling new "skin" and costumes for characters is a big business in DLC. With Mass Effect 2, people shelled out money to change the apperance of characters with alternate costumes. I think part of it was that corner cutting, but also Bioware figuring that if they remove the abillity to dress up your characters the way they want, they can effectively produce less skins and looks (saving money) but also make more money for the work by selling each one they do create seperatly. I think part of it is that we the gamers who supported the company by buying their DLC, wound up shooting ourselves in the foot so to speak.

So basically I won't call them incompetant, but I will call them greedy and sloppy. The game DOES have good aspects that show off their competance, even if it's subpar overall, and I'm more than willing to accept that it's still a good and talented company, they are just making some bad desicians and missteps.

As far as RPGs go, I'm going to say I think your almost entirely wrong. The mechanics are the most important part of an RPG. We as consumers should of course demand to have both deep mechanics AND a good story (which takes talent, and we ARE paying for this), but understand that RPGs existed before people ever decided to add storylines to them. Sure stories improved the experience but did not define them.

I've read a lot about the history of role-playing through the years, as PnP RPGs have been one of the aspects of my interest in science fiction and fantasy for a very long time. To put it bluntly RPGs are the child of war simulations, where history professors and hard core nerds invented systems by which they could simulate historical battles. They changed from emulating history, to fighting their own battles and "what if" scenarios. The scale also reduced as people wanted to focus on smaller battles and skirmishes, it was also cheaper to get into. These smaller battles required a greater focus on the capabilities of individual soldiers and units. Eventually it got down to people wanting to emulate the differance between say a Samurai and a Knight and their relative weapons and find a way of simulating a battle between them and determining outcomes with dice. This eventually turned into the idea of people wanting to have battles with everyone controlling an individual unit, and from there to the co-op play of dungeon crawls. This turned to fantasy because it worked, and a lot of nerds looking at the historical simulations started to wonder things like "hmmm, I bet in addition to emulating soldiers that actually existed, we could create an accurate formula for one of Tolkien's Orcs based on the descriptions".

The first RPGs were little more than battle simulations, with nerds getting excited that they could have a sword fight totally in their minds, and using dice to represent the role
of chance. A pure "dungeon crawl" with no real objective. Of course as time went on and people started simulating more things, storylines and worlds began to form around these things, treasure was added, towns to sell the treasure, the improvement of characters to
face bigger and badded simulated threats, etc...

The core of the RPG is accurate simulation, whether it's physical combat, or consistant rules for the truely fantastic like magic. That is what makes an RPG, a game in which the abillities of the player mean nothing and it's all about the numbers and what the characters and concepts can do. Everything else is scene dressing, it massively improves the experience, but it does not define it.

Actually I will also say that the focus on storytelling and people gradually coming to think that it was the stories that defined RPGs and were the most important aspect of it, has been responsible for the gradual demise of PnP RPGs. Sure there were other factors, but when you look at companies like "White Wolf" which was one of the pioneers of the whole "story before everything" school of thought, and track their ups and downs and why certain things failed, you'll definatly see some patterns even if certain people don't want to acknowlege them.

The bottom line is that a good set of mechanics can be used to tell a lot of differant stories, and adapted to emulate a lot of differant things. In comparison anyone can churn out a work of fanfiction or whatever. For a long time we saw a lot of "campaign settings" and "storytelling adventures" being published with horrendously unplayable mechanics, and concepts that just weren't workable outside of them. A big part of the problem was that even when it came to well written books, with interesting concepts, nobody wanted to shell out $30 for what they could get from a paperback or a free fiction site... and the quality of the writing in some cases was absolutly awful.

Even with good writing it's important to remember that RPGs are still games, and playing the game is the key element.

Also, RPGs were never for everyone, and that's part of the problem when it comes to computer and console RPGs, and big business developers increasingly interested in the mainstream audience. The majority of people can't find enjoyment out of statistics, and emulating battle with numbrs and variables. That's why games like "Dungeons and Dragons" were always on the fringes to begin with. Granted, with RPGs we are dealing with a largish fringe nowadays, but one where the profits, while substantial, look slim compared to something that can get the lowest human denominator involved.

Apologies if I forgot a point you raised. On a lot of this we seem to see eye to eye, on a lot of it we're going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to the history of RPGs and how they are defined, that's not really a debatable point though. Things like "Dragon Magazine" ran articles on the history of RPGs back in the day, and tracked it from the early pre-history, to guys like Gygax and Arnenson, and got into the influance little-heard of developers like MAR Barker had on the industry. "Empire Of the Petal Throne" which by many reports pre-dated D&D had a substantial influance, but suffered from the disadvantage of being too expensive for the time it was produced. Some articles (Dragon wasn't the only one who covered this, a lot of people did) would get into later development and how games like Palladium's "Mechanoids" were ahead of their time despite numerous problems, and while they never took off had a substantial influance on how games were developed due to the aspects that were quite ingenius for when they were developed. The point being one who skimps on the mechanics and game engine and insists that it's the story that matters primarily is not only wrong, but doesn't know how these games developd, and missing the point of why they came to be to begin with entirely. If you don't like menus, balancing numbers, and similar things along with the story, then RPGs are not really for you, and that's fine, they were never for everyone to begin with.

Also I'll say that it's not the enviroment in DA2 that ever really bothered me, wondering about some of the scene trappings strikes me as nit picking, even if they bother me also. When I go on about the game being sloppy, understand that when I saw monsters falling out of the sky or just appearing (wow, a spider the side of an elephant just materialized and it's a mini boss...) I thought it was some kind of a hardware problem on my end and went looking for a problem. That's usually what stuff like this is. In making inquiries it was a bit of a shock that this was intended. I also wasn't the only one asking those questions and checking it out. It's not unfair to criticize a game and call it sloppy when it's designed in such a way that it looks like your computer is glitching, or the kind of massive bug other companies try and avoid (and Obsidian would always be "working on a patch" for seemingly).

 

[ryanthemadman]

i agree with alot of what you said, but i still enjoy the game and the cliffhanger at the end makes me want da3. i just hope theyll take more time to make it so its as good as origins

 

[rsvp42]

Above and beyond the "dumbing down" that this represents, it means that you really have very little choice in your party. If Hawke has not chosen a specific role, then you have to use the NPC that does that job in a lot of situations. There is pretty much one tank character, a DPS warrior, a ranged rogue, a melee rogue, and two mages both of who have damage abillities, but one of who can be a healer if Hawke isn't one (and if Hawke isn't a healer, you pretty much need to bring him along). You can't choose the characters you want to use based on who you like, and then customize them to do the jobs you want. Say if you had your main character in Origins as an Archer, you could say make Leliana a dual wielder. If you wanted your character to be a tank, but enjoyed Alaistair's banter with Morrigan, you could build Alistair up as a two handed fighter, if you hated Alistair you could build Sten or Oghrim up as sword and shield fighters to replace him. This isn't an option in this came, Aveline uses sword and shield, and can never use any other weapon, she can't even switch over to a bow. Fenris uses a two handed sword, you can't turn him into a sword and shield fighter. If you happen to want to play a rogue or mage with a seriously criminal bent, you have no choice but to literally drag the captain of the guard around with you (and listen to her whine when you RP that way) when you need a tank.

To be fair, not every encounter requires Aveline. I did the entire Deep Roads without her. Fenris' special abilities increase his defense iirc, and he did a good job surviving with Bethany healing. And I don't know what you did in DA:O, but I found myself being stuck with Morrigan and Wynne doing double duty as healers for the whole last half of the game. I agree that DA:O has more options, but because of the combat changes in DA2, plenty of encounters are doable with different party setups.

In my opinion, the game's only flaw so far is the repeated environments. Everything else is just a creative choice for telling the story. I'm having fun.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Having opponents appear in waves is not "tactical", in fact you could say that it's the opposite in most cases because you have absolutly no idea what is actually going to be involved in any given fight. you can be battling spiders and have undead and shades pop up towards the end of the fight, or have a rage demon, assasins, or mages that were impossible to account for because they hadn't spawned yet suddenly appear in the fight. Really they turned the entire thing into an excecise how quick you can burn down the mobs, and "tactics" are largely replaced by exploiting a combo system which amounts to having your characters use certain moves in a specific sequence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tactics

I'm afraid it IS tactical. You may find it less to your taste then the way DA:O approached the problem, but there are still tactics involved in DA2. I found the game pleasingly challenging. Is it a tactical exercise on the level of, say, X-Com? Of course not. I will however suggest that you are looking at Origins through rose colored glasses. Awakenings was a button mashing face roll even on Hard difficulty. One of my Rogue abilities involved blinking around the battlefield backstabbing everyone. Arguing that Origins is a stately, traditional, cerebral exercise and DA2 is some kind of kung-fu arcade smash-up is completely disingenuous.

You are also incorrect about the characters being rigidly locked into roles. They can be respecced. They are no more role-locked than they were in Origins, and your potential party diversity is no more compromised in DA2. You can argue that on higher difficulty levels you REQUIRE a Mage/Rogue/Warrior, because you do, but again this is a shortcoming the game shares with Origins, which you seemed to enjoy.

As with MisterShine, I am sick to death of rallying people to fight the [Insert Ancient Evil Here]. Origins had an incredibly stale and hackneyed plot. DA2 does a better job of exploring the politics and social pressures of Thedras, instead of just wailing away on re-skinned Orcs.

You spent a lot of time on your review, and you make your points intelligently and compellingly. Your arguments that elements of the game feel rushed and sloppy are hard to refute. However, not all of your points are on the nose, and naturally many of them are highly subjective. This would be fine, if it wasn't for the incredibly self-aggrandizing and obnoxious thread title. You're clearly bright enough to understand the distinction between "Your Opinion" and "The Truth", and while I know we as a society fall all over ourselves to embrace negative opinions if they're stated with authority, that doesn't make them factual or objective.

 

[Wolfram23]

First and foremost, I agree with things that the OP said.

While I understand people wanted a "true" sequel that was just like DA:O but bigger, and instead got a different beast altogether, I think DA2 is actually a better game but a worse RPG.

It's just my opinion and I'm throwing it out there, of course, but I got pretty bored of DA:O and it's characters and several features of it.

I much prefer the way DA2 gives you quests and how you go about completing them and I like the streamlined dialog. I do wish there was a lot more equipment for the allies, but I also think it kind of makes sense that they can't go from, say, a dual wield rogue to an archer. I know, it's not "normal" for an RPG to restict a character like that but in a sense, it makes sense.

One thing I'm not really sure I agree on would be the rogue's using potions and the "bottomless pouch". I get that it's a little obsurd, but what part of being able to carry several full plate armour sets isn't obsurd?

Anyway, the game is most certainly fun to play and the storylines are interesting, most of the characters are interesting (although I do wish I could play with more of them, but I guess that's what a second playthrough is for). I like the combat system and I like how great the graphics are (on PC).

So where DA:O bored me, I still look forward to going home and playing more DA2.

Oh right PS: about the dungeons, I do find it a bit annoying that the same little rooms get revisited so often. They do change a few little things like overall layouts/order of the rooms but yes I've been in the same cave system at least 3 times now and I wish it was different.

 

[Bodyless]

Therumancer, you really should not sell your opinion as the truth. Even if the majority agrees with you, that is no justification to basicly call everyone with a different opinion a liar.

About mechanics defining rpgs. That does not mean those mechanics cannot be changed. That's like saying only the first edition of DnD is a rpg and every other is not.
DA2 combat is an evolution to DA:O combat. It may be a large step but that does not mean its worse at it. Origins had a lot of flaws in there and they tried to fix them while making the game more accesible to players new to this kind gameplay.
I would even say the crafting part is a lot better because you dont have to buy x different materials (since you hardly found enough), spent skills on crafting and possibly changing around your party members to switch between crafting and playing companions. It was simply complicated. now you just pay one price and can make a lot more than just healing potions mark 1-5.
They basicly fixed the inventory too by introducing the trash function.

Of course it gets old to explore the same areas again and again (like in the sidequests of mass effect1). And last 2 boss fights are just stupid as hell (i wonder why i didnt read a rant about that yet) both form story justification and gameplay wise.

But overall DA2 is on par with Origins. They traded one's flaws for a different set of flaws. The only bad thing is that people focus too much on the new flaws and overlook what DA2 improved so much over the first one. Neither is it the first sequel to change around mechanics that much. Try comparing MoO1 to MoO2 for example.

 

[Irridium]

While I agree with most of what your saying, there's a couple things I feel I need to touch upon.

First, the combat. The game is being told from the point of view of a Dwarf. A dwarf who is known for "embellishing" his stories. And the game reflects that. Combat is more "anime-like", and the world is more stylized. This is how he see's things, and since he's telling the story, its how things are.

Second, how the game's environments are different from Origins. Yes Origin's environments were more varied, but they still all looked the same. They were all brown and boring and uninteresting. I don't think that this is better than one good looking space thats re-used 30 damn times is better though.

Third, the story. Dragon Age followed the painfully predictable Bioware plot. Get inducted into prestigious order, gather allies, fight big evil, win. While they do it well, its getting old. I'm glad they went with a more personal story. That story isn't the best though, but I feel its a step in the right direction.

And those are my thoughts. Everything else, I agree with. Especially the waves of enemies that appear out of nowhere. Thats just lazy design. I also wish that they didn't call this game "Dragon Age 2". They should have called it "Dragon Age: Chronicles of Kirkwall" or something like that. If they didn't call it "Dragon Age 2", I think that the hate would be much less than it is now. Since people wouldn't expect a sequel to the first game, but a game set in the same universe, just somewhere completely different.

 

[UPRC]

Topic should be titled Dragon Age II: The Opinion.

You blast several aspects of the game repeatedly, over and over and over. I agree with some of what you said, but revisiting the same gripes repeatedly doesn't make your argument stronger.

My only minor complaint is how you used the "recycled maps" term. A recycled map isn't revisiting a location multiple times. A recycled map is a place that looks identical to a previous location but is not the same place. An example would be Castles B and C being a complete copy-past of Castle A. A lot of MMORPGs use recycled maps (just about any cave or inn/tavern and so forth). Kirkswall is not recycled at all. It's just an expansive city with quite a few maps to it, that's all. To be honest, I like the city. Adventuring across the entire nation of Ferelden was cool and all, but just because it was bigger doesn't mean it's better. Kirkwall can go toe to toe with any location in Origins and pretty much come out as the winner in terms of aethetics and design.

The only big gripe you had that I agree fully with is the wave upon wave of enemies that you fight, and how they appear to drop out of the sky. It's a little funny how you never know exactly what you're going to fight, since there are usually adds. Also you are pretty much flanked by previously unseen enemies in just about every dungeon, which gets annoying.

The customization options don't really bother me. I would've liked to be able to change my companions' gear and roles a little more, but it's not game breaking nor is it so bad that it's worth getting very upset over.

I don't know. I like the game, and what I just wrote is all my opinion. Feel free to disagree just as I have disagreed with you, but remember... Opinion. Not truth.

But in the end, EA are the villains here and not Bioware. They were forced to put out this sequel in far less time than they should have been given. Considering how little time they had to make a full sequel, I honestly think that Bioware did a pretty decent job.

 

[mattttherman3]

Despite how I liked the game, I cannot find fault with any of your arguments. This gives me GREAT fear for Mass Effect 3.

 

[AlternatePFG]

I enjoyed the game alot on my first playthrough. Second playthrough, I still thought it was good. Trying to get another playthrough in just feels like torture to me however. I still say it's a good game, just that it could've have been so much better. I really wished that they'd make the city look different as the game progressed.