Escapist Dragon Age II Review, Is Something Wrong Here?

[Sonic Doctor]

*Snip*

1. Some of them are. Can you honestly say all characters are on par with those from Origins?

2. I've never heard the claim that the graphics are last gen but let's be honest here, it's not the prettiest game on the market. It's on par with Origins.

3. The dialogue has been screwed up. The dialogue wheel allows for no option when it comes to talking appart from "funny, evil, good" which frankly does not fit the tone of the game. Dragon Age Origins's system gave you the option to be more than just good, evil or sarcastic. It allowed you to shape your character but at the same time, the devs had to put more work into the dialogue itself.

4. I understand that they wanted to tell the story of Hawke but they did a great job telling the story of the Grey Warden in the first game no matter if he was a Dwarf, Elf or Human. I'd even go as far to say the voiceless protagonist of the first game is more fleshed out and is in fact the better character because of the dialogue system present in the game. It allowed you to shape your character to more than just evil or good. Dragon Age 2 does not have that. This game is more of a spin off than anything else and I see no reason why it should be branded as a sequel to the first Dragon Age. Besides, this is Dragon Age 2. They should have continued the story of the first game not change the entire focus of the game to a single character. This game is a spin off, not a sequel but for some reason Bioware branded it as such. Can anyone think of a rea$on?

I could say much more here and continue ranting but I'll stop.

5. It's definetly simpler and less tactical and this has nothing to do with opinion. It was obviously centered around the action rather than on the tactical side. Play Dragon Age: Origins then play 2. There's a huge difference between the combat in the first game and the one in the second.

6. Someone claimed that? Who?

7. What equipment points? Are you talking about not being able to change your party members gear? I agree that it was a stupid move. Why shouldn't I be able to customize my party members? In fact, why is there barely any armor in the game?


8. I did breeze through the game in 14 hours and I can't imagine side quests adding any more to this so I guess the difficulty had an effect on length. Either way, I'm currently replaying Origins so if difficulty had something to do with length, I'll find out.

Some of these points might be opinions but that does not discredit them from being legitimate points for criticizing the game. Opinions can also contain truth rather than just personal thoughts on a certain subject.

1.) Yes, I can honestly say they are on par with Origins. But still, opinion.

2.) I don't know about other platforms, but DA2 much more than just on par with Origins. Take these pics of Isabella from both games.

Spoiler: DA:Origins

Spoiler: DA:2

On top of that for me, the range of expression had been improved in DA2. I can tell the characters emotion from the face, rather than just the sound of the voice. I slightly could in DA:Origins, but in DA2 I can tell the level of the emotion. Also if you will notice in the pictures. The smooth shine on the skin is pretty much gone in DA2; it looks like skin to me rather than shiny plastic.

It's more opinion of the eyes, what can each person's eyes perceive.

3.)Opinion. Actually the dialog is relatively the same as in Origins, just presented differently. The 3 choices are clearly defined, compared to Origins when it was hard to tell sometimes about what choice was good, bad, or neutral. And with the Origins dialog you would have two question picks that were thrown in and I usually couldn't tell if my character was responding with a question, or the question was something aside to build on the conversation before I made the final answer. Now that stuff has been nicely separated into the investigation side of the wheel. So if anything, the dialogue wheel allows for more investigation than the Origins, and it makes the dialogue type clearer. But still, in Origins never had more than three choices than good, bad, and neutral, and I much rather have the joking answer be the neutral position.

4.) Opinion
5.) Opinion
6.) Don't remember where I've looked at responses on many sites, it seems to blend together, but still, opinion.
7.) Opinion
8.) Opinion, and I highly doubt the 14 play time if you sat through and listened to each conversation. Besides it is your fault if you didn't do everything there is to do in the game. I have never understood people that buy a game and don't play the whole game. Play the whole game, then we will talk about length.

Truth is absolute, so by that opinions really can't contain truth.

 

[Danpascooch]

He liked a game you hate. Of course he is corrupt and was obviously paid off. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Sigh...

Finding a serial killer who gives white lilies to his victims, or making a mine safe again so the workers can return feels somehow more meaningful than ridding the world of Darkspawn just because that's the plot dangled in front of you.

Just because it's dangled in front of you? What does that even mean? It's a meaningless statement that attempts to classify the plot of origins as arbitrary and the plot of Dragon Age II meaningful without any evidence or reasoning beyond the word "somehow"

What evidence do you need? "Monsters from Hell came to destroy the world. Kill them!" pretty much sums up the main quest of DA:O. The individual quests were completely awesome, but DA2's biography take on storytelling makes us care that much more about the characters.

The party-based combat is frenetic, with no auto-attack making you feel in the thick of it with constant button-pressing. (If the no auto-attack annoys you, it's possible to turn this feature back on in the options.)

This is simply incorrect, the option is simply not there on consoles, and the review clearly states that it was based off the 360 version of the game, Bioware meant to include the option but do to a coding mistake the option is not currently on the console version, was this review truly written based on experiences from the game? If so why does the reviewer think the option is there? If there is any merit to the argument that EA payed them for an advance-written positive review this would be the strongest evidence, this statement in the review mentions something that was supposed to be there and was expected to be there by Bioware, but ended up not being in the final version (or review copies) of the game

And you know the option wasn't in the review build because... oh, you don't?! Well, shut up then. If you know it's a coding mistake, you should know that the review build might contain the right code.

Orders you do make with the improved radial menu are immediate, rather than annoyingly waiting for your next strike or a spell animation to play, further quickening the pace of the action.

What does this mean? You still have to wait for the animation just like in Origins, this statement is verifiably and provably false

Now you're just being ridiculous. He says attacks start instantaneously since the turn-based element was removed, not that there are no animations.

Any complaints I may have about Dragon Age II are minor annoyances, easily ignored for the leaps made in other areas.

Now I understand this is a matter of opinion, but nobody was shy about talking about numerous major problems in Dragon Age II, nobody. It's Metacritic user score is about a 4, and it's been long enough since release and many hundreds of reviews have been made that render the "too small a sample size" argument invalid

There are no "major problems" in the game. Maybe slight bugs (I haven't encountered any, though), but this is clearly not a New Vegas or FF XIV situation. The only thing the butthurt nerd kids from Metacritic are complaining about is the change in mechanics, which are perfectly functional. Anyone who gives 0-3 to ANY game is just venting their nerd frustration and their score should be disregarded.

Not only does Dragon Age II play better, it looks absolutely gorgeous. Gone is the mess of pixels and aura bugs that were the graphics of Origins and in its place is a combination of environments that just sing -- the golden statues of Andraste in the Chantry, the ships docked in Lowtown, the eddies of the Wounded Coast and the dank caves and dungeons all look wonderful. Individual textures may not look amazing under scrutiny, but as a whole each character's face is expressive across a wide range of emotions. If I have a concern, it's that certain dungeons below Kirkwall are visited two or three times with only small variations. "Oh, we're in that place again. Glad somebody restocked the chests with treasure."

Am I the only one that wonders what the hell is going on in this paragraph? It basically says "This is absolutely gorgeous, until you really take a good look at it, then it doesn't look too good" what the f--k does that mean? It looks good as long as you don't pay attention!?

What is going on in this paragraph? He's saying the game looks nice. He mentions that some textures are bland (it's a negative point, you should rejoice), but that almost everything else looks great. And he's totally right.

The advancements in RPG mechanics would be enough to set it apart, but the real achievement of Dragon Age II is in the story-telling. 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. As Hawke, you care about your mother and family, you care about your city and the conflicts that threaten to tear it apart. In a game as dense as this, and it will occupy at least fifty hours if you follow every hook, it's a triumph to just complete the story. But if I was proud to become the Champion of Kirkwall, I was more happy to have the tools to tell the story the way I envisioned it.

It just seems way too enthusiastic for a game that is almost universally cited as less impressive than its predecessor, the opinion that the metacritic user score of 4 is "too small a sample size" or "just trolls" has been obliterated as the number of reviews have almost reached a thousand when you consider the reviews for both 360 and PS3 (which have much the same low score)

AGAIN with Metacritic?! most of the very low reviews basically say "DAII sucks because it's bad and is bad because it sucks". They don't mean anything.

First off, if you're going to attack my post, I would at least hope you would properly read it, I stated (twice no less) that my personal opinion is that he was not bought out, so your opening comment is attacking for an opinion I specifically said I don't have.

secondly, you stated that he meant the "turn based element" was removed when he used the word "instantaneously". What turn based element? Both games have real time combat with the option to pause it to give a command, nothing about Origins was "turn based", the animations in DA2 are somewhat faster, but certainly not instantaneous.

third, I know it wasn't in the review copy because the review copies are sent out after the code "goes gold" if you don't know what that phrase means than look it up, but it basically means that it's the finalized version of the code to be shipped, he received the same thing everyone else did.

lastly, Mass Effect 1 and 2 and Dragon Age Origins all have good Metacritic user scores while Dragon Age 2 doesn't, why is that? They are all using the same user scoring system, and if I recall nerd rage peaked when Mass Effect did things such as remove the inventory, can you explain that discrepancy? All 4 games are dealing with the same rating system and ruleset, yet DA2 is the only one with the horrible score, the only thing that has changed is the game being reviewed.

In short, don't attack me unless you actually read and understand what's being talked about here, I specifically said I don't think he was payed off, but the more I read this thread the more I realize people just see what they want to see in my post rather than what I actually wrote, they want me think I'm a conspiracy theorist hack so their mind fills in the blanks.

 

[Danpascooch]

The thread with the Dragon Age II review is abuzz with speculation as to whether EA has payed The Escapist for a positive review or something similarly shady is going on. Below is my analysis and some of what I thought to be flaws, inconsistencies, or general oddities in The Escapist's review of Dragon Age II.

In short he didn't notice any flaws. Meh. I don't reckon Greg was paid; he sounded genuinely impressed. That means he's got different tastes and his reviews aren't for us. Even bad taste isn't a crime.

Bioware games are usually shiny and polished if uninspired. The illusion is great to some gamers.

Did you even read my post? There is at least one provably false statement.

The one that is absolutely factually false is that you can turn on auto-attack in the options menu, that is simply a false statement, no opinion involved.

The other statement that I believe to be provably false is that commands are instantaneously executed after given them, you still have to wait through the animation before the damage/effects are done to the enemies, so that is wrong too.

Read my post before attacking me please.

 

[Danpascooch]

That's not a problem with the Escapist, that's a problem with Metacritic's scoring system.

Anyone with half a brain knows a 5-Star review does not mean something is considered perfect, it simply means the reviewer thought it was in the top tier of releases and they highly recommend it.

The fact that Metacritic change that 5 (which numerically could mean anything from 80-100) and change it to a flat '100' - that is the problem here.

On the front of the DA2 box it says: PC GAMER Editors Choice 94%. Pretty sure that has nothing to do with metacritic.

What does PC Gamer have to do with the Escapist's review?

What about the factual inaccuracies and unsupported claims in the review, do those not matter?

I don't agree that there are factual inaccuracies. Reviews are all just opinion. Why don't you PM Greg Tito and ask him?

He said that auto-attack can be turned on in the options menu, which it cannot. There is no option to turn on auto-attack in the menu. How is that a matter of opinion? It is a fact that that option does not exist on the console versions (and he reviewed the 360 version).

He also said commands are executed instantaneously after giving them, which is also factually incorrect, you have to wait for the duration of the animation before the damage and/or effects are applied to the enemies, this is another statement that is factually false.

Did you actually read the OP?

 

[Danpascooch]

I assume that your comment about dubbing people fanboys is directed at me (the OP) since you didn't quote anyone, in that case I don't know what OP you think you read, because I was very careful not to use the word "fanboy" or imply its equivalent at any point, don't make assumptions about my post if you didn't read it.

What exactly does "silly anger" mean? What about these people's anger is silly? They mostly complain about lackluster environments and story structure, which doesn't seem silly to me at all. Regardless of whether people treat Metacritic as a like/dislike system (with either 1's or 10's) the point is that this sort of negative review fest did NOT happen with games such as Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 1 and 2. The entirety of nerd-dom did not change since Dragon Age Origins, the only thing that changed was the game being reviewed.

And FYI, calling feedback "nerd rage" is just as bad as calling someone a "fanboy" it's just on the other end of the spectrum.

Silly anger is wrong? Any and all Anger about game changes at this level is silly. Anger at games is Stupid as all hell. Being disappointed is one thing, actually getting mad at a game not being as good as its predecessor is just... well bad. And no, I did not attack your point about The review for DA2 not being good. It wasn't it didn't cover anywhere close to enough.

But you Can't use meta critics User reviews at all, people ARE giving this 1/10 because of changes they don't like. As I said, I would so far give the game a Low 80 high 70, It was a disappointment compared to DA:O, but sorry, "The worst game ever!!!", some people are actually spouting this, and yes i have read most of the Sup 4/10 Scores.

And on the Fanboy comment, No, I was using it as everyone in this topic and on the DA2 Review who used "FANBOI" to cut down people defending the game.

Hey shock sodding horror the game WILL get 10/10's from some people, Even non "fanboys" people will like changes you don't, I have to admit this became more like an Action game than a tactical RPG, but hell, mabye that's what they wanted to make. They wanted something more akin to what happened to ME2, but in the end it didn't work.

Im sorry, It is nerd rage, getting mad at anything this pointless is nerd rage, (just as sometimes Fanboy actually has a place), getting Angry, actually angry about a game is just stupid. If you COMPLETELY ignore DA this is still a good game. Not the best by a long shot but still worth buying and playing. This is just, and im right (and no its not aimed at you) Silly anger.

Getting mad at what level exactly? Getting mad at the level of being willing to take 90 seconds to post a rating on Metacritic over $60 you feel was wasted is silly?

Here is the breakdown for the people who left 0's on Metacritic:

Things lost: $60

Actions taken out of anger: 90 seconds of clicking.

How is that an insane overreaction?

Any flaws in the Metacritic system (such as people tending to leave either 0's or 10's) is a problem that exists for ALL of Bioware's games on Metacritic, yet Mass Effect 1 & 2, and Origins all manage to have high user reviews despite dealing with the same ruleset and rating system DA2 is currently dealing with. Do you remember how enraged nerds were over the drop of inventory and other RPG elements in Mass Effect 2? It has a 9.0/10 user rating.

The only thing that's different about Mass Effect 2 and DA2 on Metacritic is the game being reviewed, they are both dealing with nerd rage and the flaws of the Metacritic system, so any differences between them are a result of the content inside the game.

 

[Danpascooch]

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews

If you want to look through them yourself and see the rationale of the average poor rating, you're welcome to, all the actual written reviews are there.

I'm going to concede. I've got nothing but theory on what's going on.

So I just did that, removing 0, 1, 2, 9, and 10 scores, and ended up with averages of 5.1 for the PC version, 5.3 for the 360 version and 4.9 for the PS3 version.

Additionally, it seemed for every two lines long rewiew there were one half-page rant.

a 5? That seems reasonable, I would give it a 6.5 maybe, but people need to realize this isn't just a coincidence, this game has some problems.

 

[Danpascooch]

You keep citing metacritic user reviews, but you know I could put 5-10 of those up an hour if I wanted to, right?

Sure, and you would put up 5-10 out of over 1000

It's not all trolls, the denial has to stop, when's the last time Game Informer has given an 83 to a major Bioware RPG? It's not a coincidence that it's scoring badly, it's not a paradox, the universe is not imploding, it's just not very good.

Nope, but let's say maybe me 20 other people put up an average of 7 an hour for an average of 5 hours a day, and you've got... 700 per day. Total reviews on all consoles = 1569 right now, that's two days and a few legitimate reviews.

And who would willingly do that for 5 hours? Who would even spend an hour doing that?

Nerd raging fanboys. I mean, honestly, look at the reaction. I'm not saying your 7s, 6s, hell 5s are wrong. I'm saying your 1s and 2s are just nerd raging fanboys spamming the site because they haven't been this mad since Oblivion added fast travel.

And yet oblivion doesn't have user scores in the 3's and 4's?

Was metacritic even around when Oblivion came out?

I don't know, but having seen the Morrowind loyalist base firsthand, I can guarantee that if Oblivion was released today the same thing would have happened.

Metacritic was out 5 years before Oblivion, Dragon Age Origins just came out not too long ago and it has good ratings, care to explain this "guarantee"?

Occams Razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, there is no conspiracy here, it's just not very good and people are angry because of it. Not liking the reason behind the result doesn't change the reason.

Well folks, I just looked up Oblivion's metacritic page out of curiousity and, lo and behold, it has a grand total of 1413 ratings between pc/xbox/ps3. I'll stop pulling the fanboy irrationality card if you'll admit that it's a little odd to compare a game that's been out 7 years that has less reviews than a game that has been out for two or three days depending on where you live.
Then again that was my doing so I guess that would put us at square 1.

How does the number of reviews Oblivion have matter? It doesn't reduce the review count on Dragon Age II. The volume of quick responses can be easily explained by the fact that people who are angry or feel betrayed by a low quality game are motivated to take action to hold the developer accountable (IE leave a negative rating) while people who are satisfied don't feel the same sense of urgency and often don't bother.

Explain to me why it's odd, what about the Oblivion rating count damages the legitimacy of the Dragon Age II rating? Given that trolls can be all but ruled out since they aren't attacking other new releases and the sheer volume of negative reviews is too much to be accrued by trolls, and that's not even considering the fact that nobody has any motivation to attack this game's ratings for no reason.

*shrug* At this point we're talking maybes. I think there is, you think there isn't. I can't prove there is, and you can't prove there isn't. We can argue all night, but it won't get either of us anywhere. So, I propose we try something that might sound a little less dumb.

I'm gonna go through and average up every user review score for Dragon Age 2 that isn't a 0, 1, 2, 9, or 10. I think that clears up all the bias, right? 3-8 will be acceptable numbers to be averaged. Then I'll come back and post what an average without trolling and countertrolling ends up being, and we can argue about what that means.

I guess you could do that, but you won't really be able to, you can't see individual scores that aren't attached to reviews, and I only see a dozen or so actual full user reviews, which really is too small a sample size.

You mentioned that you "think there is" but my point is that I am at a loss for what "there is" means, what are you implying? There is a troll movement against the game? There is a database glitch that caused its score to be swapped with another game? What do you mean by "I think there is"?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews

If you want to look through them yourself and see the rationale of the average poor rating, you're welcome to, all the actual written reviews are there.

I'm going to concede. I've got nothing but theory on what's going on.

Please answer my question, I'm not saying your theory is wrong, but that's primarily because I have no idea what your theory is, please tell me what your theory is for why Dragon Age 2 is receiving these low scores.

My theory is that there were a smallish number of people who liked Dragon Age: Origins a lot, and somehow came to the conclusion through accident or fanboy rage goggles or whatever came to the conclusion that Dragon Age 2 "sold out", and became some sort of button mashing Gauntlet clone, and therefore decided to hop on guerillamail.com to make some quick disposable emails to register a ton of throwaway accounts that were used to give DA2 a 0-2 rating.

Like I said, it wouldn't be difficult to do 5-10 of these on your own in an hour. Let's say out of everyone who was mad about this, 20 people were mad enough that they decided to spam 0-2 ratings and reviews up just because they didn't like it so much.

I'm not here to argue over whether or not the game is good or bad or the reviewer was paid off or not, I was just saying that 20 people could have engineered the entire metacritic rating in two days, so it's not really remotely reliable of a system to use as evidence.

First off, take a step back and try to read that post you just made from an objective person's point of view, you have to admit it reads like a conspiracy theory.

Secondly, you'll remember Mass Effect 2 having the same "sell out anger" over its inventory system and exploration, people were pissed, nerd rage peaked, and yet somehow it has a user rating of 9/10.

I'll give you that. It could all be in my head and it's really SO bad that it deserves an average rating of 4.

I just don't see it. I mean, even with the demo, it's not like the game was broken. Yeah, you could make the point that basing a 5 as totally average a 4 would be a mere "below average", if average games got 5's normally. They tend to drift more towards 7s. Games that get 4s are more often broken buggy messes that might have been interesting if they were playable or not rushed out the door.

It doesn't seem odd to you that a fairly normal, not totally busted game would suddenly be the first game to ever be rated from a "5 is average" scale? I'm saying something has to be up because there's no rational explanation.

I never said it deserves a rating of 4, personally I think it deserves a 6.5, I just think that the people who think that the only reason that this isn't a 9/10 like Mass Effect 2 is stupidity and trolls are in a bit of denial.

Thanks for staying reasonable, I'm sorry if I overstepped my bounds when I compared your last post to a conspiracy theory.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

snip

It's not an opinion. The characters have no depth and their history is barely fleshed out during the game. You have a cardboard box for a character with an extremely short quest regarding their past. They just don't open up at all. Besides, their history itself is predictable and so are their motives. The only interesting characters are Anders and Fenris and Bioware did not give enough attention to them. They needed to be more fleshed out.

In regards to the graphics. They did not seem like such a huge upgrade from 1. All they did was change the art style which fit the tone of the game but that's about it. The skin was upgraded, granted, but I saw no emotion in the characters face. It was on par with Origins.

In regards to the dialogue, I disagree. The origins dialogue was not clearly defined. There was no evil, no neutral, no good answer. You made your own answers, just like in a real life conversation. It made more sense. Here it's clearly cut. You're either the stalwart hero or the asshole. In origins, you had more choice when it came to your dialogue. Here, you don't. It's not a matter of opinion. It's clearly an inferior system. Origins gave you more options. Here, those options were taken away from you. You no longer have a more fleshed out system.

The dialogue wheel does not, in fact, allow for more investigation. It in fact allows for less, since you only have 3 clearly defined answers whilst in Origins it was 3, none of them dealing with the good/bad/neutral bs.

Even if it is an opinion, lots of people agree with me including professional reviewers if that counts for something. The combat is more action oriented. It might not be something that casual or people who play for the story would notice but those who enjoy the combat have noticed. I agree, the combat is fun if you go in with the right mentality and you don't focus on the tactics itself. If you focus on the action then it can get pretty frantic. But when it comes to tactics? I'm sorry, but it doesn't even compare to origins. The slower combat of origins coupled with its isometric view and the aggressive AI made for an excelent tactical experience. Here, it's less so.

Also, what opinion? You cannot customize your characters. It's a fact. It's a bad thing because you now basically have no control over your characters looks/stats. It's obviously encouraging you to focus on Hawke but it's obviously a stepback from origins'system. In origins you could, here you can't.

I did the sidequests but let's face it, the main quest in origins is 30 to 40 hours long whilst here it clocks in at about 17 hours depending on the difficulty setting. I personally took 40 hours to complete the main quest on my first playthrough with cheats and on normal difficulty. On my second playthrough without cheats it took 50 coupled with 4 or 6 side quests. Doing all the side quests including DLC would have landed me somewhere around the 80 hour mark. DA2 doesn't even come close to that. It's a shorter game. Deal with it already.


But what if there is an overwhelming majority reporting the same thing?

 

[Zaik]

You keep citing metacritic user reviews, but you know I could put 5-10 of those up an hour if I wanted to, right?

Sure, and you would put up 5-10 out of over 1000

It's not all trolls, the denial has to stop, when's the last time Game Informer has given an 83 to a major Bioware RPG? It's not a coincidence that it's scoring badly, it's not a paradox, the universe is not imploding, it's just not very good.

Nope, but let's say maybe me 20 other people put up an average of 7 an hour for an average of 5 hours a day, and you've got... 700 per day. Total reviews on all consoles = 1569 right now, that's two days and a few legitimate reviews.

And who would willingly do that for 5 hours? Who would even spend an hour doing that?

Nerd raging fanboys. I mean, honestly, look at the reaction. I'm not saying your 7s, 6s, hell 5s are wrong. I'm saying your 1s and 2s are just nerd raging fanboys spamming the site because they haven't been this mad since Oblivion added fast travel.

And yet oblivion doesn't have user scores in the 3's and 4's?

Was metacritic even around when Oblivion came out?

I don't know, but having seen the Morrowind loyalist base firsthand, I can guarantee that if Oblivion was released today the same thing would have happened.

Metacritic was out 5 years before Oblivion, Dragon Age Origins just came out not too long ago and it has good ratings, care to explain this "guarantee"?

Occams Razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, there is no conspiracy here, it's just not very good and people are angry because of it. Not liking the reason behind the result doesn't change the reason.

Well folks, I just looked up Oblivion's metacritic page out of curiousity and, lo and behold, it has a grand total of 1413 ratings between pc/xbox/ps3. I'll stop pulling the fanboy irrationality card if you'll admit that it's a little odd to compare a game that's been out 7 years that has less reviews than a game that has been out for two or three days depending on where you live.
Then again that was my doing so I guess that would put us at square 1.

How does the number of reviews Oblivion have matter? It doesn't reduce the review count on Dragon Age II. The volume of quick responses can be easily explained by the fact that people who are angry or feel betrayed by a low quality game are motivated to take action to hold the developer accountable (IE leave a negative rating) while people who are satisfied don't feel the same sense of urgency and often don't bother.

Explain to me why it's odd, what about the Oblivion rating count damages the legitimacy of the Dragon Age II rating? Given that trolls can be all but ruled out since they aren't attacking other new releases and the sheer volume of negative reviews is too much to be accrued by trolls, and that's not even considering the fact that nobody has any motivation to attack this game's ratings for no reason.

*shrug* At this point we're talking maybes. I think there is, you think there isn't. I can't prove there is, and you can't prove there isn't. We can argue all night, but it won't get either of us anywhere. So, I propose we try something that might sound a little less dumb.

I'm gonna go through and average up every user review score for Dragon Age 2 that isn't a 0, 1, 2, 9, or 10. I think that clears up all the bias, right? 3-8 will be acceptable numbers to be averaged. Then I'll come back and post what an average without trolling and countertrolling ends up being, and we can argue about what that means.

I guess you could do that, but you won't really be able to, you can't see individual scores that aren't attached to reviews, and I only see a dozen or so actual full user reviews, which really is too small a sample size.

You mentioned that you "think there is" but my point is that I am at a loss for what "there is" means, what are you implying? There is a troll movement against the game? There is a database glitch that caused its score to be swapped with another game? What do you mean by "I think there is"?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragon-age-ii/user-reviews

If you want to look through them yourself and see the rationale of the average poor rating, you're welcome to, all the actual written reviews are there.

I'm going to concede. I've got nothing but theory on what's going on.

Please answer my question, I'm not saying your theory is wrong, but that's primarily because I have no idea what your theory is, please tell me what your theory is for why Dragon Age 2 is receiving these low scores.

My theory is that there were a smallish number of people who liked Dragon Age: Origins a lot, and somehow came to the conclusion through accident or fanboy rage goggles or whatever came to the conclusion that Dragon Age 2 "sold out", and became some sort of button mashing Gauntlet clone, and therefore decided to hop on guerillamail.com to make some quick disposable emails to register a ton of throwaway accounts that were used to give DA2 a 0-2 rating.

Like I said, it wouldn't be difficult to do 5-10 of these on your own in an hour. Let's say out of everyone who was mad about this, 20 people were mad enough that they decided to spam 0-2 ratings and reviews up just because they didn't like it so much.

I'm not here to argue over whether or not the game is good or bad or the reviewer was paid off or not, I was just saying that 20 people could have engineered the entire metacritic rating in two days, so it's not really remotely reliable of a system to use as evidence.

First off, take a step back and try to read that post you just made from an objective person's point of view, you have to admit it reads like a conspiracy theory.

Secondly, you'll remember Mass Effect 2 having the same "sell out anger" over its inventory system and exploration, people were pissed, nerd rage peaked, and yet somehow it has a user rating of 9/10.

I'll give you that. It could all be in my head and it's really SO bad that it deserves an average rating of 4.

I just don't see it. I mean, even with the demo, it's not like the game was broken. Yeah, you could make the point that basing a 5 as totally average a 4 would be a mere "below average", if average games got 5's normally. They tend to drift more towards 7s. Games that get 4s are more often broken buggy messes that might have been interesting if they were playable or not rushed out the door.

It doesn't seem odd to you that a fairly normal, not totally busted game would suddenly be the first game to ever be rated from a "5 is average" scale? I'm saying something has to be up because there's no rational explanation.

I never said it deserves a rating of 4, personally I think it deserves a 6.5, I just think that the people who think that the only reason that this isn't a 9/10 like Mass Effect 2 is stupidity and trolls are in a bit of denial.

Thanks for staying reasonable, I'm sorry if I overstepped my bounds when I compared your last post to a conspiracy theory.

That's no problem, I got really ranty. Little sleep did a lot of good in my case >.>

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Metacritic is often treated as a pass fail system (0, 1, 9 or 10), and while that is a disadvantage, every game has to deal with that same disadvantage so it's fair to compare them because they are dealing with the same rule set, Mass Effect 1 and 2 and Origins got high scores working with the same system and ruleset as DA2, so it's the game, not the system. Do I think it really deserves a 4? No, probably a 6.5, but the point is something is wrong with the game.

I've actually taken college level statistics, and to ensure a 5% margin of error with a 99% level of confidence among a population of up to 100,000,000 people (which is far more than bought this game) you only need a sample size of 666 people, as the error margin decreases exponentially as the sample size increases, a 95% confidence level is accepted in a court of law, so a 99% confidence level should be WAY more than enough to justify an opinion on a forum.

I am only addressing these parts of your post because the rest was your personal opinions on the game, which while interesting, I'm in a bit of a hurry and your opinion is not really relevant to the validity of its online score

If this post sounded rude that was not my intention.

The thing, is the statement that "something is wrong with the game" is an opinion. I can look at that 4 point score and it just tells me that in my opinion there are a lot of people with a bizarre way of thinking.

Besides, I willing to bet that there are way more people that have a positive look on the game, they are just busy playing the game to even care about voting at the moment. If played properly, it is engrossing and long game; I know my friends have each put at least 20 hours into the game and they've told me that they don't believe they are close to beating it. Besides, with the way they were talking, the were already discussing how they were going to play through the game again. One of them I know will play the game to death, because he played Origins, Awakening, and all the DLC at least 6 times. He will play ever class and will then go on to play with different team layouts.

I've mentioned the things being said on here and other places, and my friends just laughed and said, "Well, we don't know what game they are playing, because we are playing a great game, it's their loss that they can't see it." And from my play through of the game, I agree with them. They both loved Origins and all and I can tell that they think that DA2 is just as great if not better. They just aren't going to go on some site and vote.

On the statistics, I was basing mine on what I learned from a college class on proposal, report, and study writing, from what makes an acceptable sample for research in university studies, you know, the type of thing that takes 1 to 2 years gain any usable knowledge. Though, I'm going to wait just as long before I even consider what the real reception of the game was. Eight hundred or so negative votes tells me nothing on how good or bad the game was. It does tell me that many people that didn't give the game enough time and attention and just stopped playing rushed to a site to bad mouth it. Many of the people I found on Metacritic gave a bad rating while saying that they just dropped the game and didn't complete it, then the others that claim that they completed the game, it turns out they just rushed through the main story and didn't do any of the side quests(You know, things that brings more depth to the game and usually add things to the main story, intricacies that can be missed if left undone).

I just can't take people's opinions seriously if they didn't finish or play through the game as BioWare intended. They didn't make the game for people that rush and ignore other parts of the game, they made it for people that play this type game by doing everything the game offers to do in the world. If people think it was too short having only gone through the story, that is the players fault not BioWare.

But all in all, it is just opinions and not fact.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

It's not an opinion. The characters have no depth and their history is barely fleshed out during the game. You have a cardboard box for a character with an extremely short quest regarding their past. They just don't open up at all. Besides, their history itself is predictable and so are their motives. The only interesting characters are Anders and Fenris and Bioware did not give enough attention to them. They needed to be more fleshed out.

In regards to the graphics. They did not seem like such a huge upgrade from 1. All they did was change the art style which fit the tone of the game but that's about it. The skin was upgraded, granted, but I saw no emotion in the characters face. It was on par with Origins.

In regards to the dialogue, I disagree. The origins dialogue was not clearly defined. There was no evil, no neutral, no good answer. You made your own answers, just like in a real life conversation. It made more sense. Here it's clearly cut. You're either the stalwart hero or the asshole. In origins, you had more choice when it came to your dialogue. Here, you don't. It's not a matter of opinion. It's clearly an inferior system. Origins gave you more options. Here, those options were taken away from you. You no longer have a more fleshed out system.

The dialogue wheel does not, in fact, allow for more investigation. It in fact allows for less, since you only have 3 clearly defined answers whilst in Origins it was 3, none of them dealing with the good/bad/neutral bs.

Even if it is an opinion, lots of people agree with me including professional reviewers if that counts for something. The combat is more action oriented. It might not be something that casual or people who play for the story would notice but those who enjoy the combat have noticed. I agree, the combat is fun if you go in with the right mentality and you don't focus on the tactics itself. If you focus on the action then it can get pretty frantic. But when it comes to tactics? I'm sorry, but it doesn't even compare to origins. The slower combat of origins coupled with its isometric view and the aggressive AI made for an excelent tactical experience. Here, it's less so.

Also, what opinion? You cannot customize your characters. It's a fact. It's a bad thing because you now basically have no control over your characters looks/stats. It's obviously encouraging you to focus on Hawke but it's obviously a stepback from origins'system. In origins you could, here you can't.

I did the sidequests but let's face it, the main quest in origins is 30 to 40 hours long whilst here it clocks in at about 17 hours depending on the difficulty setting. I personally took 40 hours to complete the main quest on my first playthrough with cheats and on normal difficulty. On my second playthrough without cheats it took 50 coupled with 4 or 6 side quests. Doing all the side quests including DLC would have landed me somewhere around the 80 hour mark. DA2 doesn't even come close to that. It's a shorter game. Deal with it already.


But what if there is an overwhelming majority reporting the same thing?

With the dialogue, you clearly weren't paying attention besides the good, neutral, and bad in DA2, there is usually 3 or more investigation questions that aren't good, neutral or bad, they just are. I believe one time I saw 5 investigation questions with the return to the good, neutral, and bad on the center right, if anything it adds more than Origins.

It is not fact that the differences in the customization of characters makes it bad, that is what I was getting at and it is an opinion that it makes the game bad. I didn't even notice that it was gone until somebody pointed it out, that's how little I cared.

On length, look at all the DLC for Origins along with the edition of Awakening. So far all DA2 has for DLC is the Exiled Prince. It will take time for more to come out, and when it does, it will make the game on par with Origins and it's stuff.

But seriously, you only did 4 to 6 side quests in Origins? There were several dozens if not a 100 or more side quests in Origins. Heck there were three side quests just on the Chantry board in Lothering near the beginning of the game. And I know there are were a good dozen at least in Denerim. When I say side quests I mean every little thing you can possibly do, every errand or favor that people ask you to do. I talk to every person I see in the game and pick up everything. People can't complain about the length of a game until they complete every scrap of what I just talked about. BioWare put that stuff in the game, it was meant to be played along with the main story, so it is part of the game and they intend for people to play it.

But really, there is apparently know middle ground here.

You believe your opinions are fact(which they can't be because they are opinions) and I'm clearly stating that my opinions are just opinions and that is all they are. I couldn't care less about some "professional" reviewer, his opinion holds no more weight than some random passerby that has happened to play the game.

 

[isma1990]

Investigation questions? Seriously? Those only tell you more about the situation but they do not offer choice. You are presented with choices, good, neutral or bad which are on the right side, just like Mass Effect. From time to time you get additional ones with a heart to seduce someone but it doesn't give you any choice.

This is basically the Paragon/Renegade system of ME and it was written in a big sign that you could see from Mars that it was going to be dumbed down like that. If we wanted a relative of Chuck Norris as the character we would play Mass Effect.

***** MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT *****

I don't say that it doesn't give you choice lightly. I happened to be playing the game paralel to my friend and we discussed it at work. In most scenarios we took different options. And what happened? Exact result.

If you choose to be a mage at the beggining, your sister dies. Else, your brother does.

Then, when you go to the deep roads. If you take your brother along with you, he dies. My friend had not chosen a mage so he had her sister alive instead, and what happened? He left her home and the circle took her and you never see her again. Go figure the outcome of the other choices.

And the worst of all comes when your two siblings are no longer with you and only your mother remains. There is a woman-killer out there. When you catch him red-handed and about to kill a woman he says he is not the assassin, that he is merely tracking the real one. THE sane choice would be to take him to the guards, question him to see if it's true and take appropiate action. What are you given? The choice of letting him go or not.

I decided to let him go and then help him find the killer. Consequence? He killed mother. I asked my friend what he had done. And he had killed him. So I figured in his save game mother was alive. She wasn't. Here's the deal.

If you spare the assassin, he kills your mother.

If you don't, then he wasn't the assassin and another one comes and kills her.

Either way, your mother gets turned into the wife of frankenstein because the killer is bananas. What kind of joke is that? In Origins if you killed Zevran he was dead forever, same with Stern, the dog. Etc.

This is a kick in the bloody balls to all those who thought the game would be an RPG.

***** SPOILER ALERT *****

At this point the game is about 20+ hours and I still don't know why THE champion is the most important person in the DA universe or why I have only fought like two troops of darkspawn or shit like that. Where is the real story? Why don't we go to kill darkspawn? Where do they originate? What happened to the banished Tevinter Magisters? Why can't we go to Tevinter to find some answers? Such a huge universe of lore written for the sake of nothing.

Aside from that, the hype built around this game was enormous. Remember the trailer where the champion had some kind of ethereal, demonincal, whatever superpowers? He doesn't. He is no son of Morrigan. He's just some dude who wanted to make money to raise his status so he could stop running. I think this late in the game, it's high time the plot showed: WHY IS HE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE DA UNIVERSE?

Besides, the level design is horrible. It's just the same maps over and over again. If you thought that it was shameless for mass effect to have the same fucking map in every cave, then wait to play this. Even important events are recycled. The fade is just the map where the templars reside with fog in it.

Stop talking about "opinions", this game is FLAWED and that is a fact. You may not like the music, or the setting and that's subjective. But some things just are not. All reviewers who haven't brought up and punished the severe abuse this game makes with re-re-re-re-re-recycled maps are paid off. They must be. At this rate Bioware will be producing Final Fantasy XV sooner or later.

 

[ultrachicken]

What's more emotional than defending yourself against a group that at its basest instincts want to kill you? If that was his opinion he should have at LEAST explained beyond "somehow" which is a word exclusively used to indicate a lack of explanation.

The Darkspawn received no fleshing out in the main game aside from "they're evil! Kill they ass!" Unless the narrative does a good job of making you care about what the Darkspawn destroy, they don't come across as very engaging antagonists. Yes, the wording was a little off. I think that the review needed some further proofreading before release, but your accusations about Greg trying to advertise DA2 by bashing the original is a bit dramatic.

Immediate and faster are two very different things, I suppose I can see what he might have meant, but the execution of this review was clumsy at best, and good practice in cryptology at worst.

Greg spent way too much time with emphasis, but it's honestly not too difficult to decipher what he means.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It is not fact that the differences in the customization of characters makes it bad, that is what I was getting at and it is an opinion that it makes the game bad. I didn't even notice that it was gone until somebody pointed it out, that's how little I cared.

You played a game that apparently is just as tactical as Origins but never bothered attempting to buy/put gear on your companions to make them better fit for battle? What difficulty did you play on?

With the dialogue, you clearly weren't paying attention besides the good, neutral, and bad in DA2, there is usually 3 or more investigation questions that aren't good, neutral or bad, they just are. I believe one time I saw 5 investigation questions with the return to the good, neutral, and bad on the center right, if anything it adds more than Origins.

Like I've said before, it's way to straightforward. In Origins, you were truly shaping your character. You could start out as the spoiled son of a noble and after your parents death and you joining the grey wardens you could transition him into a more mature character. This sort of roleplaying is made possible by the dialogue system. It's impossible to roleplay in Dragon Age because the answers are fixed. They were obviously trying to tell their version of Hawk and not let the player decide but how is this not a downfall?

On length, look at all the DLC for Origins along with the edition of Awakening. So far all DA2 has for DLC is the Exiled Prince. It will take time for more to come out, and when it does, it will make the game on par with Origins and it's stuff.

But Origins without Awakening or any DLC took 30 to 40 hours to complete with cheats on easy difficulty. On normal it was 50 and this is just the main quest. Awakening and the rest of the DLC added over 30 hours of gameplay to it bringing the total sum to almost a 100 hours of play. What does DA2 have? A 15 to 16 hour long main quest, lots of side quests but I can't imagine them adding more than 5 or 6 hours of gameplay since the quests areas are so limited. Even so, why would I give a fuck about DLC? Why should I pay more to get the same experience a previous game gave me? They purposely designed the game this way just so entice you to buy DLC. This is why the story ends on such a cliffhanger and this is why no ones questions were answered. It's all going to be in DLC form and it's bullshit. They're attempting to milk as much money from you as possible. No thanks. I'd rather play Origins than pay more for less.

Why this game was called Dragon Age 2 is beyond me. It does not continue the story from the first game at all. It's a completely new setting and game that focuses on the characters rather than the overarching story. It's lighter and more humour packed. Bioware or rather EA was trying to cash in on the success of the first game by spending less, making less, pricing it the same.
Hell, have you seen the environments? They're the same. 4 environments with minor variations for each goddamn quest area.

But seriously, you only did 4 to 6 side quests in Origins? There were several dozens if not a 100 or more side quests in Origins. Heck there were three side quests just on the Chantry board in Lothering near the beginning of the game. And I know there are were a good dozen at least in Denerim. When I say side quests I mean every little thing you can possibly do, every errand or favor that people ask you to do. I talk to every person I see in the game and pick up everything. People can't complain about the length of a game until they complete every scrap of what I just talked about. BioWare put that stuff in the game, it was meant to be played along with the main story, so it is part of the game and they intend for people to play it.

But I didn't do all that in Origins and still got myself a nice 40 hours out of it. Side quests are irrelevant here. We're talking length of main story. The main story in 2 is extremely small when compared to that of Origins. Maybe the side quests make up for it but the side quests in 2 are fucking boring except for miners one. Goddamn dragon. Either way, the side quests always involve the same fucking areas over and over and over and over again. I didn't have this problem in Origins but the side quests here are boring. Plain and simple. Except for a few gems they're not worth playing. But again, that's irrelevant. We're talking length of main story. If you want length of entire game then Origins breaks a 100 whilst DA2 probably doesn't even break 30.

You believe your opinions are fact(which they can't be because they are opinions) and I'm clearly stating that my opinions are just opinions and that is all they are. I couldn't care less about some "professional" reviewer, his opinion holds no more weight than some random passerby that has happened to play the game.

Dragon Age 2 has the lowest score of any bioware game. When's the last time you saw a Bioware game get a goddamn 8? There are over 2000 reviews by users for the game, 70% of those giving a negative review. It's obviously an inferior game. People are not satisfied with the result. bioware obviously tried to appeal to a different dynamic and in turn alienated a lot of fans of the first game.

snip

Yes they do, at least in Origins. Talk to Leliana and ask her to tell you a tale. Ask about the Darkspawn. She specifically tells you the legend of how the Darkspawn came to be. Then there's Awakening which goes more in depth.

 

[drunken_munki]

ubersnip

Escapist reviews are often statistical anomalies, remember the Black Ops review?

I think its more likely Greg Tito just rated the game on what he thought about it, rather than trying to guess the average score like most other reviewers.

Hmm not quite?

Edge magazine gave a good review of a poor game, without even mentioning the disparity from the DA:O to DA2. On its own merits, it flops as a triple A budget RPG. So given that, it is more like a 5-6 / 10 game. Now throw in the fact that a lot of Bioware fans and RPG fans were keen and excited on playing a game that they were accustomed to seeing. With depth and character. Yep, you enrage and upset a lot of fans. Now you can call them what you like, but what are you without your fans? What exactly are you? A money sucking leech?

Please can someone explain whats the point in trashing one set of fans to replace them for another set? You can't make EVERYONE happy. That is a fact of life. So why bother? They could have made this dumbed down crass game and called it something else. There you go, that mass market can eat it up.

Fuck em. Another developer will swoop in and woo the people, and create a deserving game to receive high acclaim, that is EARNED. Bring on the competition, there isn't much you have to beat here...

Or they rated a game as they saw it? You claim that the game is poor, but you've not offered a single reason for doing so. Your previous post was nothing but flamebait, and I'm worried that I'm just handfeeding the troll here. But dammit, show your work!

You're kidding right?

The thousands of reviews already out there doesn't paint you the picture already? You want me to waste my breath further? OK then, lets see...

"PC Gamer Feb 26, 2011
94/100
The best RPG combat ever. Not gaming's best story, but maybe its best storytelling. Darker, sexier, better"

Explain to me how 'Not gaming's best story' gets 94? LOL
'The best RPG combat ever'... mindless repetitive clicking = best combat? LOL. There isn't even challenge in this game unless you plan on HARD and even that is just padding out. Even the fucking DEVS had an interview, i.e. damage control, about the game difficulty being easy , i.e. so watered down it's boring.

"GameTrailers Mar 9, 2011
92/100
Though it doesn't hold a candle to its predecessor when it comes to sheer breadth, Dragon Age II has quite a bit more soul."

How can you not hold a candle to the predecessor but have MORE soul? Mmmm the bullshit is getting more obvious here.

"Vandal Online Mar 9, 2011
91/100
An excellent role-playing game, and a logical and direct evolution of the previous game, more action-focused and more polished, although its action focus won't please everyone."

How can a 'logical' evolution lead to a 'focus won't please everyone'? LOL. A logical evolution would be to craft and improve the previous game to be BETTER and thus please more people, i.e. the fan base that was created in addition to attracting new players.

"GamingXP Mar 8, 2011
86/100
Unfortunately, Dragon Age 2 has not met my expectations. The epic story of Dragon Age: Origins made me play the game for hours, but Dragon Age 2 lacks a gripping story. Most of the time you create bloodbaths by running through the same dull dungeons. There are some improvements like a talking main character, but it's not a new Dragon Age, it's rather a hack'n'slay with a touch of roleplaying. If you missed some action in Dragon Age: Origins, then you should get Dragon Age 2, but if you loved the atmosphere, the story and the freedom of choice, then you should expect something different."

Once again, how can there be high score given, if 95% of the above review is NEGATIVE. I fucking kid you not look at it. The only thing positive is 'There are some improvements like a talking main character' and even that is followed up with a negative statement. Jesus, are you people even listening? HOW CAN A GAME get 86/100 if you have NOTHING good to say about it.

Same goes with the below:

"Gamers.at Mar 8, 2011
81/100
Dragon Age II is still a good role-playing game, but in more than one way it is inferior to its great predecessor."

LOL.

And...

"Game Informer Mar 8, 2011
78/100
On all platforms, Dragon Age II caters to an audience that didn't connect with Origins, while alienating those who did. This may result in a better console experience, but considering that Dragon Age: Origins was a love letter to old-school PC RPGs, BioWare's neglect of the sequel's PC release is tragic. I appreciate the technical refinements, but improving the polish doesn't do much good when the basics still need work."

Most of the above is negative, yet 78/100? LOL. 78% says to me it is a great game worth spending you cash on, with a few bugbears to deal with. What you get in DA2 is a linear corridor of a game with stripped down dialog and character interaction. That breaks the whole point of an EPIC rpg. Also exploration... there isn't any in this game.

Lastly...

"IncGamers Mar 8, 2011
72/100
While the gameplay is far from perfect, Dragon Age II is an absolute must for anyone interested in the world, the lore and a good story - but anyone hoping for something that feels and plays like Origins might want to adjust their expectations accordingly."

Why should anyone adjust their expectations? Bioware knew long ago that this move would not be well received. You market a game that is a sequel to DA:O, then give me that game. Yes changes will occur, as creative freedom will drive it. But the problem is here creative freedom didn't drive anything. What you have is LACK of creativity that forces a stripping down of features and depth. See the difference?

 

[Sud0_x]

There was definitely something wrong with that review, one of the most one-sided reviews I've ever come across.

Just want to add something, it is relevant to the review.
Why do so many people have a problem with negative comments about this game? I mean even if they didn't buy the game or whatever, who gives a shit? Most people are upset about the direction the game took, not really any technical issues aside from the to be patched in later auto attack for consoles, which is more than forgivable.

But what this whole thing has clearly shown is that A LOT of people don't like what BioWare did with Dragon Age II, for whatever reason, should those people not be allowed to voice their opinion? They want to tell BioWare "We don't like this, here's why..." and they want the developer to know it. This is an important thing for the developer to take notice of, they can do whatever they want but people shouldn't just stay content, stay silent when they don't like something, the developer needs to know about it.

But instead they're marked as "haters" and dismissed by their peers? I'm fucking disgusted.

 

[drunken_munki]

There was definitely something wrong with that review, one of the most one-sided reviews I've ever come across.

Just want to add something, it is relevant to the review.
Why do so many people have a problem with negative comments about this game? I mean even if they didn't buy the game or whatever, who gives a shit? Most people are upset about the direction the game took, not really any technical issues aside from the to be patched in later auto attack for consoles, which is more than forgivable.

But what this whole thing has clearly shown is that A LOT of people don't like what BioWare did with Dragon Age II, for whatever reason, should those people not be allowed to voice their opinion? They want to tell BioWare "We don't like this, here's why..." and they want the developer to know it. This is an important thing for the developer to take notice of, they can do whatever they want but people shouldn't just stay content, stay silent when they don't like something, the developer needs to know about it.

But instead they're marked as "haters" and dismissed by their peers? I'm fucking disgusted.

Exactly. Look at Window Vista. Or Iphone 4. Or even fucking Transformers 2. All absolute LEMONS, yet they have hoards of blind supporters. Instead of focusing on what went wrong, people are in blatant denial.

I'm sure the fogs will lift in due time, sadly though by then most people would have moved on and yet another blunder gets swept under the carpet.

 

[bob1052]

Stuff about opinion

Are you honestly trying to say that you can't gauge how good something is, which is opinion, based on opinion? That is retarded.

I guess we also cannot determine mathematical proofs using math either?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[
He said that auto-attack can be turned on in the options menu, which it cannot. There is no option to turn on auto-attack in the menu. How is that a matter of opinion? It is a fact that that option does not exist on the console versions (and he reviewed the 360 version).

He also said commands are executed instantaneously after giving them, which is also factually incorrect, you have to wait for the duration of the animation before the damage and/or effects are applied to the enemies, this is another statement that is factually false.

Did you actually read the OP?

So he made a couple of errors... big deal. That's hardly evidence of little brown envelopes.

 

[Hawgh]

ubersnip

Escapist reviews are often statistical anomalies, remember the Black Ops review?

I think its more likely Greg Tito just rated the game on what he thought about it, rather than trying to guess the average score like most other reviewers.

Hmm not quite?

Edge magazine gave a good review of a poor game, without even mentioning the disparity from the DA:O to DA2. On its own merits, it flops as a triple A budget RPG. So given that, it is more like a 5-6 / 10 game. Now throw in the fact that a lot of Bioware fans and RPG fans were keen and excited on playing a game that they were accustomed to seeing. With depth and character. Yep, you enrage and upset a lot of fans. Now you can call them what you like, but what are you without your fans? What exactly are you? A money sucking leech?

Please can someone explain whats the point in trashing one set of fans to replace them for another set? You can't make EVERYONE happy. That is a fact of life. So why bother? They could have made this dumbed down crass game and called it something else. There you go, that mass market can eat it up.

Fuck em. Another developer will swoop in and woo the people, and create a deserving game to receive high acclaim, that is EARNED. Bring on the competition, there isn't much you have to beat here...

Or they rated a game as they saw it? You claim that the game is poor, but you've not offered a single reason for doing so. Your previous post was nothing but flamebait, and I'm worried that I'm just handfeeding the troll here. But dammit, show your work!

You're kidding right?

The thousands of reviews already out there doesn't paint you the picture already? You want me to waste my breath further? OK then, lets see...

"PC Gamer Feb 26, 2011
94/100
The best RPG combat ever. Not gaming's best story, but maybe its best storytelling. Darker, sexier, better"

Explain to me how 'Not gaming's best story' gets 94? LOL
'The best RPG combat ever'... mindless repetitive clicking = best combat? LOL. There isn't even challenge in this game unless you plan on HARD and even that is just padding out. Even the fucking DEVS had an interview, i.e. damage control, about the game difficulty being easy , i.e. so watered down it's boring.

"GameTrailers Mar 9, 2011
92/100
Though it doesn't hold a candle to its predecessor when it comes to sheer breadth, Dragon Age II has quite a bit more soul."

How can you not hold a candle to the predecessor but have MORE soul? Mmmm the bullshit is getting more obvious here.

"Vandal Online Mar 9, 2011
91/100
An excellent role-playing game, and a logical and direct evolution of the previous game, more action-focused and more polished, although its action focus won't please everyone."

How can a 'logical' evolution lead to a 'focus won't please everyone'? LOL. A logical evolution would be to craft and improve the previous game to be BETTER and thus please more people, i.e. the fan base that was created in addition to attracting new players.

"GamingXP Mar 8, 2011
86/100
Unfortunately, Dragon Age 2 has not met my expectations. The epic story of Dragon Age: Origins made me play the game for hours, but Dragon Age 2 lacks a gripping story. Most of the time you create bloodbaths by running through the same dull dungeons. There are some improvements like a talking main character, but it's not a new Dragon Age, it's rather a hack'n'slay with a touch of roleplaying. If you missed some action in Dragon Age: Origins, then you should get Dragon Age 2, but if you loved the atmosphere, the story and the freedom of choice, then you should expect something different."

Once again, how can there be high score given, if 95% of the above review is NEGATIVE. I fucking kid you not look at it. The only thing positive is 'There are some improvements like a talking main character' and even that is followed up with a negative statement. Jesus, are you people even listening? HOW CAN A GAME get 86/100 if you have NOTHING good to say about it.

Same goes with the below:

"Gamers.at Mar 8, 2011
81/100
Dragon Age II is still a good role-playing game, but in more than one way it is inferior to its great predecessor."

LOL.

And...

"Game Informer Mar 8, 2011
78/100
On all platforms, Dragon Age II caters to an audience that didn't connect with Origins, while alienating those who did. This may result in a better console experience, but considering that Dragon Age: Origins was a love letter to old-school PC RPGs, BioWare's neglect of the sequel's PC release is tragic. I appreciate the technical refinements, but improving the polish doesn't do much good when the basics still need work."

Most of the above is negative, yet 78/100? LOL. 78% says to me it is a great game worth spending you cash on, with a few bugbears to deal with. What you get in DA2 is a linear corridor of a game with stripped down dialog and character interaction. That breaks the whole point of an EPIC rpg. Also exploration... there isn't any in this game.

Lastly...

"IncGamers Mar 8, 2011
72/100
While the gameplay is far from perfect, Dragon Age II is an absolute must for anyone interested in the world, the lore and a good story - but anyone hoping for something that feels and plays like Origins might want to adjust their expectations accordingly."

Why should anyone adjust their expectations? Bioware knew long ago that this move would not be well received. You market a game that is a sequel to DA:O, then give me that game. Yes changes will occur, as creative freedom will drive it. But the problem is here creative freedom didn't drive anything. What you have is LACK of creativity that forces a stripping down of features and depth. See the difference?

There are a number of things that I take issue with here, in order:
If it's really such a bother for you to argue about things on the internet, then why did you start? I will resolve to feel honored that you dedicate your obviously costly time and resources to educating the masses on your opinion on a video game, despite the fact that you don't want to. Good man.

How exactly are these rather favourable reviews you posted here going to convince me about...what exactly is your point? That the game is bad?

I don't intend to defend the claims made by other people, in no small part because they come from an obviously biased source.

Even if some reviews of the game shows a disrepancy between commentary and grading, and we do not attribute this to poor communication skills, why should that have any effect on other reviews? There is no causal relationship between computer game reviewers and their output.

Your counterpoints adressed, in order:

1(PC Gamer): A story can be good without being the best, you will notice that 94 < 100.
I do not know what definition of "mindless repetetive clicking" you work under, but how exactly do the controls differ from DA:O(Or, indeed, a great number of RPGs throughout time)? action bar, shortcuts, clicking? Your point that the game is challenging only on hard and above seems....inane. Is the game not supposed to be difficult on that level, and more manageable on lower difficulties? I realise that Origins essentially shifted the entire difficulty curve up a notch, but having done it once is hardly an argument for doing it again.
I do find the combat much more palatable than the first game, but that is mostly to do with the animations being more, well, animated. In origins, autoattacking(which took up a lot of my time when conserving energy) was boring and sluggish, now it is at least pretty to look at, comparable to the combat in The Witcher.

2(Gametrailers): You deliberately misread the comment. While they refer to the breadth of the game being reduced(fewer locales and the different origins spring to mind), that does in no way conflict with saying that the game has more soul(whatever that means, I assume they liked the storytelling or characterisation or setting or something)

3(Vandal Online): I don't know how games logically evolve, but it obviously can't be both identical to Origins and different from Origins without existing in some strange quantum state where humans would have a very hard time interacting with it(what with observance forcing it to assume a state). No matter how dedicated your fanbase is, it's a stretch to release the same game twice within two years, so I think it rather sensible that they shook things up a bit.

4(GamingXP): Yep, that guy(or gal) should probably have given it a lower score. Unless you have not made a faithful representation of his statement. However, only two of the statements are criticisms of DA2's own qualities, the rest is lamentation that it is not a repackaged Origins, and should not influence the score.

5(Gamers.at): Well, that's just vague. But it does have a lower score than Origins, so I don't see what's so unreasonable about it. Perhaps the points weren't that important?

6(Game Informer): Again, the commentary only states that: "the game is different, not a smart move", not "the game is bad, tsk tsk". Also exploration....there wasn't any in Origins either.

7(IncGamers): Here's why you should adjust your expectations: It's a different bloody game! On these forums we're usually up to our necks in complaints that this and that popular shooter treads about as much new ground as a completely stationary rock. But changing things is also a deplorable move? What in the hells?

Creativity is not only about creating an increasingly bloated system(You yourself critisised Vista, which is enormously guilty of doing nothing but this).
Creativity is also about honing and specialising. Allow me to max out my pretentiousness by quoting Antoine De Saint-Exupéry: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.".

So, in conclusion: There is no basis for reviews affecting one another, I also vented a lot.

Addendum: I just finished the game an hour ago. And I find just about all your complaints(byzantine and incomprehensibly presented as they are) to be completely unfounded.