Poll: Dragon Age 2 was it that bad?

[Jessabi]

I enjoyed it. For me, the combat was a huge improvement on DA:O as it was a lot more fluid and fun to watch. In comparison, the combat in Origins just seems wooden and stale and I hated the just-shit-my-pants run the characters would do towards enemies. I hated playing as a mage in Origins, but loved playing as one in DA:2.

I liked having a voiced protaganist ala Mass Effect as it helped me feel more immersed in the story and gave my character more impact if that makes any sense. One thing I didn't like about Origins is that the Warden just stood there silently, looking kind of dazed.

Also liked most of the companions (apart from Anders and Merril, really did not like them), though I think as a group the ones from Origins were better - I cared more about the Origins companions too. However, although Alistair is my favourite out of both games, Varric and Fenris are close runners up.

Overall though, I preferred the storyline of Origins over the second game. I'm a sucker for those underdog saving the world type storylines. It felt more epic and urgent, and the reverance people had for the Warden felt more deserved than that of the Champion. The Warden gathered an army and ended a Blight before it could destroy an entire nation and kill thousands of people - damn right people should be kissing his/her ass. The Champion killed some Quanari and watched political unrest unfold before picking a side - doesn't really measure up IMO.

Give me the epicness of the Origins storyline with DA:2 style combat, a voiced Warden, and Varric and Fenris (and possibly Isabella) thrown in with the Origins companions, and I would be happy xD

 

[LordRoyal]

Unless there's evidence that either two games used proper reference such as motion-capture, I'd hesitate to claim anything of the two titles as "realistic".

The other poster claimed it was unrealistic for a character to swing a sword in Origins, in his terms "Slowly"

The Bioware fanbase were expecting more of the same when it was very clear from the beginning that they were making something different. It wasn't so much living up to the prequel as it was living up to what the fanbase were expecting.

Different I can understand. I loved Mass Effect 2, and I immediately preferred it to the original.

Dragon Age 2 was a much simpler game with inferior "faster" combat compared to the original's strategic. I don't exactly criticize their choice in making changes as much as the quality of the game going down as a result of those changes.

You would think that if they were trying to get sales, they'd literally copy-paste the same game (and story) mechanics from Origins, hmm?

Clearly Origins sold well enough to make many more millions of units of the same thing as a sequel. It means a lot more that they didn't do that.

Origins did sell extremely well and got amazing scores. Clearly selling a game that resembled more Mass Effect then Origins was the next logical step. Truly it wasn't an attempt at appealing to the lowest common denominator. Believe it or not making combat where enemies jump in from out of nowhere doesn't take as much effort as say planning out skirmishes with the player and balancing them out potentially for the player's level.

I fail to see how Dragon Age II wasn't designed to do both at the same time. And hell, if it's trying to expand their consumer base, good on them!

It's all well and good until they alienate the original fanbase completely.

I know there's been a ton of discussion about what defines "role playing". Personally, I don't think there's one single strict definition as to what is becoming of a role-playing game. You're playing a role in any character-driven game, right? How much customization do you need in a role-playing game before you can truly consider it roleplaying?

To prevent a game from being compared to some other genre. It has to be able to let you play the game differently each time, allowing you to assume some sort of role in the world.

While Dragon Age 2 does have things like classes and different configurations, technically it is considered an RPG. But due to it's streamlining it doesn't allow for the same level of depth Origins offered.

What makes role-playing, role-playing? I suppose if you really wanted to distill it into a single word, I guess that word could be "choice". Sure, comparing between Dragon Age II and Origins, there was less choice as to your character. But is the inability to "assume any role they want" making it any less of a role-playing game? You're still making (supposedly) significant plot decisions that affect the course of the game, at least. You're still changing your character to assume the appearance that you want. You're still experiencing your Hawke, just as much as you experienced your Grey Warden in Origins. Even though II was much more linear, (going back to the original topic) does that make it a "bad" RPG?

Hawke is hardly your character as much as he is an NPC you take control of. Similar to Shepard in Mass Effect. You don't exactly configure his personality as much as you do just control his responses, wether he's angry, happy or sarcastic. Any depth you put on this is projection.

I don't consider this the exact same as say customizing your own character from his backstory/history/personality/etc. It doesn't necessarily make it a "Bad" rpg. It certainly makes it feel a lot more inferior compared to the original's choice of depth.

In your (imo) narrow definition of what a role-playing game is, yes. Dragon Age II was probably less of a role playing game than what Origins was. That doesn't make it not an RPG, and certainly doesn't automatically make it a bad game or even a mediocre game.

I never stated Dragon Age 2 wasn't an RPG, just one that didn't explore the concept as well as the original.

(You also seem to be the sort of person who considers jRPGs not-RPGs, but I'd rather not make too many assumptions and I'd rather it in a different thread just to prevent this going more off-topic)

Please don't put words in my mouth and quote me next time you try and make claims like these.

Also, you should probably choose your words more wisely, as the majority of commercial release games are out to make money. Telling stories are an attempt at giving entertainment. And again, if they really wanted a quick cashgrab like you keep claiming it to be, why not just more Origins/Awakening DLC?

Making a new commercial game for 60$ makes a humongous amount of money compared to selling DLC for 10$. Especially if the game itself is selling for 30$ and it's been a year since release.

Publishers like EA and developers like Bioware are looking for more than just sales for any game. They are looking for feedback. They're looking for Metacritic scores and looking at reviews. Sure, they're getting butthurt at negative ones, but most of all, they're being progressive with their IP.

If they were an employee at Bioware likely wouldn't have tried to improve the score at Metacritic by voting his own game highly and not even stating any reasons for liking the game beyond it just being "Good". Tunnel vision is one thing, lacking artistic integrity is quite another.

 

[Flamezdudes]

Everyone says if it didn't have the dragon age name eveyone would like it. I feel the opposite If it didnt have the name noone would have played it. Its not evewn cloose to good on its own.

I played as a mage WILLPOWER = useless due to cooldowns. I soloed the last boss on normal
My mage was way OP he one hit anything with a fireball.

The gameplay was crazy easy and boring. There were no enemy healers or priority targets.
just kill same mage or knight over and over.

The same maps were horrbile and small and you had to load every 10-20 feet. ( Why didnt the make the city like rome in Assassins creed brotherhood with no loading I have no idea.)

cross class combos were a good idea expect the mods dead in 2 secs before the other class can touch it.

The only good part of me was the dark roads and it was crazy short. Cutscene 4 rooms Cutscene done.


The story was about some dude to make money. I felt amazed that you company follows you for NO REASON what so ever.

You were playing on normal, that was your problem. I heard for ages about how bad it was but i got it recently and it was better than I thought it would be. I recognized its flaws and I did complain a few times out loud but I still thouroughly enjoyed it and it gets too much criticism I think. Definitely not as good as Dragon Age: Origins though and its marketing was terrible.

 

[Omnific One]

It's bad for Bioware, but it would be average for most other companies.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

DA2 wasn't a horrible game, it was just an extremely disappointing sequel.

It seems like DA:O brought back the old school group-based RPG's, by a company that knows what they were doing with RPG's. So when DA2 came out, I just couldn't understand why it went the direction it did. The fact that Brent Knowles left the company over DA2 tells me that it's development must've been very rushed and problematic.

Either way, when it comes to gameplay, the only thing I can really give to DA2 was the flow of combat. It flowed smoothly, and getting your party members to attack enemies was quick, easy and responsive.

Beyond that, the flashy moves were incredibly hollow and numbing. Watching the same 1, 2, 3.... 4. 1, 2, 3.... 4. combat animations immediately became stale. The gibbing enemy violence came off as lazy and laughable. The trimmed down class talent trees sucked. Not being able to gear out your party sucked. etc. The entire first chapter spent meandering around for money gave me this horrible crushing feeling of nothing happening. It felt like FF13 in that regard, and that's no exaggeration. The game was rife with transparency, from combat to the story, it just screams as a rushed title.

Would all of this acceptable in some way? Yes, if DA2 was a completely different game. But since it's a sequel, it must always be compared to the previous title, which in my eyes has much more quality to it, and is simply better in every significant way. Like I said, DA2 wasn't horrible on it's own, in fact I had some fun in some parts. The rock wraith fight was fun and challenging, the party interactions were good... But every now and then, I'd remind myself "This is supposed to be the sequel to DA:O". As a game, it's decent. As a sequel, it's really bad.

 

[satsugaikaze]

The other poster claimed it was unrealistic for a character to swing a sword in Origins, in his terms "Slowly"

Fairy nuff. Still, I can't really think of any instance in videogaming of realistic combat. Even the best of mil-sims look flawed.

Origins did sell extremely well and got amazing scores. Clearly selling a game that resembled more Mass Effect then Origins was the next logical step.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion in terms of the "logical step". I suppose in a way they were definitely trying to Mass-Effect-ify some of it, but the majority of elements borrowed from that series were RPG elements (including the simplified levelling system which has worked fairly well since the existence of the Diablo isometric point-and-click).

It's all well and good until they alienate the original fanbase completely.

Well it was either that or continue with the same group of people who love it and the same rest of the people who don't. I suppose they did go a little overboard with avoiding sequelitis, but there you have it.

Hawke is hardly your character as much as he is an NPC you take control of. Similar to Shepard in Mass Effect. You don't exactly configure his personality as much as you do just control his responses, wether he's angry, happy or sarcastic. Any depth you put on this is projection.

I suppose any RPG that lets you control player-character decisions involve projection of some sort. I don't consider the dialogue choices in either Origins or II (or Mass Effect, for that matter) to be very open in general. They've all been fairly restrictive.
Origins took the traditional route of a set list of silent responses, mixing it up with an influence system rather than a good-evil slider. II attempts to give the player 3 choices of character personality that is actually calculated in a persistent way throughout all the chapters so as to make small changes to dialogue not controlled by the player for the sake of consistency, and Mass Effect makes a more binary choice between lawful and chaotic.

I won't argue that allowing for a customization of something like voice in combat ala Neverwinter Nights or Origins gives a player greater control over who their character is, but it's ultimately just a different kind of immersion. You could arguably mix the two up like The Witcher (and The Witcher II did) by having fully voiced dialogue options panned out on the screen just like those good ol' games, but then again, The Witcher compensated for that complexity by keeping the player character's appearance, sex and voice consistent for all playthroughs, and that got away with critical acclaim just fine keeping Geralt of Rivia the same tall caucasian white-haired bloke.

Please don't put words in my mouth and quote me next time you try and make claims like these.

I did nothing of the sort. That was a self-contained conjecture.

Making a new commercial game for 60$ makes a humongous amount of money compared to selling DLC for 10$. Especially if the game itself is selling for 30$ and it's been a year since release.

Now, I wouldn't profess myself to being some sort of expert on Bioware's finances, but I'd imagine producing DLC to be a lot more cost-effective than taking the effort to start new marketing, hiring the manpower to upgrade the game engine, coding and animating completely new combat, hiring voice talent and starting a new contract with Inon Zur. Sure, you wouldn't be entitled to price it any more than say, $10 like you said, but you could apply the same principles to copy-pasting an Origins clone.

If they were an employee at Bioware likely wouldn't have tried to improve the score at Metacritic by voting his own game highly and not even stating any reasons for liking the game beyond it just being "Good". Tunnel vision is one thing, lacking artistic integrity is quite another.

An cheap underhanded move, to be sure, but I imagine this happens on a far more frequent basis than anyone would like to think.

And besides, a misguided PR and marketing department isn't quite indicative of the developers' and writers' work ethic, as Origins itself made clear.

 

[NotAProdigy]

The characters were likable enough and felt like they had depth, but juxtaposed to most games that's not saying much. The gameplay mechanics were pretty easy: easy enough for me to break it in my first run-through on nightmare (which isn't a bad thing, because I kinda take a surgeon's enjoyment out of dissecting a game), however, it didn't provide enough of a challenge for me to actually get a kick out of it for long.

Then, there was everything else. The plot felt kinda forced, "magic is bad" "NO U", to where the infighting felt artificially placed like the crane of deus angst machina were guiding it with its thick strings clearly visible for you, the player, to tag along to. The immersion was even worse, mostly because BioWare clearly did everything they can to annoy the living !*$% out of the player as much as they can, because clearly no sane big name gaming company would recycle levels, monsters, useless items, useless items, useless items, useless items, and recycle levels and cop-out the many many glitches (at least there were in launch) that frequently appeared in geometry, level initiation and monster spawning, JUST by sheer accident or mismanagement.

No, I think we've all been had. Trolled by BioWare. They lure you in with promise and stomp on those proposed good times to only steal your money.

The character interaction and dialog was good though.

 

[ScreamSlayer]

No. A lot of people stupidly assumed it would be in the same vain as Dragon Age: Origins, and were disappointed.
Yes, there were many flaws, but it wasn't as terrible as everyone said it was.

Why would it NOT be in the same VEIN as Origins? They share a title, for Christ's sake! I can understand if people were complaining that Assassin's Creed wasn't in the same vein as Grand Theft Auto, but COME ON. It was supposed to be a sequel, hence the "2" in the name. And the differences between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are NOWHERE near as jarring. This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and I pray it was sarcasm I missed.

Just because it's the same series doesn't mean it has to be the exact same game with each new instalment, like Call of Duty is. It's a good thing to change it up every now and again otherwise the series will get stale.

The problem is, people will complain about how it's the same game every sequel and then the dev will try something new and then everyone will ***** about how it's changed.

LOL , you think COD " changes it up"

Learn to read posts properly.

Oh, i see, i made a mistake, okay, sorry for my sloppy reading, anyways , the problem I and many people have is when the changes suck ass

DA2 looked boring , played boring and I and many others just didn't find it enjoyable
It's the most disappointed I've ever been with bioware, and by the time i was halfway through the game, i wold spend large amounts of time
looking at the ceiling, and finding it more interesting.... it got that bad.

 

[xXCrocmonXx]

The game was great.

Honestly it was a good game. I played it through, and got the "This is still Thedas" feel. Plus, unlike DA:O, I felt like my character was actually pertinent and did more than just get pushed through motions to save a world that ultimately didn't give a damn. Ferelden was a great and happening world, don't get me wrong, but in DAO I felt like the game could just kill me off at any point and then nothing would change.

Especially with Leiliana. Oh my God did I hate the stupid 'hardening' crap they did with the characters. You had to pick uber-specific lines, and if you actually played as yourself like they wanted you to and didn't break the immersion by going "Is telling Alistair it's okay going to make him screw something up later?" you couldn't get anywhere near that.

And no, I don't like dialogue 'trees.' They're trite and useless diagrams that just add fluff to the game. You only see one pathway per playthrough, and once the first person to do it figures out the ideal pathway nobody ever picks anything different. If you're going to make a joke of a system, make a wheel. DA2 caught onto that really quickly.

That and I actually gave a damn about my companions in DA2, unlike DAO where the only ones I cared about were the women because I knew sleeping with them would get me an achievement. (Was a male character)

 

[Savagezion]

Bah, the gaming community always has to polarize AAA games. Every AAA game either:

"Sucks major ass and the devs deserve to go out of business."
OR
"Is a shining staple of what every game should be like and every other developer should be taking notes."

That is one reason I like the OP's poll. I believe it is the first poll on DA2 I have seen that didn't have such extreme options to vote. You either enjoyed it, or you didn't - which does keep it in the grey area most things fall under. I enjoyed it. It isn't the greatest game ever, but it was good. Hell, there are even aspects about it I find great, and others I find bad. BUt as an overall experience, it is a good game.

 

[ELD3RGoD]

Where is the "It's average" choice? Personally, I got half-way and then got bored of the repetitiveness. Stopped playing, never completed it.