Poll: Dragon Age 2 was it that bad?
- Thread starter jackpackage200
- Start date
Was DA2 rushed? Yes. Does it have flaws? Yes. Will I argue about the flaws? Only one: the story.
DA:O and Awakening told their story in a large epic landscape, putting the player at the head of armies and a nation essentially. The focus of their stories are the nations and armies of Ferelden and Amaranthine, where the player is an instrument to tell that story.
DA2, on the other hand, places Hawke (main player) as the focus of the story. If you take a step back, there are large events happening around the player, but it is ultimately about the emotions and attachment surrounding the player that are the drive of the story, not the world events transpiring. It is a drastically different method of story-telling compared to it's predecessors, but I think Bioware ultimately pulled it off and rather well.
DA:O and Awakening told their story in a large epic landscape, putting the player at the head of armies and a nation essentially. The focus of their stories are the nations and armies of Ferelden and Amaranthine, where the player is an instrument to tell that story.
DA2, on the other hand, places Hawke (main player) as the focus of the story. If you take a step back, there are large events happening around the player, but it is ultimately about the emotions and attachment surrounding the player that are the drive of the story, not the world events transpiring. It is a drastically different method of story-telling compared to it's predecessors, but I think Bioware ultimately pulled it off and rather well.
It is an alright game. Nothing special, and suffering from the same flaws as the original, plus a few of its own.
I loved the first Dragon Age immensely, right up until the Landsmeet. After the landsmeet however, the game almost fell apart completely. I was not pleased with the sudden shift to one hit kill enemies, massive hordes, and disjointedness of it all.
That is my big beef with DA2, the combat feels like the last hour and a half of Origins, by which I mean fucking awful.
Still, despite horrible combat and no real overarching plot, I liked the side stories, especially stuff involving Varric.
I loved the first Dragon Age immensely, right up until the Landsmeet. After the landsmeet however, the game almost fell apart completely. I was not pleased with the sudden shift to one hit kill enemies, massive hordes, and disjointedness of it all.
That is my big beef with DA2, the combat feels like the last hour and a half of Origins, by which I mean fucking awful.
Still, despite horrible combat and no real overarching plot, I liked the side stories, especially stuff involving Varric.
Oh man I've been waiting for a thread like this...
I believe that taken on its own merits as a game, Dragon Age II is by no means BAD. It's decently built fantasy Action/RPG. Between the way that the game fiction handles the nature of magic and the spirit world and the inclusion the unique race/culture of the Qunari, it has enough interesting twists on the "standard fantasy setting" to set itself apart from your average DnD-derivative shlock.
EDIT: Yes, I realize that this "unique" things were originally pioneered by Dragon Age: Origins.
I believe that the majority of the bad press this game gets is because it stands in the shadow of the superior Dragon Age: Origins.
I for was, and still am, a HUGE fan of Dragon Age: Origins. Yet, I still liked Dragon Age II. Why? Because in all the developer interviews, Bioware made it clear the new directions that they were taking, in terms of combat and storytelling. I clearly understood, before the game's release, that it was going to be very different from DA:O, and I accepted that. In terms of combat, I understood that the combat would be more hack-n-slash and action-oriented, and I downloaded the demo to get a taste of it first-hand before I bought it. In terms of storytelling, I understood that this was not going to be a sequel in the traditional sense, but rather a completely different story that was set in the same world.
These changes didn't bother me. I like slower-paced strategic games and I like fast-paced action games. To me, neither one is superior to the other. In terms of storytelling, I like that it wasn't your typical "save the world" story that has been done to death in video games, especially fantasy RPGs.
Did the game have its problems? Sure. The environments were recycled too much. Allowing the player to juggle so many quest lines at once caused the little "day in the life" stories to get jumbled together unless the player intentionally kept them straight.
For me, the biggest problem with the game is that they called it "Dragon Age II." Calling it "Dragon Age II" set up expectations of "direct sequel" in fans minds, and rightly so. Maybe if they'd called it "Dragon Age: Champion" or something similar that would have helped to highlight all the developer interviews where they clearly stated, "THIS GAME WILL BE DIFFERENT."
Then again this would still not be enough for some people. Some RPG fans look down on action games or action/RPGs as grossly inferior to more strategic RPGs. These types of people will be unable to see any of the merits of Dragon Age II because all they will see is "dumbed down." When really, it's not dumbed down, it's just a different type of game. If you don't like that type of game, that doesn't make it inherently bad.
In the end, I think that A LOT, if not the vast majority of, the fan criticism leveled toward Dragon Age II was because it was called "Dragon Age II" and that brought with it a truckload of expectations of what DA:O fans wanted the game to be like, what DA:O fans thought that the game SHOULD be like, and when it turned out very different, they turned on it.
I believe that taken on its own merits as a game, Dragon Age II is by no means BAD. It's decently built fantasy Action/RPG. Between the way that the game fiction handles the nature of magic and the spirit world and the inclusion the unique race/culture of the Qunari, it has enough interesting twists on the "standard fantasy setting" to set itself apart from your average DnD-derivative shlock.
EDIT: Yes, I realize that this "unique" things were originally pioneered by Dragon Age: Origins.
I believe that the majority of the bad press this game gets is because it stands in the shadow of the superior Dragon Age: Origins.
I for was, and still am, a HUGE fan of Dragon Age: Origins. Yet, I still liked Dragon Age II. Why? Because in all the developer interviews, Bioware made it clear the new directions that they were taking, in terms of combat and storytelling. I clearly understood, before the game's release, that it was going to be very different from DA:O, and I accepted that. In terms of combat, I understood that the combat would be more hack-n-slash and action-oriented, and I downloaded the demo to get a taste of it first-hand before I bought it. In terms of storytelling, I understood that this was not going to be a sequel in the traditional sense, but rather a completely different story that was set in the same world.
These changes didn't bother me. I like slower-paced strategic games and I like fast-paced action games. To me, neither one is superior to the other. In terms of storytelling, I like that it wasn't your typical "save the world" story that has been done to death in video games, especially fantasy RPGs.
Did the game have its problems? Sure. The environments were recycled too much. Allowing the player to juggle so many quest lines at once caused the little "day in the life" stories to get jumbled together unless the player intentionally kept them straight.
For me, the biggest problem with the game is that they called it "Dragon Age II." Calling it "Dragon Age II" set up expectations of "direct sequel" in fans minds, and rightly so. Maybe if they'd called it "Dragon Age: Champion" or something similar that would have helped to highlight all the developer interviews where they clearly stated, "THIS GAME WILL BE DIFFERENT."
Then again this would still not be enough for some people. Some RPG fans look down on action games or action/RPGs as grossly inferior to more strategic RPGs. These types of people will be unable to see any of the merits of Dragon Age II because all they will see is "dumbed down." When really, it's not dumbed down, it's just a different type of game. If you don't like that type of game, that doesn't make it inherently bad.
In the end, I think that A LOT, if not the vast majority of, the fan criticism leveled toward Dragon Age II was because it was called "Dragon Age II" and that brought with it a truckload of expectations of what DA:O fans wanted the game to be like, what DA:O fans thought that the game SHOULD be like, and when it turned out very different, they turned on it.
Yeah. It's stupid to think a sequel will be a.. y'know, sequel. Herp derp.Radeonx said:
...entirely true. It was mediocre at best, but it wasn't the giant pile of turds and horribleness that a lot (myself included, I overreacted a bit) of people said. It was a colossal waste of potential, however, which is why so many (myself included) hated it so much.
As an aside, why isn't there a poll option that is in the middle ground? I think that would be the winning choice, were it available.
I'm not a big fan of DA:O but it was a product of the hard work.
Now DAII...
Copy-pasta everywhere, some really dumb moments in the plot, ridiculous story & gameplay separation. They're not even trying.
First act wasn't bad, there is some good changes...
...but overall it's just crippled DA:O.
5/10
Now DAII...
Copy-pasta everywhere, some really dumb moments in the plot, ridiculous story & gameplay separation. They're not even trying.
First act wasn't bad, there is some good changes...
...but overall it's just crippled DA:O.
5/10
That's not what I'm saying. Everyone thought it would be another call to the older RPG's similar to Dragon Age. However it was blatantly obvious that this wasn't going to be the case once the first screenshots came out, and the game was teased and such. And given Bioware's track record with their other RPG's (Mass Effect mainly), it only seemed natural that this game was going to be less "RPG-y" than Origins.Pandabearparade said:
NO.al that needs to be said.I wasn't shit and i enjoyed it but not as much as the first.I don't like you poll options BTW.
Is it bad? Nope. Is it a large departure from Origins? Yes, which understandably left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. If you went in expecting a certain kind of game, you were likely going to wind up sorely disappointed.
It certainly had its flaws, not the least of which was the overuse of environments, but I enjoyed it a great deal.
It certainly had its flaws, not the least of which was the overuse of environments, but I enjoyed it a great deal.
I enjoyed it...
It had minor flaws (holes in the story, bugs etc), it had major flaws (story-line, ending, that ridiculous friendship/rivarly thing), and it had it's ridiculous flaws (leveling... it's supposed to make me better in combat).
But i still enjoyed it. Origins was always...too long and/or epic for me. I have the "restarter-syndrome" (made-up word)...that's not good for long games.
-V
It had minor flaws (holes in the story, bugs etc), it had major flaws (story-line, ending, that ridiculous friendship/rivarly thing), and it had it's ridiculous flaws (leveling... it's supposed to make me better in combat).
But i still enjoyed it. Origins was always...too long and/or epic for me. I have the "restarter-syndrome" (made-up word)...that's not good for long games.
-V
It was flawed, obviously rushed, but still pretty fun. The game is quite different from Origins and I understand how it can piss some people off. I felt the same betrayal from Mass Effect 2. DA:O is better than DA2, make no mistake, but that doesn't mean DA2 isn't enjoyable.
And let's face it, DA2 *may* be the worst Bioware game to date (for me that place is held by ME2, but many people seem to disagree) but it's still one of the best RPGs published this year. Oh and I just played through the Legacy DLC and I can say it's bloody great. So all hope is not lost for Bioware (yet).
And let's face it, DA2 *may* be the worst Bioware game to date (for me that place is held by ME2, but many people seem to disagree) but it's still one of the best RPGs published this year. Oh and I just played through the Legacy DLC and I can say it's bloody great. So all hope is not lost for Bioware (yet).
Combat was shit. and the story is a mess. The characters are ok, at best, and relationships are ambiguous. So no. Didn't like it.
Enjoyed every second of the game. Sure it had its faults, but DA:O also copy/pasted allot of different areas as well. I did pefure DA:O, but loved this game also.
The main merits lie in the characters, and different groups relations, the combat (which I thought was more involving) and Kirkwall itself was an interesting setting. I thought confining the player to just one city gave the place more personality, I became attached to the city as if it was my home town.
The main merits lie in the characters, and different groups relations, the combat (which I thought was more involving) and Kirkwall itself was an interesting setting. I thought confining the player to just one city gave the place more personality, I became attached to the city as if it was my home town.
It was...average to good. I mean I found parts great, I loved a lot of the character interactions on the road, they were funny and kept it original, until they stopped coming (presumably because they only had so many and I kept a pretty similar party because not doing so would leave me boned).
I liked the fluidity of the fighting, I really did. Origins always felt like a turn based fighter, or too close to one. The attacks, the motions for them and so on all worked in better in DA2.
I even liked some of the story, certainly the idea was interesting and raised some good ethical issues, mages being at perpetual risk and all that. It just wasn't implemented very well, once again designers took the road of THIS SIDE EVIL and THIS SIDE GOOD. That sucks. Both could have been given great merit, instead we're constantly being pushed to help the mages out.
On the bad side, the maps were terrible (cloning. OK they had little time but that's the publisher's fault for pushing the deadline. It's still a fault) the world map relatively small and very localised. While that's OK for a game based around a city they should not have called it 2. It should've been DA: Kirkwall or something more original but staying away from sequel land because it's not a sequel.
Also the characters, though fun, were so specialised that an effective party (important if you play high difficulties) had to consist of certain persons, changing dependent on you. You'd then stick with that same crew for the whole damn game, missing out on a big chunk of content.
Then there are lots of small niggles which are silly enough to be picked up straight away or caught in the playtesting (which it seems DA2 never got).
Why do I need to press X for every attack? It's button mashing, let me just hold the button or press it once and have the character auto attack. It's so small but very silly, at least grant the damn option, I get enough button mashing with other games.
Rogues gain stamina per attack, cool when they fight with knives. Terrible with a bow, pretty soon you realise the flaw and speed aura is your only real choice. Yay for diversity.
It was just a half baked product (oh plenty of larger flaws than those above, those are just ones I think might be missed, except map cloning which I thought to mention because it's so damn annoying) and being sold as a finished sequel to a great game.
As a stand alone, fine. It's OK. Not what it was presented as.
I liked the fluidity of the fighting, I really did. Origins always felt like a turn based fighter, or too close to one. The attacks, the motions for them and so on all worked in better in DA2.
I even liked some of the story, certainly the idea was interesting and raised some good ethical issues, mages being at perpetual risk and all that. It just wasn't implemented very well, once again designers took the road of THIS SIDE EVIL and THIS SIDE GOOD. That sucks. Both could have been given great merit, instead we're constantly being pushed to help the mages out.
On the bad side, the maps were terrible (cloning. OK they had little time but that's the publisher's fault for pushing the deadline. It's still a fault) the world map relatively small and very localised. While that's OK for a game based around a city they should not have called it 2. It should've been DA: Kirkwall or something more original but staying away from sequel land because it's not a sequel.
Also the characters, though fun, were so specialised that an effective party (important if you play high difficulties) had to consist of certain persons, changing dependent on you. You'd then stick with that same crew for the whole damn game, missing out on a big chunk of content.
Then there are lots of small niggles which are silly enough to be picked up straight away or caught in the playtesting (which it seems DA2 never got).
Why do I need to press X for every attack? It's button mashing, let me just hold the button or press it once and have the character auto attack. It's so small but very silly, at least grant the damn option, I get enough button mashing with other games.
Rogues gain stamina per attack, cool when they fight with knives. Terrible with a bow, pretty soon you realise the flaw and speed aura is your only real choice. Yay for diversity.
It was just a half baked product (oh plenty of larger flaws than those above, those are just ones I think might be missed, except map cloning which I thought to mention because it's so damn annoying) and being sold as a finished sequel to a great game.
As a stand alone, fine. It's OK. Not what it was presented as.
Dragon Age 1: YOU'RE OUR HERO AND IF YOU PICK THE RIGHT CHOICES EVERYONE WILL LOVE YOU LIKE THE SPECIAL AND UNIQUE SNOW FLAKE YOU ARE, HERO!jackpackage200 said:
Deagon Age 2: Fuck right and wrong; there is a baby on the train tracks. There is a train coming with 10 people on board. Do you derail the train!?!?! NOT ENOUGH TIME TO SAVE THE BABY!
I played the demo on 360 and it killed all the anticipation I had for the game. No auto-attack? Ok, is it at least interesting to mash the A button? No? Fail.
Removing the option to turn Auto attack on also has the downside that it makes tactical play more difficult because you can't take a break to analyze and give orders, yes, you can pause, but the speed of combat means you have to pause every few seconds if you want your party doing anything intelligent at all. It's also nice to be able to sit back and evaluate how things are going. It's a lot harder to keep an eye on team health when you're forced to mindlessly mash the A button if you want to do anything other than stand there and get stabbed.
So I said forget it.
Then I played the demo on the PC. Much better. Sure, the controls as a bit of a bear, but a dedicated pause that doesn't force you to hold the triggers, more control of the camera (still miss the Isometric view though), and, above all, auto-attack, actually allowed me to enjoy the game and want to play more. The faster, more visceral combat is actually fun when I can also play it tactically. I still am not buying it anytime soon, but I do plan on buying it eventually (which is an improvement).
A couple other complaints that I have (based just on the demo, so if these were addressed in the main game, forgive me):
The voice acting. Hawke needs to STFU. Listen BioWare, I thought you had figured this out in Mass Effect. If you're going to have the main character speaking, make sure the voice actor is at least as talented as the other people in the room. I loved all of the voice actors but Hawke. Both Male and Female Hawkes are easily the worst voice actors in your party. This is the one your players are going to be spending the most time with. Quality voice acting is a must.
UI. Everywhere I look I see people claiming the UI is improved. Where? because in the demo all I'm looking at is square pictures with life bars next to them. It's fugly. While I do think the menu system is more logically structured, I don't like the visuals. I really liked Origins' method of making it look like a book. DAII's layout with Origin's visuals would be a nice menu.
Can't speak for the story, personally, but if what others have said about it is true, then I can say this: The hero's journey from pauper to champion is not a new device. It is an intrinsic aspect to all fantasy stories. The hero naturally progresses and develops as the overarching story plays out. That is a natural thing to happen. Removing the overarching plot does not allow you to focus more on the hero, it just means you're cutting that part out. The focus is already on the hero, the plot is the device that keeps them moving.
Take Origins for example. The Plot is the Blight, but the story is really about your character and how they go from whatever ruin they came from (since none of the origin stories ends happily) to become Hero of Fereldan. The Blight, however, gives them something dedicated to work towards.
Is DAII bad? From what I've seen, no. But it's not really good, either. For BioWare, that's a considerable step backwards.
Removing the option to turn Auto attack on also has the downside that it makes tactical play more difficult because you can't take a break to analyze and give orders, yes, you can pause, but the speed of combat means you have to pause every few seconds if you want your party doing anything intelligent at all. It's also nice to be able to sit back and evaluate how things are going. It's a lot harder to keep an eye on team health when you're forced to mindlessly mash the A button if you want to do anything other than stand there and get stabbed.
So I said forget it.
Then I played the demo on the PC. Much better. Sure, the controls as a bit of a bear, but a dedicated pause that doesn't force you to hold the triggers, more control of the camera (still miss the Isometric view though), and, above all, auto-attack, actually allowed me to enjoy the game and want to play more. The faster, more visceral combat is actually fun when I can also play it tactically. I still am not buying it anytime soon, but I do plan on buying it eventually (which is an improvement).
A couple other complaints that I have (based just on the demo, so if these were addressed in the main game, forgive me):
The voice acting. Hawke needs to STFU. Listen BioWare, I thought you had figured this out in Mass Effect. If you're going to have the main character speaking, make sure the voice actor is at least as talented as the other people in the room. I loved all of the voice actors but Hawke. Both Male and Female Hawkes are easily the worst voice actors in your party. This is the one your players are going to be spending the most time with. Quality voice acting is a must.
UI. Everywhere I look I see people claiming the UI is improved. Where? because in the demo all I'm looking at is square pictures with life bars next to them. It's fugly. While I do think the menu system is more logically structured, I don't like the visuals. I really liked Origins' method of making it look like a book. DAII's layout with Origin's visuals would be a nice menu.
Can't speak for the story, personally, but if what others have said about it is true, then I can say this: The hero's journey from pauper to champion is not a new device. It is an intrinsic aspect to all fantasy stories. The hero naturally progresses and develops as the overarching story plays out. That is a natural thing to happen. Removing the overarching plot does not allow you to focus more on the hero, it just means you're cutting that part out. The focus is already on the hero, the plot is the device that keeps them moving.
Take Origins for example. The Plot is the Blight, but the story is really about your character and how they go from whatever ruin they came from (since none of the origin stories ends happily) to become Hero of Fereldan. The Blight, however, gives them something dedicated to work towards.
Is DAII bad? From what I've seen, no. But it's not really good, either. For BioWare, that's a considerable step backwards.