Poll: Dragon Age 2 was it that bad?

[theevilgenius60]

I liked it. The thing that would have made it better is just a name. Don't call that Dragon Age 2, all that leads to is disappointment that it wasn't as great as origins and awakening. Call it something like The Rise of Hawke: an adventure in the Dragon Age universe,or something like that. It just didn't feel as urgent as origins or even awakening. Literally, all it was about was Hawke going from no name scrub to bad ass Viscount. If they would have been more open about that in the title, then I believe there wouldn't be as much complaining about it.

Or no name to just the Champion, I sided with the Mages, so I didn't take the throne.

They could have called it:

Dragon Age: Champion of Kirkwall

DA: The Silly Templar Clown Cart O'Evil

DA: The Zany Mage Rebellion.

DA: Ooooh! Look! Qunari!

DA: Hawke and the Deep Roads of Doom

DA: Varric's Tale.

DA: The Story of Bianca

True, but you have to admit that any of those names, even the silly ones, describe the game better than Dragon Age 2. Well, maybe not the clown cart o'evil, but who's counting?

 

[hverhey]

Overall I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 very much. There are a lot of issues which everyone seems to have pointed out already. I will admit that it was harder to go back through the game for multiple play throughs, compared to the first where I played through about 20 times now.

So overall Dragon Age 2 was a good game, but compared to the other games Bioware have made it was lacking but that does not mean it should be as hated as it is.

 

[Electric_Sunshine]

Didn't enjoy it, played demo for half an hour and was dissapointed. However I wasn't really a fan on number 1, characters weren't very likable for me.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Or no name to just the Champion, I sided with the Mages, so I didn't take the throne.

They could have called it:

Dragon Age: Champion of Kirkwall

DA: The Silly Templar Clown Cart O'Evil

DA: The Zany Mage Rebellion.

DA: Ooooh! Look! Qunari!

DA: Hawke and the Deep Roads of Doom

DA: Varric's Tale.

DA: The Story of Bianca

True, but you have to admit that any of those names, even the silly ones, describe the game better than Dragon Age 2. Well, maybe not the clown cart o'evil, but who's counting?

True true, I guess not all the Templar's are evil, just the one and the rest are just misguided.

Besides, I'm most partial to "DA: The Story of Bianca", other than Varric and Merrill, she was the most interesting character of all. =P

Didn't enjoy it, played demo for half an hour and was dissapointed. However I wasn't really a fan on number 1, characters weren't very likable for me.

One thing I have been meaning to ask people that have a stance like yours, what was the demo like?

The reason I ask is that from experience, demos of late aren't a good measure of what the game will be like.

What was in the demo, what did you do in it?

I didn't get around to playing the demo before my pre-order copy arrived.

You say you weren't really a fan of DA:Origins. I am in the same boat, I still haven't got hardly anywhere in my first play through. But with that said, I loved DA2 and have set up two more play throughs and have been playing them.

Edit: If you have a console, give it a rent.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

Combat was really the only improvement for the game. Characters were just as god as in the first one. While the story wasn't as good it set it up for a series (which is good or bad depending how you look at it). But the problems were big, lack of customizing your people. I couldnt change what anyone expect for me looked like in my party. Also there werent many areas to explore. It made the game drag and feel longer then the 40 or so hours it took to beat

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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.

I would challenge you to say that perhaps the reason why you felt like it wasn't a bad game, was because it was a sequel to a much better game that you had some affection for.

It only stands to reason that if some people disparaged the game because of it's sequel nature (eg, "left a sour taste" in their mouths) then there should be a similar group of people that overlooked many of the downsides of this game because it was a sequel. Think of it as brand loyalty, which is not an unheard of phenomina and something we're all somewhat familiar with to one degree or another.

All that being said, DA2 is a pretty mediocre game from a company that usually publishes strong titles. I think I actually own every single Bioware RPG, and I would rank this one dead last by a mile. My hope is that the rebuke that Bioware is getting from it's customers over some of their more dubious design choices with DA2 was heard in time to have an impact on the subsequent Mass Effect 3 sequel.

I hate to sound like a "PC Master Race" jerkwad, but if the net effect of companies targeting console releases is a continual dumbing down of gameplay mechanics, then I don't think anyone will benefit from this in the long run.

You left one important factor in your variable, a person like me. A person who sees DA: Origins as a slow moving clunky hulk of a game that was poorly handled, while I see DA2 as 10 times better and fixes all the problems(dialogue, combat, and the leveling system), though I understand that it had the dungeon problem(which can be blamed on EA's rushing).

I would rather have another game like DA2 with the one problem it had, then another game with the world size and variety of environments with all the clunky brokenness still in it.

 

[StraightToHeck]

a game that can I can play for 6 hours in one day and still come back for more tomorrow is alright in my book

a vast improvement over the unrelenting deluge of tedium from the first Dragon Age

 

[Kahunaburger]

You left one important factor in your variable, a person like me. A person who sees DA: Origins as a slow moving clunky hulk of a game that was poorly handled, while I see DA2 as 10 times better and fixes all the problems(dialogue, combat, and the leveling system), though I understand that it had the dungeon problem(which can be blamed on EA's rushing).

I would rather have another game like DA2 with the one problem it had, then another game with the world size and variety of environments with all the clunky brokenness still in it.

Did you play both games on a console, or on a PC?

 

[Mikeyfell]

Dragon Age 2 was not THAT bad it was just a lot worse than anyone expected

 

[Rule Britannia]

I didn't hear that many people hear they hated it, the only thing that made it bad for me was that party members couldn't get new/different armour, it could only be upgraded.
I liked the new combat
I liked how my own character spoke

Lots of other things I enjoyed in the game but those were off the top of my head favourites.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

You left one important factor in your variable, a person like me. A person who sees DA: Origins as a slow moving clunky hulk of a game that was poorly handled, while I see DA2 as 10 times better and fixes all the problems(dialogue, combat, and the leveling system), though I understand that it had the dungeon problem(which can be blamed on EA's rushing).

I would rather have another game like DA2 with the one problem it had, then another game with the world size and variety of environments with all the clunky brokenness still in it.

Did you play both games on a console, or on a PC?

I played them both on the console, but that is besides the point. The only thing that might come into play between platforms is the controls.

But unless on the PC version of Origins I could have control on where my special attacks hit(not just meaning the one I target) and they are performed faster, and I would have control of my normal attack, then my clunky complaint still stands.

The not being able to control how fast my character attacks in battle was the biggest problem.

My warrior in Origins: The normal swords attack was out of my control. My warrior did this: Swing sword......swing sword......swing sword.

My warrior in DA2: Swing, swing, swing. I don't even have the time to say "Swing sword".

Keosegg here puts best what I mean by clunky.

To start with, the gameplay. I believe the gameplay in DA2 is a big step forward from DAO. In Origins, your characters felt so bloody clunky, they felt like tabletop miniatures being moved around, rather than seasoned warriors engaging vicious eldritch abominations in a fight to the death. It just irritated me to no end when my characters would shuffle around the enemy, or struggle to push past an ally that was in the way as they get into backstabbing range. In addition to that, the way the characters used their weapons felt clunky and uninspired. The dual wielding rogues felt no swifter than your greatsword wielding warrior. The way the warriors use their weapons is just so *meh*, there's no flare. The mages, however were OK, I suppose, nothing to write home about.

Compare DA2. No shuffling, no struggling to push past an ally as they get into position. When my characters fight, the feel like warriors, rather than tabletop miniatures shuffling around. Additionally, the way the characters use their weapons has improved. The dual wielding rogues feel swift and graceful. There's so much more flare in the warriors now, they leap when using mighty blow and the shield bash ability violates a few laws of aerodynamics when used. The mages also feel less squishy, especially when they engage their foes in close combat (that's not to say they aren't squishy, they are, very much so).

 

[muhitatsu]

I thankfully managed to get the game for only twenty bucks, and I'm glad I didn't pay more. I wouldn't go so far as to call the narrative an insult, but it felt overall unimportant. Part of the appeal of the original Dragon Age was in how you became a hero and had interesting adventures in different lands. The problem with Dragon Age 2 was that it felt less like an adventure, and more like a tale of a minor/side character in a bigger narrative. It was way too easy to die in DA2, even on easy, and doing everything in Kirkwall go boring really fast. It wasn't a terrible game, but I expect way better from Bioware, and it felt like an experience that was deliberately dumbed down for console players, especially the beer/Mountain Dew drinking Halo/Call of Duty players.

Don't get me wrong, DA2 could have been something great, and if there's going to be a DA3 I'd welcome it, but it needs to focus more on the big picture and less on the tale of one city.

 

[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"

OT: It was incredibly disappointing, especially after the orgasm-in-disc-form origins was, and I fucking hated how everything looked the exact same

 

[Kahunaburger]

You left one important factor in your variable, a person like me. A person who sees DA: Origins as a slow moving clunky hulk of a game that was poorly handled, while I see DA2 as 10 times better and fixes all the problems(dialogue, combat, and the leveling system), though I understand that it had the dungeon problem(which can be blamed on EA's rushing).

I would rather have another game like DA2 with the one problem it had, then another game with the world size and variety of environments with all the clunky brokenness still in it.

Did you play both games on a console, or on a PC?

I played them both on the console, but that is besides the point. The only thing that might come into play between platforms is the controls.

But unless on the PC version of Origins I could have control on where my special attacks hit(not just meaning the one I target) and they are performed faster, and I would have control of my normal attack, then my clunky complaint still stands.

The not being able to control how fast my character attacks in battle was the biggest problem.

My warrior in Origins: The normal swords attack was out of my control. My warrior did this: Swing sword......swing sword......swing sword.

My warrior in DA2: Swing, swing, swing. I don't even have the time to say "Swing sword".

Keosgg here puts best what I mean by clunky.

Well, it's hardly beside the point - it actually explains things quite a bit. From what I hear, the console port of DA:O was pretty terrible. It also seems like you played DA:O controlling a single character, which would also explain why you preferred DA2's system.

DA:O is more optimized towards m+k and controlling an entire party, and unfortunately tactical party-based games* and RTS games have yet to have their Halo, and generally have issues on the console. Even though DA2 gutted the tactical aspects of DA:O's combat, one thing it did do right was the console port.

*with the exception of Tales games, which get around this issue with co-op.

EDIT: And RE:Keosgg's point, the silliness with rogues teleporting, warriors leaping around in plate armor, and Templar paratroopers is generally seen as a minus, not a plus.

 

[Aranialis]

I personally felt it was a bastardized insult to the original game. The story was bad and the narrative is schizophrenic at best. The combat was dull and repetitive. The only thing i kind of liked was naming the main character Mike but the gag got old rather quickly.

Do you really have to copy paste Yahtzee's Opinion? The only change you did was mentioning the character called mike, instead of Ethan. Seriously, you may want to start to put more effort into at least writing your own opinion.

Now On Topic. it was a good RPG, yes it was very dull at times, but the Party members the romances the decision making, and the fact its a interlude... Its an awesome interlude. Overall appreciation: It was a good game (I still haven't forgiven the fact that they took the dual-wielding warrior out of the game), but far from perfect.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I personally felt it was a bastardized insult to the original game. The story was bad and the narrative is schizophrenic at best. The combat was dull and repetitive. The only thing i kind of liked was naming the main character Mike but the gag got old rather quickly.

Do you really have to copy paste Yahtzee's Opinion? The only change you did was mentioning the character called mike, instead of Ethan. Seriously, you may want to start to put more effort into at least writing your own opinion.

Now On Topic. it was a good RPG, yes it was very dull at times, but the Party members the romances the decision making, and the fact its a interlude... Its an awesome interlude. Overall appreciation: It was a good game (I still haven't forgiven the fact that they took the dual-wielding warrior out of the game), but far from perfect.

Ah, so if Yahtzee has an opinion he's the only one allowed to have that opinion. Must be a forum rule I haven't heard about yet.

 

[jackpackage200]

I personally felt it was a bastardized insult to the original game. The story was bad and the narrative is schizophrenic at best. The combat was dull and repetitive. The only thing i kind of liked was naming the main character Mike but the gag got old rather quickly.

Do you really have to copy paste Yahtzee's Opinion? The only change you did was mentioning the character called mike, instead of Ethan. Seriously, you may want to start to put more effort into at least writing your own opinion.

I missed the part where he mentioned that the narrative didn't make sense to a rational person. I know the story is told by character who is threatened with death but it just didnt make any sense at all.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I feel like this subject has been done to death but I'll just say that DA2 was a dissapointment for me. on a scale of 1-10 DA:O was like a 9 and DA:2 a 4

Could have done better Bioware.

This. It is an okay game. When compared with the first? Its mediocrity really shows. I traded it in without replaying it.

 

[Aranialis]

To start with, the gameplay. I believe the gameplay in DA2 is a big step forward from DAO. In Origins, your characters felt so bloody clunky, they felt like tabletop miniatures being moved around, rather than seasoned warriors engaging vicious eldritch abominations in a fight to the death. It just irritated me to no end when my characters would shuffle around the enemy, or struggle to push past an ally that was in the way as they get into backstabbing range. In addition to that, the way the characters used their weapons felt clunky and uninspired. The dual wielding rogues felt no swifter than your greatsword wielding warrior. The way the warriors use their weapons is just so *meh*, there's no flare. The mages, however were OK, I suppose, nothing to write home about.

Compare DA2. No shuffling, no struggling to push past an ally as they get into position. When my characters fight, the feel like warriors, rather than tabletop miniatures shuffling around. Additionally, the way the characters use their weapons has improved. The dual wielding rogues feel swift and graceful. There's so much more flare in the warriors now, they leap when using mighty blow and the shield bash ability violates a few laws of aerodynamics when used. The mages also feel less squishy, especially when they engage their foes in close combat (that's not to say they aren't squishy, they are, very much so).

[/quote]

All there is here, is a change of style, lets not say its better or worse, both of them worked equally good in my opinion. DA:O Had a slower more realistic look of combat (which I personally prefer being a pen and paper rper), which matched perfectly the more tactical side to it. DA2 had a more fast paced action combat, which tactics wise lacked a lot compared to Origins. I actually breezed through DA2 combat, it was just easy compared to Origins, Worse? not necessarily, better? Not really... it was just different approaches. Besides I see in DA2 a big usage of the Mass Effect recipe... it was just a different style that caught a lot of people of guard, although it brought in a few more fans to the franchise. And i still believe DA2 was a interlude between Origins plot and whatever is happening in DA3, which I'm pretty convinced Bioware is working on.

OT: I liked the game. I liked Origins better. But DA2 had its own merits and could stand on its own legs.

EDIT: I already had given my on topic opinion. <_< Well i still think this one is better explained so. Redundancy to for the win. =)

 

[Aranialis]

I personally felt it was a bastardized insult to the original game. The story was bad and the narrative is schizophrenic at best. The combat was dull and repetitive. The only thing i kind of liked was naming the main character Mike but the gag got old rather quickly.

Do you really have to copy paste Yahtzee's Opinion? The only change you did was mentioning the character called mike, instead of Ethan. Seriously, you may want to start to put more effort into at least writing your own opinion.

Now On Topic. it was a good RPG, yes it was very dull at times, but the Party members the romances the decision making, and the fact its a interlude... Its an awesome interlude. Overall appreciation: It was a good game (I still haven't forgiven the fact that they took the dual-wielding warrior out of the game), but far from perfect.

Ah, so if Yahtzee has an opinion he's the only one allowed to have that opinion. Must be a forum rule I haven't heard about yet.

No... Yahtzee has his opinion, and your might be exactly the same. But using the same words and phrase construction, feels like there is some lack of opinion.