Poll: Dragon Age 2 was it that bad?

[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.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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".

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.

First off I did switch between the characters when I played Origins, mainly because the whole tactics didn't work because in the time it took to compute to do the tactic, the time had passed. Something as simple as imputing that I want my party members to drink a health potion when they get below 50% health didn't work, one one of them would get below 50% health, it would take 5 or more seconds before they actually did it, and by that time they were usually dead, so they never drank it of course.

But really, you totally didn't read what I said.

I had no control over my standard/normal attack, in no game should attacks be on auto. There shouldn't be 4 seconds or more between attacks. My characters act like they are in some world where the air is really thick and they have to cut through it to get the sword to the enemy.

On the area of effect and what special attacks hit, I look at shield bash.

When I shield bash in Origins, it hits only the targeted enemy, it doesn't matter if there is another enemy standing right next to me, or the targeted enemy.

When I shield bash in DA2, I hit the target and there are two guys standing next to him or just behind him, they are all going to fall down.

My shield and the enemy is a solid object, my shield when it hits the target and keeps going it isn't going to all of a sudden become like air and the other enemies pass right through it. Same goes for the enemies when the guy that gets shield bashed falls back on the guys that are right behind him, he will knock them down.

So read what I said from the first post, and don't even bring tactics into play because it has nothing to do with it, especially not with the snail speed of the automatic normal attack.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It was a mediocre sequel to an excellent RPG. So naturally, the game felt like a terrible money-grab.

 

[Mustang678]

DA2 had been the first game I ever preordered and subsequently reminded me why I don't buy games until I've read reviews. Unless the game is absolutely outstanding I only borrow copies from friends.
I did get a free copy of ME2 out of it though. I think DA2 would've stood up better if they'd spent another year on it

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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.

DA:O did not have realistic combat. In real life, medieval warriors would be able to swing a sword faster than my warrior did.

If swords are swung that slowly in real life, medieval combat scenes in movies and television would take twice as long, at least.

I have held replicas of blades used in such movies. They are of normal weight of the real thing used throughout medieval history, and I was able to swing faster than my warrior in DA:O, and keep it up for several minutes.

So combat in DA:O is not real.

 

[Aizsaule]

The constant enemy's who where warping into battle was very annoying, and the game wasn't dragon age origins which was also disappointing.

 

[jackdaniel0001]

Its a good game, definitely didn't deserve all the vitriol flowing around the internet. It is sort of interesting to see that fans turn 180 deg from saying Origin sucks to Origin is perfect, either that or BioWare fanbase is just that divided.

I'd say they are going to be better off just ignoring the 'fans', pleasing some will just leave others embittered.

 

[satsugaikaze]

I think fans of Origins were really just expecting the same everything as Origins (and Awakening) - the same two-dice-shy-of-D&D gameplay, the same open-ended story and the same grand old high-fantasy stuff.

Dragon Age II was just a huge step in a very lateral direction that caught a lot of the original's fans off guard, and it really seemed to me that they were experimenting with the RPG format in terms of plot structure, gameplay and characters.

Personally, I goddamn applaud Bioware for having the balls to try something different, whether or not it was good. I think people who consider the effort put into the story and characters as being "lazy" aren't really on the same wavelength as the people who wrote them. It's true that things like the copy-pasted dungeons are very indicative of the very short development cycle and the need for more work on the game, but it's not as big a cause of the game's faults as people think it is.

Mainly, the 'disjointed' linear structure of the story doesn't feel the same as the Journey (with a capital J!) taken in Origins. Let's face it, guys, Dragon Age: Origins was as Joseph Campbell as you could get in "dark" fantasy. At least, much more so than II was.

 

[Mr Dizazta]

It was a good game. I am currently doing a second playthough. The problem I had with DA2 was the recycling of dungeons, Act 3 just being batshit crazy for no reason, and Kirkwall never feeling like a huge city.

 

[Kahunaburger]

snip

I'm not entirely sure you addressed what I was saying. Short version: DA:O is deeper, but optimized for PC. Not all of the tactical elements (positioning chief among them) got translated over to console very well. DA2 is optimized for console. It's shallower, but plays better as an action game vs. a tactical game. So if you're playing on a console, DA2's combat system is better, and it doesn't surprise me that you like DA2 more.

The rest of your issues with DA:O are basically subjective - IMO, shield bashes targeting individual enemies vs. shield bashes knocking down groups of enemies, fast attacking vs. slow attacking, and so on are basically six of one, half dozen of the other. Personally, I'm more interested in the tactical element, but it's okay if you're not, especially because the tactical element never worked well on your platform.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

DA:O did not have realistic combat. In real life, medieval warriors would be able to swing a sword faster than my warrior did.

If swords are swung that slowly in real life, medieval combat scenes in movies and television would take twice as long, at least.

I have held replicas of blades used in such movies. They are of normal weight of the real thing used throughout medieval history, and I was able to swing faster than my warrior in DA:O, and keep it up for several minutes.

So combat in DA:O is not real.

Can you teleport? If so, teach me plz.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think people who consider the effort put into the story and characters as being "lazy" aren't really on the same wavelength as the people who wrote them.

I'd say less "lazy" and more "they needed more time to edit."

This stuff isn't exactly final draft material:


But these guys were the people who wrote DA:O, which while not exactly great writing, was at the very least good writing. So I'm less inclined to blame them for messing up DA2's writing and more inclined to blame EA for rushing them.