Poll: Dragon Age II
- Thread starter Shadows Risen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It isn't as bad as some people would have you believe. If you can get it for like $5 - $10 then get it, why not. It might entertain you for a while and if it fails, you won't feel bad about the investment.
It's a game with some nice ideas, but it's painfully obvious that many corners were cut in almost every aspect of the game, that the budget was tight and that the game was rushed out by Bioware's B- or C-team. Recycled levels (as in you get the same cave to represent a dozen different locations), recycled locations (the game takes place in 2-3 main locations; the idea was to have a small number of locations but have them change as the years go by, but they stay exactly the same), a story that feels cobbled together (some cool characters and moments, but by and large it feels like the didn't know what the hell they wanted to do with it), etc.
It's not a terrible game, but it's worse than anything else Bioware has put out. If you can get it for cheap and want to scratch that RPG itch, go for it, but I wouldn't advocate paying full price for it.
It's not a terrible game, but it's worse than anything else Bioware has put out. If you can get it for cheap and want to scratch that RPG itch, go for it, but I wouldn't advocate paying full price for it.
Give it a try, especially considering it should have dropped a fair bit in price by now.
Make no mistake, it deserved the scolding it got. But it was more insulting than it was bad, it felt like Bioware and EA just went "f*ck it, they'll enjoy everything with our brand name on it, let's just get it out there while the name Dragon Age still carries buzz". That said, it's not really broken or badly designed in any significant way. Unless you're a W-RPG purist, you'll probably be able to enjoy it. There's even a few really welcomed improvements to the "Bioware formula" in there.
Make no mistake, it deserved the scolding it got. But it was more insulting than it was bad, it felt like Bioware and EA just went "f*ck it, they'll enjoy everything with our brand name on it, let's just get it out there while the name Dragon Age still carries buzz". That said, it's not really broken or badly designed in any significant way. Unless you're a W-RPG purist, you'll probably be able to enjoy it. There's even a few really welcomed improvements to the "Bioware formula" in there.
no. seriusly just NO. at least not unless its in the bargain bin for 5? and you want tot throw away 5 ?.Shadows Risen said:
for the same money you could have the glorius jummyness that is an extremely large icecream, or a very large hamburger. all of which are at least 1000 time better then DA2.
the game starts shit, stays shit, and was a glorius waste of time with me hoping 'it will get good soon, right?' but it did not :/
As someone who (personally) didn't like DA:O very much, I'm going to disagree.StriderShinryu said:
DA:O was, in my opinion, a just above average game (and an average RPG by general standards), so i bought Dragon Age 2 based on the talk from the developers about how they wanted to make the combat flow more. How they managed to make it flow less is beyond me. The combat systems aren't really comparable, and mechanicswise the DA2 combat system is a lot worse for it (especially on PC where you can't have a top-down view like you did in Dragon Age - Origins, which is one of the most stupid design decisions i have seen in recent times. I mean, if you actually HAVE to improve a game, don't remove the things that are actually good about it).
Story was a disjointed mess. Dungeon recycling was obnoxious.
Otherwise, I enjoyed it.
I don't recommend paying full price, but if you find it in a bargain bin or Steam sale then I'd say it's worth a look. At the very least you'll get to see first hand what all the rage was about.
Otherwise, I enjoyed it.
I don't recommend paying full price, but if you find it in a bargain bin or Steam sale then I'd say it's worth a look. At the very least you'll get to see first hand what all the rage was about.
The story is not good, and the combat is a total chore. ;-)
I think your platform may influence how good you think it is. I'm a PC player myself and never tried the console version but it's the impression I have been getting from comments.
DA:O was consider by many to be a very poor console port, while it seems DA2 was a poor PC port. Some people like the action focus and 'button-mashing' focus in DA2, on PC that translates very poorly to a mouse point and click interface. It feels sluggish and disjointed with the pause and play feature of the DA games.
So in terms of the gameplay I'm guessing the console version is far better.
I personally don't think DA2 is worth it. Most of what I enjoyed in DA:O was treated in a lazy way in DA2, and I didn't particular enjoy the few new developments of DA2.
Other more concrete flaws has been adressed by other posters.
My perspective is that DA:O was the best thing that happened to RPGs since the old Black Isle games, and I don't particular like the modern development of other RPGs. Your mileage may vary.
But no matter what style of gaming people prefer, I'd say most good RPGs will be a better investment. Divinity II, Risen, the new Kingdoms of Amalur, Skyrim, Dungeon Siege III. All different styles but in most respects better than DA2.
I think your platform may influence how good you think it is. I'm a PC player myself and never tried the console version but it's the impression I have been getting from comments.
DA:O was consider by many to be a very poor console port, while it seems DA2 was a poor PC port. Some people like the action focus and 'button-mashing' focus in DA2, on PC that translates very poorly to a mouse point and click interface. It feels sluggish and disjointed with the pause and play feature of the DA games.
So in terms of the gameplay I'm guessing the console version is far better.
I personally don't think DA2 is worth it. Most of what I enjoyed in DA:O was treated in a lazy way in DA2, and I didn't particular enjoy the few new developments of DA2.
Other more concrete flaws has been adressed by other posters.
My perspective is that DA:O was the best thing that happened to RPGs since the old Black Isle games, and I don't particular like the modern development of other RPGs. Your mileage may vary.
But no matter what style of gaming people prefer, I'd say most good RPGs will be a better investment. Divinity II, Risen, the new Kingdoms of Amalur, Skyrim, Dungeon Siege III. All different styles but in most respects better than DA2.
I'd say it's worth it, especially now that it's cheap. It has many issues, sure, but it's worth it for the story and some excellent and hilarious dialogue.
The combat is different. More arcady and less rpg-planning-baldurs gate-like. The problem is that the gameplay, while more actiony is nowhere near as good as for example god of war, so its lost something and gained nothing.Shadows Risen said:
The story is uninteresting and an utter dissapointment compared to DA:O. The whole game feels like a short "meanwhile, in whatever that city was called" sequence before you get back to the ACTUAL DA game.
The npcs are mostly cliché and/or uninteresting, and the most interesting relationships are finished off by death.
There really is NOTHING about that game that is better than DA:O, and a whole lot of things that are worse. There is absolutely no reason to get it. Not even on sale. Endless sequels are bad enough. Sequels that are much worse than the original is just...a sin.
It's pretty damn cheap on Amazon at the moment, and I imagine its plot will be important for the next Dragon Age, definately get it 
The combat is similar to DA:O, just faster and better balanced (well, and easier, but you could always increase the difficulty setting). I honestly can't understand people who call DA:O a deep tactical reincarnation of Baldur's Gate and DAII a stupid hack-and-slash. It looks more flashy, but is about the same.
The story definitly is less epic than DA:O, but i found it more interesting. Some things could have used a bit more explaination, but i never found the "plot holes" some people seem to see. Every companion has an interesting story, and they participate much more in the main story than in DA:O. The "villians" also have more personality than in DA:O (where only Loghain was really interesting in my opinion).
So, i like combat and story much better than in DA:O. That's not to say the game doesn't have some problems: The level design is weak. And while DAII shares this trait with it's predecessor, there is also much recycling of dungeons. While the combat itself is better, enemy placement is often annoying. Kill a group of enemies, and a second wave appears, sometimes without a good explaination. Both problems are fixed in the DLC's, so Bioware at least has learned it's lesson.
So if you like DA:O, i'd say get DAII. Maybe you'll receive it like me and love it, maybe you'll see the alleged flaws that apparantly make it the worst thing since the blight. For a budget price, i think it's worth trying out.
The story definitly is less epic than DA:O, but i found it more interesting. Some things could have used a bit more explaination, but i never found the "plot holes" some people seem to see. Every companion has an interesting story, and they participate much more in the main story than in DA:O. The "villians" also have more personality than in DA:O (where only Loghain was really interesting in my opinion).
So, i like combat and story much better than in DA:O. That's not to say the game doesn't have some problems: The level design is weak. And while DAII shares this trait with it's predecessor, there is also much recycling of dungeons. While the combat itself is better, enemy placement is often annoying. Kill a group of enemies, and a second wave appears, sometimes without a good explaination. Both problems are fixed in the DLC's, so Bioware at least has learned it's lesson.
So if you like DA:O, i'd say get DAII. Maybe you'll receive it like me and love it, maybe you'll see the alleged flaws that apparantly make it the worst thing since the blight. For a budget price, i think it's worth trying out.
You do realise that on DA2's release there was no auto attack on consoles, despite Bioware promising it was in the game right up until 6 hours before release. I like to play rouges so you can imagine how mental it was having to spam the A button three times a second whenever in combat. Needless to say, couple this with other well reported problems like the reusing of assets and it's not hard to imagine how much of a steaming pile of excrement this was on release... and why myself and many others stopped playing. If I recall correctly it took Bioware almost two months to fix the lack of auto-attack, by which time I'd lost the disc and to this day I've yet to play it again.Wilhelm Figge said:
Even if the game is on sale, I'd learn towards not purchasing anyway to send a clear message to Bioware/EA especially as you're a fan of the original. Without it DA3 could be even worse.
Consider this; At this point you can probably grab DA2 for between $20 and $30 depending on where you get your games. For that, I would say its definitely worth it. In terms of play style though, it's like Mass Effect which may sound great to you but I found it to be really annoying personally. If you don't like it you can probably download the Dragon Age spin-offs (like Awakening and, Liliana's Song I think) to give you more of the classic Dragon Age experience. So yeah, it's worth it for $20 but I regret buying it for $60 months ago...
Totally worth it!
The story and characters are worse than DA:O but better than DA:A. Although there are still good characters and the Act 2 conclusion is fantastic.
The combat is far superior to all prior renditions.
I'd personally compare this in terms of experience to KOTOR 1 vs KOTOR 2. KOTOR 2 wasn't a great game compared to the first, but it was still a fun experience and worth the money.
The story and characters are worse than DA:O but better than DA:A. Although there are still good characters and the Act 2 conclusion is fantastic.
The combat is far superior to all prior renditions.
I'd personally compare this in terms of experience to KOTOR 1 vs KOTOR 2. KOTOR 2 wasn't a great game compared to the first, but it was still a fun experience and worth the money.
I say buy it.
I actually liked it better than the original. Where the first did a VERY good job of setting up the world and pulled off an above average "save the world from the giant dragon" plot, the second is more about one man (or woman) finding his place in this world and how he deals with the disasters that crop up around him. In my opinion it does this extremely well and was one of the more original video game plots I've seen.
The combat was also a lot more fun and responsive. Nothing takes me out of a game faster than pressing auto-attack and just clicking (or in my case pressing, I was on 360) hotkeys to activate special abilities.
I will agree that the dungeon design was more than a little lazy though. It really could have benefited from a few more months in development.
I actually liked it better than the original. Where the first did a VERY good job of setting up the world and pulled off an above average "save the world from the giant dragon" plot, the second is more about one man (or woman) finding his place in this world and how he deals with the disasters that crop up around him. In my opinion it does this extremely well and was one of the more original video game plots I've seen.
The combat was also a lot more fun and responsive. Nothing takes me out of a game faster than pressing auto-attack and just clicking (or in my case pressing, I was on 360) hotkeys to activate special abilities.
I will agree that the dungeon design was more than a little lazy though. It really could have benefited from a few more months in development.
I got it quite cheap and enjoyed it the combat is pretty fun and the story while not saving the world is not bad over all. The voice acting is good and there is lots of banter between the characters that is fun.
Enviroments are reused and that's a really big problem and kind of off putting.
Shrug if it's cheap you can always try it it's too hard to tell if you will like it or not seeing as ther eare such varying opinions on it.
Enviroments are reused and that's a really big problem and kind of off putting.
Shrug if it's cheap you can always try it it's too hard to tell if you will like it or not seeing as ther eare such varying opinions on it.
You do realize that there are some people who wanted to turn auto-attack OFF in DA:O right? Different people like different options. And that option should have been in from the start IMO.GoaThief said:
That was a little bit unpleasant. But i didn't think it was a big deal. Even after auto-attack was patched back in, i caught myself still pressing A to attack all the time. For some people it might be annoying, but this doesn't actually hurt the tactical aspect of the game. It just requires the player to do a bit more instead of just watching battles unfold.GoaThief said:
And i'm willing to forgive the promises that it was in the game, as this bug came about in a uncommon way (lost code during conversion or something, wasn't it?). Irritating, but i understand why they thought it was in the game.
And if we want to talk about flaws that ACTUALLY hurt the tactical approach, then how about the missing "move to position" command for DA:O on the Xbox? That is catastrophic. Your archers and mages follow you in a row in the mouth of a dragon. You can only get them into position by manually moving them.
So why does a bug that doesn't do much more than tire your thumb a little make the game "a steaming pile of excrement", while a bug that complicates essential tactical features like positioning your party isn't a big deal?