Poll: Is Dragon Age 2 a bad game?

[Juggern4ut20]

So the reason why you didn't like him being voiced is because what....he didn't blow up the chantry himself?...because he wasn't the one who made the big "world-changing" event? Sorry but thats really weak, it doesn't change the fact he's the hero and protagonist, and does have a major affect in this world.

You misread what i put i think. I did not like him being voiced because he did not need to be. It was a departure from what the series had established for itself. The talk about the chantry was to argue that the game was not actually that centered around you, thus there was no need for a voiced protagonist. It was in response to you saying that the game centered around your life meaning the champion should be voiced. The other reason I did not like it was that it lowers the amount of dialogue choices, along with the wheel in my opinion. But most importantly, Bioware already had a RPG series with a strong voiced protagonist in Mass Effect, Dragon age doesn't need that. Its two different points that i think might have been a little unclear when i wrote it.

Also, i felt that the voice actor that did the male version of Hawke did a horrible job.

But the main problem i had with the game was the horrible writing.

 

[bobmd13]

I am replaying DAO at the moment and it is a chore. I bought Awakenings and DA 2 recently and that is the reason for the return to original game.

As for DOA being an old school RPG, I have one word for you BOLLOCKS.

It has the personality of a dead dog, the interactivity of a something that might grow on a plate if bread is left for too long and more cutscenes than the BBC news.

Bioware has lost the plot or maybe EA is directing the show now as the amount of DLC is amazing and generally it adds very little to the game time if you cut out the ubiquious cut scenes.

Fallout 3 btw is a poor comparison to the original Fallout stories. It started well and just lost the humour and plot after the first 30 mins.

A good third person shooter but not an RPG.

Classic RPG's are Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Icewind Dale 1 and 2,(see where this is going Interplay and Black Isle) and also classics like the Bard's Tale saga on the early PC's.

 

[Togs]

not bad just heavily rushed- in places that have received a little more TLC its actually pretty damn good.

 

[RejjeN]

It was great on my first playthrough, then I decided to play completely differently my next playthrough and noticed just how insanely railroaded it was "Hey, do you want to help me with this completely unrelated task that is also very dangerous for a hunch I had?" "No, fuck off." "Great! I'll see you later!" "What?" (Seriously, why even include the option to say no if you're just gonna "reason" the player into doing it ANYWAY!?

 

[Orpheus III]

And about the conversation wheel; it's just the same choices you would've been able to make in Origins, but in a convenient wheel format. The icons are there so you get the connotations of what you're saying, and it's not streamlined like Mass Effect where there's only Paragon, neutral, or Renegade choices. (Neutral choices don't even count as real options in ME, but that's for another thread.)
People often seem to make the generalization that all you can do in DA2 is choose between being nice, being a smartass, and being a dick. Choosing an option in red then picking a blue one doesn't make Hawke a schizo. Take the beginning of the game, for instance: when Wesley noted Bethany was an apostate, I picked the "aggressive" option, because I wanted him to get the fuck away from my sister. Later, when he was dying, I picked the options asking Flemeth about help--the "kind" ones--because I didn't hate him enough to want him to die. Throughout my game, I was direct and to the point as often as possible, but just because those are the red hammer icon options doesn't mean I was playing as Renegade Commander Hawke. There are no ME style "predefined personalities". Your character is defined by you, exactly the same as Origins.

 

[harvz]

love it though has some problems, mainly that its geared more for consoles than pc's and the optimization sucks on pc (mainly the big pretty tree in town)

 

[Twilight_guy]

First define what features you are evaluating and how your evaluation system is set up then we can see if its "bad" or "good." At the moment I have no idea what "bad" is because there is no notion defined of what that means. In other words, its subjective only you can tell.

 

[Ian Caronia]

I don't know how to embed so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZwwRU99Izw&feature=channel_video_title

V-Log of the Let's Player who even did every single side mission in Dragon Age 2 (180parts). He says he loves the game but it's all about the ending that makes it crap. YES, HE SPOILS THE END OBVIOUSLY.

When writing a story there is no such thing as "it's about the journey, not where you end up". That's stupid and if an author even mentions that NEVER read their stuff because they obviously don't care about the endings they write. DA2 was bad for me on multiple levels, but they weren't enough for me to hate it. Just think it's crap. But the ending is AWFUL. The ending to DA was half-assed to me. Despite different endings which were actually well done and in a few where you get to actually speak to the cast and find out what they'll be up to post narrative, the very ending closed off with a long explanation of how your choices throughout the game effected the world of DA:O...with static text blocks on a slide show.
But the ending to DA2 is even worse because

Spoiler

THERE IS NO ENDING! A CLIFFHANGER! AN UNCHANGEABLE, LAZY CLIFFHANGER WORSE THAN HALO 2!

So, yeah. Fuck Dragon Age 2, and after that ending I say fuck Dragon Age period since I have a feeling it's downhill from here. Also

Spoiler

one of the executive heads at Bioware are in love with Lilianna, which is, in my logical opinion, the ONLY reason I can think of that they retconned any choice you made in regards to her character to have her in DA2. It's also a known fact. Look it up. Even when asked about a romance DLC for Mass Effect 2 the first thing to come out of his mouth is a "Oh, that sounds good. You could go on a date with Lilianna."

I'll decide whether or not to hate Bioware (and for good reason) if the ME team screws up Mass Effect 3. Until then, screw everyone involved in the development of DA2.

 

[Rapamaha]

thing with sequels is that people often compare them to previous game of the series, that said its nowhere close as good as dragon age origins but its still a good game, there are better games on the market but there are also alot worse games too

 

[JoJo Bizzaro 7]

Can't you make the decision for yourself?
Personally, I like it. But why should that influence what's supposed to be a matter your personal opinion?
It seems rude to answer a question with more questions, but this is what always comes to mind in threads like these.
Please do not feel obliged to reply.

 

[Juggern4ut20]

The ending to DA was half-assed, with everything pretty much being explained through static text blocks on a slide show. Fact.

Is this a joke? What you wrote there isn't a fact. The ending to DA was half-assed is an opinion. There was static text blocks on a slide show, yes, but that was the epilogue not the ending. And what do you mean "everything pretty much being explained"? Everything was explained before you got to the slide show. Since there was so many different endings to the game, you couldn't really create that much content for the aftermath after the defeat of the archdemon. Maybe if you explain yourself a little you wouldn't come across as a whiny 'bioware hater', who just discovered how to swear.

Also, DA2 was not bad because of the ending, it was bad because of the entire plot leading up to and including the ending.

 

[LordFisheh]

I think it was a great game. I don't see how not having to sit down with a calculator to work out which sustained mode is better (when they all seem to do extremely similar things) is a loss to the genre.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Good game but pretty rushed. It has a few corners cut that should not have been cut.

But despite its flaw it is an enjoyable experiences and works well with Origins saves.

 

[TilMorrow]

I have yet to have a chance to play it [sub]apart from the demo[/sub] but from what I have heard people say about it, it makes it sound like DA2 would be more suited as being titled as an expansion pack to DA:O that follows the story of different character with lots of stuff that is different in some cases being good or bad.

I'll just go with the 'Meh, it's okay' option...

 

[randomsix]

I watched a friend play it, and what I basically understand from that experience is that you fly at enemies and they explode. The friend agrees with this.

To me, this is not satisfying.

 

[Bugerion]

By itself its good but when compared to DA:O it kinds sucks so Il say its OK game

 

[Dendio]

Good game but it has its short comings. We put bioware up on a high pedistal. If dragons age 2 was made by most other dev teams it'd be an 8.8 at lowest. since its boi ware people grade it an 8.0

Its not fair but we expect only the best from bioware

Personally I loved the game. Yes the streaming enemies and reused maps could have been improved on, but the game is very fun and a must play. My main gripe is that i wish the relationships and romances were more fleshed out but thats how i feel with most bioware games...the stuff is so unique and full of goodness that i just want more and more.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

The dialogue wheel is just a garbage tool to streamline the choice system (for consoles perhaps i dunno) and the one DA2 had was even worse. It went so far as to add little stupid symbols just in case the player was too stupid to figure out what the response was implying. So instead of choosing a dialogue based on the actual words, without knowing how the NPC will react, you choose based on which reaction you want from the NPC. Someone whom can't read a word of english could romance any of the NPCs by simply knowing what the heart symbol implied. That in my mind is weak.

Yeah no.

The Dialogue Wheel got rid of the archaic choice listing of old. The listing didn't give much variation for finding the dialogue choice I wanted for the response I wanted.

List example:

1.) You are a bad guy, I sorta don't like you.
2.) Not sure if you are a bad guy, I'm not sure if I like you.
3.) Look a bad guy, I'm more bad, but I still will do away with you.
4.) Questions to determine if bad guy is bad.
5.) Other questions.

That list is a gray area. You have a sort good choice but it is hard to tell, a puzzled rather that than a neutral, and something could be intended to be bad but sounds partially good. Then you get the questions, and some times those questions would change the conversation permanently so you couldn't go back.

Other times they would add more than just three answers to it and spread them even thinner on the ambiguous gray area. I would have to spend 3 to 5 minutes deciding which one would give me the outcome I might be looking for, and many times it didn't, I had to load and do the whole long conversation again. This eats up precious game playing time, and breaks the flow of the game and story.

With the Dialogue Wheel, if I want to be good, I always pick the top right dialogue answer, middle for smart-ass/neutral, and the bottom right for the forceful bad/evil opinion. The questions are delegated to start on the left and can enter a section that fills up five places on the ring and I get five questions that further the story and then I can always come back to the main alignment answer. A player can hit and see every question and dialogue piece that fits with his or her alignment. Players can immediately find the dialogue choices they want. Instead of studying the choices for minutes and sometimes having to end up restarting from the last save, players get what they want fast and be able to keep the story flowing and the game moving.

I have a four year English degree and I took many classes on storytelling. A writer shouldn't over complicate things with too many choices in thinking and confuse the reader with ambiguity. The faster the points are shown for the people reading and experiencing the story, the more enjoyable it is. Those were words to live by for a writer from my old creative writing professor.

The DA:O dialogue makes things ambiguous and makes things uncertain for the reader/viewer on what could happen. Such things can ruin stories. I know it mess up how I view stuff in that game. That is why I liked DA2's the storytelling better.

 

[Zhukov]

I would say it's well above average quality. But below the standard set by other Bioware games.

I mostly enjoyed it. Some of the characters were really good. The combat felt exactly like DA:O, that is to say, nice and tactical but a bit repetitive.

On the downside, the environments were mercilessly recycled, the sidequests were lacklustre and the overarching narrative was a bit of a mess.

 

[The Harkinator]

I actually prefer it to DA:O, the plot is more original and creative. The characters are much more interesting and combat makes me feel powerful and skilled. The Warden was supposed to be able to stop the blight in record time but when he fought enemies it looked like he didn't know how to use a sword so just stood there and hacked at his enemy for 5 mins.

Granted, Kirkwall should have been much bigger and maybe more open like a Bethesda game. I still loved it.

EDIT: But I hate the waves of enemies, they jump in off the rooftops! HOW? In lowtown some of the roofs mean that they would practically shatter on impact. In caves the waves of minions drop from the ceiling.

The loading menus suggest that in the chokepoint the warriors should block of the enemies so the ranged rouge and the mage can attack from a distance. Except this doesn't work because the second wave usually means enemies drop down at the other side of the chokepoint and kill your mage and Rogue.

Next time you want wave combat, don't just don't.