Poll: Is there any hope Dragon Age?

[Infernai]

Dragon Age 2 is the Devil May cry 4 of Sequels. By no means a bad game, hell it's a good game! But...with all the hype and promises, as well as the potential, it just fell dramatically short of what we all expected. It's still good, just not near what we expected.

That said, please bring back the more open world map and choice of locations origins had, and maybe make things a bit more 'at stake'. I honestly gave no shit about Kirkwall to be honest, namely because i was stuck in the damned place for so long and barely anything truly major happened aside from maybe the Qunari and end fight. But, we need more space to roam around in and explore. We still have all of Thedas out there to explore after all, lets see more of it!

Also, please add in something were Hawke and The Warden are forced to fight one another, maybe because the warden works alongside a third faction...because that would just be epic.

 

[LiquidGrape]

I thought Dragon Age 2 was a definite improvement on the promise of the original, in spite of its rushed development.

It was a far more subtextually dense experience as a whole, it actually had an alluring art direction and its characters had a lot more integrity than their counterparts in Origins. ("I hate you because you killed those orphans, but that's alright since you bought me this lute!")

Bioware, I say continue in this new vein. But give yourselves (or beg EA for) the time to polish it.

I mean, Dragon Age 2 gave us Isabela.
That alone makes it my favourite game of theirs.

 

[Blind Sight]

Meh, I liked some of the mechanics Dragon Age 2 presented, and didn't like others. I think what they really need is just a longer development cycle, Dragon Age 2's biggest problem was that it was rushed.

 

[Dango]

I never played Dargon Age 2, but I disagree with just about everything in the OP.

I couldn't stand Dragon Age: Origins, I didn't care for any characters, it was basically taking the world of your average fantasy MMO and taking out all the variety, it was surprisingly linear and restricting, and the writing was just so average.

And as for Mass Effect, the original was perfect. It knew it was an RPG, it knew what gameplay style it was restricted to, and knew what it had to do outside of combat to make up for the its other problems. Mass Effect 2 had this horrible action movie feel to it, where every enemy is just fodder that respawns again and again until you complete an objective. It limited choice far too much, and the writing was just horrible, especially in the lackluster DLC.

In short, no, because I hated it in the first place.

 

[teebeeohh]

don't rush it. I will have to except that bioware will not continue to provide me with RPGs that have strategic combat and "pick a line" dialog system but my main problem with DA2 was that i lacked polish, the repeating environment, the lack of balance in both combat and character progression, inventory management for simpletons. Ok not everything but lot's of stuff, DA2 was just rushed to release a bioware game in between ME games.

 

[Mark Hardigan]

Dragon Age 2 was a decent game. My only major issue with it (I have a few small gripes, but I have small gripes about every game) is that it didn't feel up to the quality level that I expect from Bioware.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

They will release another one, everyone will buy it, more people will moan. rinse, repeat.

Yeah DA:2 had some issues (copy paste much) but all round II found it a solid game, and I preferred the new combat, it was much prettier and more engaging.

Although I agree in all DA > DA2.

The series does not need saving, it is dramatic to think so. Sonic has done perfectly well despite being dead for years.

Thankyou. You have restored some of my faith in this forum! I don't understand why people hate the game so much. I didn't buy it because of all the bad reviews, then after a while I bought it second hand and loved it, hammered 40hrs out on one play through and plan to do it again. I have no idea what peoples problem is with the game.

As you put, there were a few kinks but never-the-less a good, solid game that made me want to play it again.

Next time I think I'm going to completely ignore the reviews and complaints and just buy it straight off.

-Extra- Thinking about it, the one thing that did get annoying during the final 10 hours or so was just the boringness of a never changing world. The maps were way too copied and pasted, (as stated) so that was probably my biggest complaint.

 

[DesertMummy]

I am so sick of this. It is not a "franchise" It was a spiritual sucsessor to baulder's gate that was pretty damn good. After it was done, Bioware said, "fuck, well we can't just redo a game that was a redo of baulder's gate, now what?" So, they made it into its sort of own identity. Lots of people get scared because of change, and whined, bitched, and moaned about the sequel. I really liked it, combat was actually fun now, and the characters were just as good, and the story was just as good, but they did do the whole copy paste thing. IMO: DA:O = DA2

 

[psicat]

Dragon Age 2 was fine, a little rushed but a really fun game. It's just people complaining and bitching like always.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

>DA:O has an original setting

Really? How can you make that claim with a straight face?
Humans who are dicks? Check.
Elves who like nature? Check.
Dwarves who live underground? Check.
Medieval fantasy setting? Check.
Evil wizards who abuse magic? Check.
Horde of monstrous beings decending upon the civilized world that the hero and his/her band of united misfits must defeat by killing their evil leader? Super check.

Doesn't seem that original to me...

Don't get me wrong, I really liked DA:O. It was a fun game, unoriginal or not (and while it wasn't that original, it had some unique qualities). But like ME2, while some problems were fixed (went back and played DA:O and by the Maker is the combat rather boring compared to the fighting in DA2) others arose (the story wasn't the best, though I still enjoyed it, it just felt a bit disjointed at times). All in all though, I still felt like it was a good game. It in no way "ruined" the DA franchise and I look forward to future games in the series.

 

[cainx10a]

It's Kay. I hear DA3 will take place in one village, not a city, a village, with just one dungeon. So that's it's easy for the players to navigate around and quest and what's not. You will love this game!

captcha: love istalif
Even captcha agress ... sort of.

 

[Aesir23]

I don't get all this hatred being directed towards DA2. Though, I would have liked a longer campaign, fewer copy and paste dungeons, and more things to do in regards to the companions other than scheduled visits (Personally, I really liked the characters). Other than that, I found DA2 to be quite a good game. But it has its flaws just like every other game in existence, casting it down as if it were Superman 64 because of that is simply unreasonable and immature. Doing so is reminiscent of a two year old screaming, crying and throwing a hissy fit because they didn't get exactly what they wanted. While everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding a game, I'm just tired of all the "It wasn't exactly like DA:O so I hate it, it's the worst game ever" type of attitude.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I'd say so since I don't think there is anything wrong with it really. I thought Dragon Age 2 was just fine.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think the problems with DA:2 are going to continue to be problems, because they have to do with the writers and the business model.

Spoiler: When you have people like this on your writing team, you're pretty much screwed.

The way I see it, Dragon Age was a good game but will likely be a bad franchise. But that's alright - there are a lot of very good WRPGs coming out this year and likely in the future as well. Of course, we're likely going to see more Dragon Age, since DA2 did very well financially - better than DA1. It's just probably all going to suck.

Tell me, did any of the characters in DA:O develop beyond your interactions with them? did they lead any lives behind the scenes? weren't they just props for the main character to interact with?

Now think about DA2, some of the side-characters can get fucking remarried and it doesn't matter if you choose to be a part of their lives (although you have the choice). They were well-rounded characters, they were actually individuals instead of trite character archetypes. If this is where the writing is headed, that is no longer the same "you are the chosen one, defeat big evil baddie" and ACTUAl FUCKING CHARACTERS, then i say full speed ahead.

DA:O was a big call-back to one of the most nostalgia-ladden WRPGs of old, but it took both the good AND the bad parts of old-school RPGs. DA2 however represented a more modern approach (that is, an UI that wasn't completely obtuse as shit and a fresh story), something that angered fans who were expecting the same game they bought 11 years ago.

Well, I didn't think any of the Dragon Age 2 characters (with the possible exception of Varric) were any good. They seemed designed to appeal (as fanservice) to a particular segment of players - on the female side, you have characters straight out of a madonna/whore complex, and on the male side, you have Twilight [http://www.stellarfour.com/2011/03/dragon-age-2-twilightening.html]. But yeah, Dragon Age characters were a mixed bag. Alistair definitely had kingship stuff going on without the player, Wynne and Sten were solid, and Morrigan (despite a lot of writing issues) was generally a good example of a character that is active outside of the player's actions.

Honestly, if you're looking for innovation in RPGs I would look entirely outside of (modern) Bioware. (And partially out of the WRPG sub-genre, if only to get to the Atlus stuff.) Bioware's more about applying a good formula than doing anything new. But there are several RPGs that have, as you said, a more modern approach out right now. The recent ones I've played that have a higher standard of storytelling are Witcher 2 and Devil Survivor, and I have pretty high expectations for Deus Ex 3.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

DA:O was convoluted, heavy on sidequests that were more or less boring fetch quests, topped with a decent opening that leads into the drudgery of grind, grab worthless gear for money, grind/quest. It was fun in some respects but overall a bit confusing at parts, buggy in some others (had to reload quite a few saves in the mage tower due to bugs).
DA 2 did away with what I found to be an annoying and useless crafting system, switched out the useless gear system for one that worked better (like Mass Effect 2 did) and had characters that were more engaging fun (I don't even remember the supporting NPC's except for Alistair and Morrigan without hitting up Wiki).
I didn't hate DA:O, it was still fun enough to complete. I liked DA 2 better because I found combat a bit more engaging (no I didn't button mash, I played it like WoW timing my attacks for maximum DPS). I never used the Tactics slots beyond educating my NPC's to not use potions/heals unless in dire straits. Moreover, I think there was a lot of stuff that wasn't needed in DA:O that DA 2 did away with. DA 2 had a more localized setting, which to me was easier to care about what was happening. I wish though that Bioware would stop giving us the illusion of choice in these games. If we do something, please show us more consequences than possibly losing one or two NPC's at the very end.
I enjoy the series very much, despite misgivings for the first one, and hope that DA3 has at least an engaging system/storyline without the useless tacked-on crafting/gear systems.
If I want gear/crafting I play WoW already.
Yes the series could be better, but please quit acting like DA:O was perfect.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Of course, we're likely going to see more Dragon Age, since DA2 did very well financially - better than DA1. It's just probably all going to suck.

Seriously? I remember reading that Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever. It even outsold Mass Effect. And that's not factoring the money Bioware made off all the DLC for Origins. For Dragon Age 2 to do better financially than Origins... well, I don't remember reading anywhere that DA2 has snuck up to become Bioware's best-selling game. Especially regarding, well, that reception it got.

I'm actually not 100% sure about how it was calculated, but I remember reading a few articles saying that EA was pretty happy with the profit margin for DA2 - I think it was that it did better for early sales and was a lot cheaper to make. But don't quote me on that haha.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

Dragon Age: Origins was good but not exactly original. The gameplay mechanics have all been done before (and arguably better) and the world isn't very different from that found in various series of books (or The Witcher, if you want a game comparison).

Why do gamers have this obsession with just having the same game repeated over and over with as little change as possible. If you want that, go fuck Zelda or Mario. I'd rather have a universe wherein a whole variety of game types take place. If I want strategy/RPG then I play Origins, if I want a more action focus I play DA2. It's that damn simple.

Bioware stories/characters left originality behind long ago so now I play them simply for the good/great gameplaym, with no qualms about reliving the same story over and over.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Humans who are dicks? Check.

They're not dicks. What do they do that's particularly dickish?

They're medieval-inspired humans. What do you expect of them? As it is, most of them seem pretty damn nice.

Elves who like nature? Check.

DA elves don't really seem to have much concept of nature. Some of them live in woods, if that's what you mean, but that's really because they're heathen nomads, not because they feel any great connection with nature.

Their magic is quite nature oriented, but really.. that's about it, and that only came in in Awakenings.

Dwarves who live underground? Check.

In most settings dwarves don't exclusively live underground. Even in Tolkien they didn't. Their culture is also radically different from any idea of dwarven culture presented in fantasy literature.

They're also epic bastards. Seriously, who the hell played through DA:O and somehow got the idea that the humans were the dicks? Dwarves are like enormous horse-sized dicks compared to the humans.

Evil wizards who abuse magic? Check.

They're not evil. Except maybe a few abominations like Uldred, but they can't really be called wizards any more. Most blood mages in Dragon Age come off as either desperate or naive, not evil.

Horde of monstrous beings deciding upon the civilized world that the hero and his/her band of united misfits must defeat by killing their evil leader? Super check.

You got that one. Which is why I'm going to make a very radical point.

In terms of story structure, Dragon Age 2 was the better game.

There's a lot you can criticise it for. It was rushed, it had copy pasted dungeons, the combat system wasn't nearly as much fun, the story meandered a bit and ultimately ended disappointingly and it didn't account for the choices you made in origins as much as it should, the character creation was kind of stripped down. But as a story and as a roleplaying game, it was extremely bold, extremely daring and extremely well executed in many ways. It can be remembered as flawed, but it can not be remembered as formulaic. Even a failure made in the name of progress is better than just rehashing the same shit.

As a story and as a roleplaying game, Origins was deliberately generic. It was basically a remake of the standard roleplaying formula, albeit done to a very high standard. Dragon Age 2 ventured right into the heart of the some of the complex politics, moral choices and dilemmas of the dragon age universe. It felt like its own game, rather than just being 'Joseph Campbell rides again' all over again. It's the first game I've played in a very long which gave the sense of stepping into someone's life, rather than just piloting an author insertion fantasy persona through a series of cutscenes and fights. Despite being flawed, it gave me a unique experience which I've never had before in a game, and that's worth celebrating.

So no, I thought Dragon Age 2 was alright. Flawed, yes, but making a flawed game which pushes the boundaries is better than making an okay game which pushes nothing and has no reason to exist beyond killing your time for 30 hours. If you punish bioware for it, you're sending out the message that all you want is endless remakes of plot formulas copied from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. For one, that's not what I want.

 

[RatRace123]

Honestly I thought DA2 was pretty good, the only things that really irked me about it were things that can be easily corrected and it was obviously rushed, the next one needs a lot more development time.
I still enjoyed the story and the characters and the combat system was fun, but the repetition of environments, and the wave after wave of enemy combat and some of the character building elements were a bit wonky; but overall I liked DA2 maybe even more than Origins, even if I preferred some things in Origins to DA2.

Of course I also think that Mass Effect 1 is better than its sequel, so I might have weird tastes. I still don't think DA2 deserves anywhere near the level of hate it gets.

 

[castlewise]

In my opinion DA2 had a good story and very mediocre gameplay. That makes it an ok game, not an abject failure. There are plenty of games that are way worse. Pick any of the licenced shovelware titles.