Poll: The Dragon Age 2 hate

[Arluza]

I think DA2 deserved SOME of the hate it got. DAO felt different. It played its own way. I didn't like everything about it, but it did not feel like Mass Effect, which I am not a huge fan of. So I liked DAO. DA2 felt like ME meets fantasy setting. Like I said, I don't like the ME style. It is too much a Black or White moral choice system, and when i selected an option, it was not what I was expecting my character to say. Was DA2 a bad game though? No. It doesn't deserve ALL of the hate, but I can understand some of it.

 

[Undeadpool]

Frankly, it's all the same people. When DA:O was announced there was a massive movement of pissed off fanboys because it wasn't enough like Baldur's Gate II. I'd imagine those SAME people were, by and large, behind the movement that DAII wasn't "enough like" DA: O. Because apparently change and game evolution are ONLY required of shooters and fighting games. When you start making RPG sequels that are different from their predecessors, suddenly you're "dumbing down" or "ruining a good thing."

 

[Telemachus]

I'm just gonna talk story here.

DA:O had a good story:
Big evil things comes back and tries to kill everybody, the only people that can stop are dying off and help is unreachable. Thats cool i like that
But it's delivery was awful. No voice for the main character, and un engaging combat.
That aside, the story, themes, and over arching mission was really good in DA

DA 2 had a not as good story
But it was 10x better at delivering the story then DA:O. You pretty much spent Act 1, and 2 doing nothing and faffing about. Only adding to the main story every once in a while. Even the third act was a little disappointing. But the way your companions interacted and talked to each other was great. I loved how your companies would talk and have lives outside of Hawke. They would talk about it and it would create good dynamics between characters.

I think that these games are actually incomparable because of these things. They are 2 different games, almost so much that they shouldn't be the same series. But that's ok. If they plan on making a DA universe, simliar in the way KOTOR contributed to the Star Wars universe, thats fine. But I think of them to be good examples of different kind of games.

-and ME3 is going to be the greatest thing ever...ever! (i hope)

 

[Klepa]

It wasn't a bad game on it's own merits, but it wasn't great either. I still fail to see the point of the control scheme, to be honest. I played a rogue and a warrior, and couldn't stop wondering why the controls were like they were. I would've enjoyed the game more if it was just straight action hack 'n' slash, because that's how I played it.

They somehow kept the controls of DA:O, while making the gameplay way more action oriented. I felt like playing God of War with Starcraft's controls. They should've focused either on the action, or the tactical side. Now they sort of tried to facilitate both, and ended up with something that doesn't really work for either. I'm guessing the game was kind of rushed. Would explain the recycled environs and the placeholder UI.

 

[teutonicman]

My Bioware obsessed friend put it like this:
DA:O: An improved version of KOTOR, an apology for Jade Empire.
DA:2: An improved version of Jade Empire.

That's a really good way to put it. Though I'm not sure what is meant by the "..apology for Jade Empire." I would only agree that DA2 significantly improves upon the mechanics of Jade Empire and nothing else.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

I liked DA2, but it was nowhere as good as DA1. Fortunately as I was apparently the only person who posts reviews on metacritic that was aware of the 5 year development time difference, I wasn't expecting it to be.

The only people who had their hopes crushed to the point where they were frothing at the mouth about how "bad" it was(Kane and Lynch 2 is a BAD video game, Monster Truckers XVIII is a BAD video game, DA 2 was not BAD) were the people too stupid to look up anything about it and the first one.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Planescape Torment is a masterful example of a personal tale. DA2's story nature being 'personal' doesn't excuse it from sloppy writing and a disjointed story. I'm all for less epic stories, but DA2 isn't the way to do it.

I disagree that the writing was either sloppy or disjointed. It was broken up into three sections, sure, but that doesn't mean it is disjointed. I found it to be an excellent story of a rise to the top.

Perhaps you can give us an example of where it was sloppy or disjointed.

I could go into a long rant of how the game's plot is haphazardly constructed, but these guys do it better:

Dragon Age 2 Plot analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1KPsFV1tQ&feature=channel_video_title

Dragon Age 2 What went Wrong(Rock Paper Shotgun):
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/31/analysis-dragon-age-ii/

Quote for article:
"But the issue goes deeper than just mechanically. The game doesn?t seem to have the wherewithal to manage such a complex and nuanced story in its own narrative. At a certain point I had no idea which blood mage was which, as every single quest blurred into one. I?d deliberately defy orders to kill them/arrest them, and try to set them free (the angle I?d chosen to take for my character), and nearly every time they?d turn into a demon and I?d have to kill them anyway.

Which is, in fact, the model for most of the game. Where BioWare?s wonderful Knights Of The Old Republic offered the illusion of choice, changing the way you behaved in the fixed events, Dragon Age II offers not even an illusion. Do you want to open door A or door B? Both open up into a fight where you kill someone, but door A meant you wanted to. And this, tragically, even applies to the game?s floppy, hapless ending.

I?ve carved out a path through the game ? at every junction I?ve chosen to fight for the mages against the Templar, I?ve argued the mages? cause in every discussion. So why am I being asked whose side I?m on at all?! Let alone why does that make absolutely no difference whatsoever to what I?m actually going to play?

In the end Dragon Age II has nothing to say about slavery, subjugation, or acculturation ? themes that shone in Origins. It pretends it does, but it?s all flap and waffle to excuse some more fights. It has nowhere to go, nothing to reach for.

The plight of the elves, either City or Dalish, is trivialised to a couple of asides, and the dwarven caste system that surely provided Origins? most controversial elements is completely absent, maybe alluded to in one or two lines. We?re just left with the mages, and it?s offered to us in such a silly way that it doesn?t allow us to think anything interesting. Every blood mage turns into a demon, and yet no one seems to notice. Fighting for them begins to make blurry sense, and yet fighting against aligns you with psychopaths who wish to see horrific acts of mental abuse and eugenics."

That last line is key. Did it occur to the author that such writing was done intentionally? That so often on your side, righteous or not, will be unrighteous people making you look bad?

While certain criticisms can be maintained, such as the game looking for excuses to stuff another battle in there, the main jist of the author you cite appears to only be looking on the surface, expecting a cut and dry black and white tale. Good guys vs. bad guys. Well, life is rarely like that, and it is certainly not the case in the Mage debate. Both sides have good arguments, and they're both approaching it the wrong way. The Mages really are a threat, and the response is to clamp down harder, which causes them to be more of a threat all while giving Mages like Anders fuel to want to go to the other extreme and just be about freedom. Kirkwall is quite literally a microcosm for a political debate between two extremists groups who continually ignore the moderates. Sound familiar? ::stares at current American political climate::

That's the problem, if you believe Mages should be free, how do you reconcile that with their inherent danger? If you believe Mages are dangerous, how do you reconcile that with the harsh measures it takes to contain the problem? This writing explores the reasons and flaws to each ideology, before the middle ground or solution is reached in DA3.

And that's the thing that we should take into account, that DA2 is quite obviously a set-up for DA3. I think they've had an end game since DA:O, something that involves both Flemeth and Morrigan's child, and obviously the fate of Mages. Since it is a set-up, then I'm not surprised there is a little less choice as far as the end game is concerned. There is plenty of choice of how you get there. The fate of Isabella, the fate of your sibling, the fate of the Qunari, and how the war between Mage and Templar got started, are all in your control. The true implications of your choices in DA2 will have more of an affect on DA3 than in its own game, I imagine. Similar to Mass Effect . . . ::spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't played:: I can bet it will matter a whole big deal on whether you spared the Rachni Queen in ME1, as far as the ME3 story line is concerned, but it had almost no impact on ME2 . . that's even a further leap than DA2.

Lastly, the set-up for the big event, the mage war, had to take precedence. The plight of the elves and the inner workings of the Dwarven caste system should take a back-seat to the Mage struggle. That's something that effects the entire world, something that can be worthy of a huge finale. Those things can wait till DA3. You should know this based on Bioware's history. In KotOR, you work your way towards being a member of an exclusive order of warriors, the Jedi. In Mass Effect, you make your way towards being a member of an exclusive order, the Specters. In DA:O, it's the Gray Wardens you aspire to. In each sequel, that order you joined takes a back seat, and it's all about building up for the finale, as we are seeing best in ME3 and how we never got to see it in KotOR because . . . well it's probably Obsidian's fault.

In conclusion, while I can't say mistakes weren't made, I don't think you're giving the writing enough credit, and need to keep in mind the end goal. It was an unusual attempt at story telling, and while on the surface it may seem unfamiliar and clunky, the underlying current is taking us to a grand destination which everyone can enjoy, and many of the problems are there for a reason.

 

[00slash00]

i never played DA:2

DA:O felt like an extremely simplified version of baldur's gate, and i was expecting much more. when i heard DA:2 was even more simplistic, i kinda lost all desire to play it. also, it seemed like more than half the enemies in DA:2 were spiders...i dont like spiders (i know there are mods to fix that but still...)

 

[LordRoyal]

What is this? The 9th something Dragon Age 2 thread?

I've already posted the reasons why I didn't like Dragon Age 2 (Hawke being a generic hero and not particularly likeable/nor worth giving a voice, the gameplay being tedious, the repetative-ness of the whole experience, etc.)

i never played DA:2

DA:O felt like an extremely simplified version of baldur's gate, and i was expecting much more. when i heard DA:2 was even more simplistic, i kinda lost all desire to play it. also, it seemed like more than half the enemies in DA:2 were spiders...i dont like spiders (i know there are mods to fix that but still...)

Baldur's Gate would never sell well in today's world. It sold well in the 90's because it's target audience was D&D players. Today D&D players are a lot harder to find and the market would rather sell it's liver then market to them.

Dragon Age Origins was designed as an homage to Baldur's Gate rather then a full blown remake/sequel. Dragon Age 2 however was designed to appeal to a larger demographic.

Also Spiders are in every RPG, even Baldur's Gate

 

[Cenequus]

I actually liked the single city thing. It (at least partially) got across the whole "everyone's a refugee fleeing the blight" thing, and got closer to the scale of an actual city than most other games I've seen. More environments would have been nice though...

The story depends on whether or not you're comfortable swapping traditional 'Im'ma gonna save the whole world!' fare for a more character driven thing. I liked it, but others won't/didn't.

Also, I love how this thread is full of people defending the game despite the fact that the vote suggests people actually liked it.

Their city design was probably inspired by one of their previous games Baldur's Gate 2, where you spend a lot of time in the hub portion of the game Athkatla.

DA2 didn't anywhere near CLOSE to how epic and cool that city was.

That city felt so empty compared to Baldur's Gate.

Anywhore,it's internet people hate on different thing,things they don't understand,things in general.

Is Dragon Age 2 a good game,hell yeah,is it the best game ever? no. Still loved every minute I spent playing it.

 

[Imbechile]

Ever since Dragon age 2 was released i have heard nothing but fans of Origins complain about it. I loved origins it is one of my favorite games, hell i even loved awakening!, and i also love Dragon age 2. I only complain about 3 things in this game, The fact your only in one city, Reused enviornments and the story isnt as good as Origins. I often hear people complain about the controls but all i heard for Origins was that the controls where utter s**t even though i liked them, and then when the 2nd one came out they were to easy to use. This is not true they are so much better (this is just my opinion though) and the mage class is fantastic unlike in Origins in which it was horrible and boring. I do prefer Origins beacause the world is bigger and the story is alot more epic but Dragon Age 2 is a great game that imo does not deserve the hate it gets. Its far from perfect but i really do think if the third one had a story as epic as Origins and the controls, graphics and companions like in 2, it would be the best of the 3. What do you think? do you hate it? like it? if so what are your reason and do you think this game does'nt deserve the hate it gets? or are you one of the haters.

Having played it the second time I can say that it FULLY deserves the hate, and even more.
Overused terrain, fucking filler combat fucking everywhere, easy and boring combat, almost every damn quest bring XX amount of, bad writing, shit rpg elements, ....
What pisses me the most is the amount blood and gore that makes the game so fucking immature, and then they have the nerve to put in some dramatic elements in the story.

 

[Ganath]

A good game, not -brilliant- but good. The re-used environments weren't really something that got to me though and the combat was smooth and pleasant, but in the end, I only played through the game 1 and a half times, Uh.. other..things got my focus after a while. I would say that there are worse things out there to despise and spit on, so no. I don't think it deserves the hate.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I've never played the Mass Effect games (I have ME2 from the DA2 deal thing, but I haven't really played it much), but from what my friend has told me, the transition from ME to ME2 is similar to that of DA:O to DA2. In other words, it was very much streamlined.

I think that the rush job of the environments was a major let-down (they did it a fair amount in origins, but it wasn't noticeable because they'd either make one huge map and have different encounters on different halves (using the other as scenery), or use huge white boulders to cut you off from certain areas, or throw in some caravans and stuff and run you through it differently) because even though they re-used environments they didn't put much effort into making them feel different.

But yeah, apart from the environments, I think DA2 works as a stand-alone example, because all of those stream-lining thing they did (like class-specific weapons, fewer specialisations, faster-paced combat, limited companion customisation, etc) all worked together. I mean, it would've just been jarring if you had Origins crafting with the rest of the streamlining, or Origins auto-attack animations (and speed) with the new fast-paced combat.

The one thing that I miss the most is the tactical approach to battling. These 'mid-battle spawning enemies' means that strategies from origins where you'd block a doorway and thrown in all your AoE and CC spells doesn't work, because the moment you kill something, an abomination or a rage demon spawns behind you and suddenly your choke tactic is useless. You can't plan for an upcoming battle, or stealth-scout your way forward to lay a billion traps so you can go back, shoot an arrow and watch as the warriors throw themselves at a wall of explosives and sleeping gas. I really hope they keep the option for button mashing combat in DA3, but apart from that (and ability trees, because I like upgrading abilities) I think most of the stuff from DA:O should come back. The bigger story, wider range of environments, party customisation ...

Actually, you know what else pisses me off!? The way they took away all those odd builds you could make. I loved my strength shape-shifter, and my archer-warrior-champion, and my 2-handed[footnote]When I say two handed, I actually mean using giant swords and hammers. I'm not saying 2-handed but getting confused and meaning dual-wield. I actually mean 2-handed.[/footnote] stealth-trap-bomb-ranger-strength-rogue.

Sure, nuke mages, or 2-handed warriors are all fun and games, but where origins really shone was in letting you decide how you play, even if your choice was counter-intuitive or weird. They put all the options in front of you, and the only thing that made something unplayable was if it was just a bad build.

... This went a lot longer than I thought it would. I'm getting DA2 back today, so I'm going to play it, but I'm thinking of playing a force/blood tank/mage. High fortitude, grave robber for health, a rogue to put all the aggro on me, high magic and constitution, with 18 willpower for the Champion's armour. I'd see if I could use Void's hammer, and make a warrior-mage, but I'd probably just end up abusing it.

I'm pretty sure this (if it works) will be one of the oddest builds you can make without abusing glitches or developer-screw-ups.

 

[Korey Von Doom]

Boring characters, world, story, simplified combat. With Origins I actually started to care for the characters, and I teared up when Alistair left because I chose to forgive Logan(spelling?)

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

I have only just started playing DA2, after finishing DA:O not too long ago, and i find it good, i like how the story is conveyed

 

[FuzzyRaccoon]

I liked it. I don't play on the PC, so it wasn't that much of a "screw you!" moment for me when I started to play it. I actually liked that they reused the areas because IT MADE SENSE. THINGS HAPPEN IN THE SAME PLACE. THIS IS A CITY. I just didn't like that it was so small. In AC:Brotherhood you also pretty much do everything in one city: Rome, but it's so huuuuuge and large places open up over time and such that it makes you feel involved.

The things that disappointed me was the lack of an overarching story. I also wanted to be more involved in Kirkwalls economy, and it bothered me that I couldn't shape it that way. If I can't be viscount, can't I be a merchant prince like Varric at least?

I found playing as a rogue to actually be fun in DA2, and I found the combat fun too. Sometimes I got tired of it, and sometimes I had so much fun. I actually found the High Dragon fight people whined about to be pretty straightforward. Not easy but not hard.

I also liked how balanced the abilities were. In Origins, I played with Sword and Shield. Then I played as a mage. You have no idea HOW MUCH ANGER I felt when I saw how laughably easy it was as a mage. I found that to be so stupid.

Something I wish they'd work on a little more that I felt was lacking in both games though, was that I wanted them to work on those naturally important moments that much more. In Origins, my character had been with Alistair. In my playthrough, he sacrificed himself for me. And then afterwards everyone pretended like I picked Anora to be queen all along and seemed to forget entirely about Alistair after one line. It MADE NO SENSE.

Or in DA2, stuff that happens with your family, other than a few comforting scenes, it really doesn't shape anything. I felt like they really dropped the ball there, they could have made it way more meaningful without beating me over the head with it.

So yeah, in short, I don't hate DA2. I have some gripes about it, but I actually liked certain things about it.

 

[Curlythelock]

On its own DA2 wasn't a bad game. However it served as an extremely poor sequel to DAO.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I played the demo, and it was actually worse than Dragon Age Origins, which is saying a lot considering DA:O was the absolute worst game I ever actually finished.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Did I like it? No.

Did I hate it? No.

Did I finish it? No.

Make of that what you will.

It just felt rushed, shallow and mediocre. The relationships felt forced, the combat was alright, the Plot was subtle to the point of being nonexistent. The action was alright, Varric was funny, Merril was cute, Fenris was interesting in a dark brooding emo kind of way (shut up, I liked him as a character). The Conversation wheel was somewhat nicer than Mass Effect...yet at the same time worse. There was no true plot linking the three sections other than Hawke and it being his life...yes, I get it, but no...that's not really enough for a game. The only plot I can divine is a nebulous 'Hawke and his interaction with Magic' kind of thing. But it was just so nebulous that I felt there was no point to keep playing after I killed the Qunari.

I think the best critique I can give is that the writers used the 'Hero's Journey' as inspiration...but didn't quite grasp what it was about.

Was I disappointed? Yes.

 

[Extasii]

To me, Dragon Age 2 is now only good for the credit I'll get for it when I sell it at Gamestop and put it towards Skyrim.

I've only had the 2 Mass Effect games for about a month and I've put in about 6-7 times as many hours into them as I have DA:2.