So I've been playing Dragon Age 2 for the first time recently.

[Sniper Team 4]

I enjoyed it very much. Not a fan of the repeated environment (who is really?) but everything else I liked. Except for Anders suddenly being gay. He was such a player and ladies man in the first game that it just doesn't fit with his established character. It'd be like if The Duke was suddenly gay.

Oh. And you can avoid having your sibling die in the Deep Roads. Either take Anders with you along with your sibling, or just don't take your sibling at all. You will still lose the sibling to other events beyond your control, but they'll be alive and will return at the end of the game.

 

[Nimcha]

I play BioWare games for the story and characters. They are the only games out there that place the narrative above everything else, and it shows. So I'm willing to forgive little things like copied environments (pretty much my only fault with the game). I have no idea if you've finished the game or not, so everything else I want to say, I'll spoiler.

Spoiler: DA2 Ending

I think a large part of the reason why the game got so much hate was the way it ended. This wasn't a save-the-world kind of story. It was about a man or woman who got swept up in events larger than themselves, tried to make a difference, and ultimately failed. It's about being ineffectual in the face of larger problems. When the entire system is broken, sometimes it takes more than just one man to put it back together.

That's what I found so endearing about the narrative. Red Dead Redemption also put you in the position of failing--to an even larger degree, really. Yet because John Marston was not crafted by the player and thus didn't have to be viewed as an avatar (which is still a mistake in RPGs, IMO), I think more gamers were willing to go with the tragedy. But so many people don't want to feel like failures, like they lost. And that's the point of the game. Sometimes you can't win.

That and Anders' character arc was amazing. Love him or hate him, he was handled exceptionally well to the point so many people sympathize with him despite and even because of his actions--no matter what real world connotations they carry. He's a very layered and nuanced character and would be as good a subject for interpretation as any character in literature. It's not often we get games this deep.

I liked Origins. I've been a BioWare fangirl since the Baldur's Gate days. I know DA2 played with the conventions of the RPG, but I liked that. The story was far more personal than epic in scope, and thus I cared so much more what happened to my character.

And yes, Bethany (or Carver) doesn't have to die in the Deep Roads. But it's definitely a great tragic moment when they do.

Ah yes, finally someone who sees the story the same way I do. I like that Bioware went for something different this time. I see a lot of people complaining that no matter what you choose, you will lose in the end. There's no winner. And that's kinda the point of the whole story.

This isn't about one person saving the galaxy or the country or whatever from a big evil. It's a story about tensions in a society that eventually exploded. And the role of one person in the developments that led up to that. The ending is set in stone, but you as a player get to decide on the details. It gives you a framework for a story, and you can fill it in. Even though that is pretty much standard in every RPG (but usually with some variable endings) this game really put the focus on that. And I think that's a bit new for some people. And I'm not saying they pulled it off perfectly, because in my opinion they didn't. But at least it's somewhat original.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Ah yes, finally someone who sees the story the same way I do. I like that Bioware went for something different this time. I see a lot of people complaining that no matter what you choose, you will lose in the end. There's no winner. And that's kinda the point of the whole story.

This isn't about one person saving the galaxy or the country or whatever from a big evil. It's a story about tensions in a society that eventually exploded. And the role of one person in the developments that led up to that. The ending is set in stone, but you as a player get to decide on the details. It gives you a framework for a story, and you can fill it in. Even though that is pretty much standard in every RPG (but usually with some variable endings) this game really put the focus on that. And I think that's a bit new for some people. And I'm not saying they pulled it off perfectly, because in my opinion they didn't. But at least it's somewhat original.

Yeah, I can definitely sympathize with bioware's desire to tell a story on a smaller scale than they've told before - less like Dragon Age: Origins and more like Planescape: Torment or a Witcher game. The problem was the execution, but the core idea was good. Hopefully this doesn't turn them off trying to tell similar kinds of stories (although why would they - the game was a commercial success, after all haha.)

 

[darth.pixie]

For every person who actually liked it, there was one foaming at the mouth over it. And then there's those who thought it "blah".

I think it was blah in the sense that it was bad but after stressing myself with it before its release, there wasn't any bile left.

My problems with the game outside of the stated obvious above is that the game is really bi-polar, there is no role playing choice (you can say that there is but there isn't or else I would have gone after the killer during the second act like I wanted going so far as to search the entire maps twice over another clue) and it changes its theme and main enemies so often you might as well be playing a sandbox. By the time I was out of the Deep Roads and Varric said something about his brother, I had already forgotten about him and thus didn't really care about just revenge.

If they would have shown the possibility of vengeance right after instead of trying to stretch it to last longer, I would have been more involved in it and that counts for all the quests that had sprinkled here and there. You never even learn what that idol was and if in a game like Baldur, NWN, Divine Divinity or Origins you could have had an entire quest of raiding a forgotten library to find out, they don't even give you the possibility of learning more. It felt like a hack and slash, on the railroads Bioware set us on without even trying to mask them, shallow characters with only one personality trait that they explore and no options to actually learn about the world.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Personally, I enjoyed DA2 for what it was, but as far as quality goes, it wasn't good. There are so many things about it that were simplified from the original. Not to mention obvious flaws in level design and most of the characters weren't nearly as interesting. Not to mention obviousness of the changes made for hardware limitations that comes with consoles.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Ah yes, finally someone who sees the story the same way I do. I like that Bioware went for something different this time. I see a lot of people complaining that no matter what you choose, you will lose in the end. There's no winner. And that's kinda the point of the whole story.

This isn't about one person saving the galaxy or the country or whatever from a big evil. It's a story about tensions in a society that eventually exploded. And the role of one person in the developments that led up to that. The ending is set in stone, but you as a player get to decide on the details. It gives you a framework for a story, and you can fill it in. Even though that is pretty much standard in every RPG (but usually with some variable endings) this game really put the focus on that. And I think that's a bit new for some people. And I'm not saying they pulled it off perfectly, because in my opinion they didn't. But at least it's somewhat original.

Yeah, I can definitely sympathize with bioware's desire to tell a story on a smaller scale than they've told before - less like Dragon Age: Origins and more like Planescape: Torment or a Witcher game. The problem was the execution, but the core idea was good. Hopefully this doesn't turn them off trying to tell similar kinds of stories (although why would they - the game was a commercial success, after all haha.)

You know what would've made the DA2 story better?

Spoiler

MOAR DAKKA!

 

[ultrachicken]

It wasn't just the environments that were incredibly repetitive. That on its own I could forgive if the combat wasn't so incredibly easy/repetitive/dull/non-strategic. It was a HUGE step backwards from Origins, which didn't quite live up to Baldur's Gate as advertised, but dammit at least it was TRYING. DA2 just gave up on that premise entirely. Hell, it was one small step away from giving up on being an RPG. You could sail through that game spamming AoE attacks and never once needing to change equipment on normal. On hard, the difficulty I played on, the same applied minus the equipment thing. Lastly, both endings were just an advertisement for the sequel with no real closure. Unlike Origins, which did a good job wrapping things up. Made it feel like a whole game rather than just part one of two.

So yeah, shall I recap?

- Bland, lifeless, repetitive environments
- Easy, non-strategic combat
- Virtually non-existent/unneeded inventory
- Terrible ending

Basically, everything that could possibly go wrong in the game's design, did. They churned this one out in about a year, and it really shows. I don't think Bioware could ever present truly BAD characterization, even if they tried. But that one aspect is not enough to carry DA2. It's a bad game. Compared to any other Bioware title, it's a REALLY BAD game. As a movie, I'd give it a 6/10. As a game, 3/10.

Why would you rate a game as a movie? That makes no sense, like rating a book as a video game or something.

 

[Kahunaburger]

You know what would've made the DA2 story better?

Spoiler

MOAR DAKKA!

Tragically, the Escapist doesn't have a "like" button.

 

[Klepa]

I figured I'd throw a few more cents in...

DA:O, to me, was basicly a streamlined Baldur's Gate. The gameplay was the same, but they cut out a lot of the useless aspects of the Infinity Engine era games.

For example, having a cleric around in BG1&2 didn't really bring much to the table. Most people just had him/her standing out of harm's way, throwing buffs, debuffs, heals and resurrections. The healer didn't bring much in the way of tactics into the gameplay, it was basicly a healing dispenser that needed to be managed. Getting rid of a pure healer class in DA:O was a good move, in my opinion. It streamlined gameplay in a way that kept the tactical elements intact, but removed the micromanagement and extra hassle.

The turn-based combat seen in Infinity games was a relic from D&D rules. If you have the option of tailoring a combat system to suit your real-time game, only a madman would try to rig a turn-based D&D system in it. They made their own combat system in DA:O, and even though it needed a bit of fine-tuning, it didn't hamper the tactical gameplay at all, and made the combat feel a lot more responsive than it was in BG1&2.

But I wasn't happy about all the streamlining made in DA:O. The numbers side of the combat system wasn't very informative, and many people (including me) would've preferred a more transparent approach, where the numbers and formulas would've been visible for players. DA:O is pretty vague when it comes to calculating armor, base attack damage or spell damage.

The decisions BioWare made for DA2, are pretty much the opposite of what I would've made. The number side is more vague than it was in DA:O, not telling the player much beyond the very basics of each skill. The game's combat was also much less tactical, and the inventory and itemization people like me enjoy, had been cut down to a minimum. I played through the game once, and it had very little to do with tactics, and very much to do with Hawke waving a big axe, annihilating everyone within five meters.

Basicly the stuff that made BG1&2, and DA:O so great for me was gone. BioWare took the game to a place where I could not follow, I wasn't their target demographic anymore. Of course there's nothing wrong with me not being the target audience, it'd be ridiculous for me to demand that they make a game especially for me, but it doesn't change the fact that DA2 was a disappointment for me.

Also: If you're making the game a hack and slash, why the target rings and clunky UI? I'd make the hacking and slashing fun, like Dynasty Warrior or God of War. If it's so action paced, why not let me go all-out with my 2hander, why the MMO controls? It's hardly the best control scheme for an action oriented game.

rant over, time to sober up.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

Why is it that mass effect gets a pass for recycling areas but dragon age 2 gets ripped apart? i have asked this many times and have yet to receive a compelling answer.

Well, there were complaints about it.

But Bioware fixed that problem in ME2 where all the side quests are different maps. None re-used.

 

[Mathak]

They should have done more with the whole 'story-as-told-by-Varric' thing. The part where he suddenly goes all Frank Castle on his brother was awesome.

 

[Rapamaha]

Dragon Age 2 is a good game, but a bad sequel

 

[Lenvoran]

Dragon Age 2 is a good game, but a bad sequel

Agreed. I think part of the problem that people don't like is the lack of continuation from Origins. People wanted a continuation of the story from Dragon Age 1, and it wasn't. So it doesn't really matter what the game is about, people will hate it for not being a true sequel.

Personally, I found the combat no more or less strategic than Dragon. Faster paced? Possibly. I like having my abilities doing different things, but to be very blunt (and potentially over analyze things), let's compare some of the things directly. Only using active abilities here. I know there are modes and passives and what not that change things, but those are almost identical between the two games.

Weapon and Sheld: Warrior

Dragon Age 1:
Shield Bash:
-Damage
-Knockdown
-20 second cooldown

Shield Pummel:
-Damage (Two strikes)
-Stun
-20 second cooldown

Overpower:
-Damage (Three strikes, third hit crits)
-Knockdown
-20 second cooldown

Assault:
-Damage (Four strikes)
-20 second cooldown

Dragon Age 2:
Shield Bash:
-Damage
-Stagger (with Pummel)
-15 second cooldown (10 seconds with Pummel)

Assault:
-Damage (Three strikes; Bonus damage vs Disoriented with Battery)
-Knockback
-20 second cooldown (15 seconds with Battery)

Scatter (Area of Effect):
-Damage (Bonus damage vs disoriented with Disperse)
-Knockback
-25 second cooldown

Mages are a bit more complicated, but generally all the abilities are there, with some new added ones. Admittedly spell combinations are gone, but I'd rather have some of the unique abilities of say, the Force Mage from DA2, than Storm of the Century (which really just made fights rather trivial. You could cast it from another room and just have your tank sit in the doorway, just outside the edge of the combo).

As for the assertion that Dragon Age 2 has more abuse of AI than the original. That's just plain not true.

Every Dragon encounter in Dragon Age 1 could be solo'd by anyone with a ranged weapon and health potions. Dodge back and forth just outside the area it could spit fire when it was turning (they couldn't move from their perch and it would do a big dramatic leap to change directions) and fire your bow.

Or play an Arcane Warrior and activate all of your modes and AFK for a few minutes.

Neither game is anywhere near perfect. I'd say both were rather flawed. Dragon Age 2 isn't worse than Origins. Just different.

 

[Valdus]

Dragon Age 2 is a good game, but a bad sequel

This - they took a mediocre fantasy game (IMO) and slapped a Dragon Age title on the cover in the hopes they could squeeze money out of the fanboys. Hype works both ways and in this case it backfired. What's annoying is that if they just used some original IP for this game and sold it as something different it probably would have been better.

The reasons I don't like it are pretty small but they all add up - I don't like the change in art style
I feel the classes don't have as many options (archer or two-weapon warriors)
I feel the specialisations aren't as good (you actually had to make a deal with a demon in the first game to be a blood mage)
it does a poor job of immersion (using blood magic in front of templars being a good example)
it's far more rail-roady than the first and assumes you automatically made certain choices in the first game (such as choosing to kill Flemeth, not killing Anders or Lelianna).
There are many contrived elements as well such as

Spoiler

Flemeth somehow being all knowing that Hawke would make it to the Dalish, yet somehow doesn't know to simply not be at the camp when the party goes to slay her in the first game? That is assuming you even go to slay her.

Not to mention all the cameos. It's as if half of Ferelden decided to move into this one city.


May seem petty but they all add up.

 

[psicat]

I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 as well, it was a great game with more intuitive controls, more enjoyable combat, a more personal story and interesting companions than the first in my opinion. It does have it's flaws as well such as the heavily recycled dungeons and too many bugs at release, but I would have said it was a 7/10 or 8/10. Unfortunately the game got allot of misplaced hate from fans of the first who just wanted more of the same, and PC fanboys who raged over the fact they got the superior release with Dragon Age: Origins but just a console port with Dragon Age 2.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Snip

Ooh you just reminded me of another thing I find annoying: The fact that you can't change the armour/ appearance of your party members, only yourself.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

you might aswell ask where the gameplay went. Because i havent seen any in 5 playtroughs.

I wish I had the kind of play time that allowed me to replay a game I didn't care for 5 times.

I just wanted my moneys worth and having played origins 5 times this warranted playing trough the sequel 5 times. one on hard, once on hardcore and then just turned the game down on casual. Its not worth playing it on any increased difficulty level because doing so just add to the tedium that is dragon age 2.

Hopefully they fix it in DA 3, hopefully.

Do they add more enemies on higher difficulties? or are they just harder. Also this is why I play every new game on the easiest setting.

 

[Chelsea O'shea]

And I think all the negativity it got when it first came out was a bit too much, yeah okay, it's not going to win any RPG awards, but it's still pretty damn good.

An example would be the NPC's and PC's are still very well designed, all with interesting back stories and good definitive character. You know, what makes a Bioware game distinctive, it's still bioware at it's core.

Warning, spoilers are coming.

The game actually managed to invoke some emotion from me in certain places, like when your sister Bethany dies during your journey through the deep roads (I don't know if that's avoidable, but it happened to me), I felt really upset, and quite angry with that guy that locks you in that room, so much so I showed him no mercy when finally catching up with him at his mansion, instances like that influenced my decisions throughout the game. I haven't been this emotionally attached to game characters since... ever.

I also find it very interesting trying to balance my team, for example, I like to take out a mage, Anders, (he is also my gay boyfriend), Varric, the crossbow wielding dwarf, and Fenris, my damage dealing warrior. Anyway so that's my favourite team, but the problem is Fenris and Anders hate each other due to Fenris' hatred for mages, and it gives me something else to think about when making discussion decisions.

My only gripe is that you have to constantly visit the same copy pasted environment again and again, thus taking away my immersion. If this was not an issue I would give this game a 10/10.

I guess for discussion value, what is your biggest problem with Dragon Age 2?

Edit: It sounds like some people don't know how to balance party members and manage the gambits system, that's not the games fault, and not bad design, it's your fault for bad management.

i will admit the game had plenty of faults,but its good to see other admit its good.

alot of it was fun and while the copy paste job on the caves sucked didn't change that the game was fun,and yes it did require knowing how to balance your party(which most don't know how to do since everyone could do anything in their class in the last one) but it was a good thing.

the characters were well defined and each seemed like their own person,rather then a statue with abilities.

 

[Frenger]

Why is it that mass effect gets a pass for recycling areas but dragon age 2 gets ripped apart? i have asked this many times and have yet to receive a compelling answer.

Most, if not all, of the quests that had recycled areas in Mass Effect were either non-essential and had little or no impact on the story and could be skipped, or were situated in a spacestation/ship or some modular underground facility were it somehow made sense it had the same layout(it can be observed in real life, too!). At least they had the sense of actually moving furniture around inbetween locations in Mass Effect.

The same thing could not be said about Dragon Age 2.

Anyway, DA2 did alot of things WRONG, very very wrong.

What do you mean, I can't dualwield axes with my rogue?! What do you mean I can't make any of my mage characters a spirit healer (I beheaded Wynne, and thus, Morrigan took her place, shapeshifting was pointless most of the game)? What, I can't give Isabella a bow(okey, that wouldn't make much sense)?! What, I can't give my brother a shield(what's'his-name, I couldn't muster enough "care" for him before he was gone anyway) What, the overview and itemization made worse? Two stars equal your own level, makes absolutely no sense, what is this, Fable!? What about the relevance of stats to your specialization or class??

In Dragon Age: Origin, stats on items were absolute, and did not change over time, in essence, *if* you had the money to do so, you could buy the best weapon/robe/armor in the game as soon as you reach Denerim, and never switch for another for the rest of the game. Here you have to manage your inventory every other quest just like you had to change Blaster Pistol IV to Blaster Pistol V in Mass Effect, which is a step back. Instead of having a meaningful inventory and meaningful items they gave us the shit from Mass Effect instead, with a bit of Fable spice.

One step forward in one area, two or perhaps three steps back in others. Personally, I can forgive bad game design and even plotholes in my games as long as they have the charm and atmosphare. Even that is gone in DA2, but that's what you get when you cut corners. I guess Brent Knowles leaving Bioware and EA's claws really shows.

According to an interview(cut from Wiki) with Mike Laidlaw;

"[despite Dragon Age's players' criticisms] continue to tune and capitalize on that 'fusion' between the Origins experience and Dragon Age II". Additionally, he also noted that a return to the more hardcore RPG style of Dragon Age: Origins is unlikely, proclaiming "The big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this."

Unless they include Morrigan somehow, I won't be going back to Dragon Age, anytime soon.

Edit1: And where are my fatalites!? The combat may have been slower and clunkier in DAO but the feeling of choping the head of your foe still makes it more fun than the more fluid and responsive controls in DA2.

 

[DarkDrewski316]

I have to say that my biggest complaint with dragon age 2 would be that when you are playing through the game the environmental design feels rushed and feels overused when you see some of the environments overused in so many different situations which hinders the immersion process but one other problem i have with the game is that it is very easy to miss the recuitment of Fenris and Isabela as you have to take side missions to recuit them which you may avoid on the 1st playthrough in order to play through the story.

One other ting before i forget would be the most colossal mistake of the entire game which is the overall story of the game which when you play through it feels like you end up playing through three different dtories which does not lend to the story telling at all.

If you do not know wht i mena the next time you play though the story look at the overall story telling format and i guarantee that you will see at least one personal improvement which you would improve. For me it would be to see Meredith and Orsino earlier in the game as it would relate to the later theme.

Aso, quick question, does anyone have any problems concerning the achievements on the 360 for the exiled prince dlc as i have done all of them but they have not unlocked. Any solution welcome.