When Dragon Age II Fell Apart

[Kahunaburger]

I suppose one could argue that she's got the traditional 'heart of gold' personality,

That's basically my argument - from my point of view, she comes off as a character written around "crazy, up against the wall, let's have it on right here" vs. a character written as a character with "sex-positive" being one of many character traits.

 

[Pandabearparade]

While I agree that Dragon Age 2 was a failure in general, the topic has just been beaten into the ground at this point. Still, it is nice to see someone at the Escapist actually admit it.

 

[LiquidGrape]

I suppose one could argue that she's got the traditional 'heart of gold' personality,

That's basically my argument - from my point of view, she comes off as a character written around "crazy, up against the wall, let's have it on right here" vs. a character written as a character with "sex-positive" being one of many character traits.

Well, I can't really see how you can argue that she's that particular kind of character considering the examples I brought up, but to each their own I suppose. While I posed the 'heart of gold' trope as being arguable I never got that impression myself, and I think she's far more subversive and multi-faceted than so.

 

[Infernai]

My opinion on Dragon age 2...eh, it was ok.

It got a few things right:
The party members were interesting, even if not fully fleshed out. Some of them annoyed me in some respects, but there were none i hated to the level of Vaan and Tidus. In short, I'm happy to call them my party and to have gone through a game with them.

The idea of making it a more personal story, atleast as a concept it was interesting even if the execution was flawed.

The combat, mechanics wise, was more engaging and involving then Origins. I admit i dislike that it wasn't anywhere near as tactical as Origins was, although that was partly due to the encounters them

I also liked the fact that your character had a family with them, which sort of made it interesting and added a bit of motivation.

That said though, for all it got right, it fell flat on it's face on some other area's:

While i liked the combat mechanics...did you have to fight a WHOLE ARMY OF FOES every single battle? I mean if you'd tried to fight a horde like those seen in 2 in origins, you'd end up royally butchered if you weren't prepared for it. And yet here's Hawke and party cleaning house like it's nothing...i mean for gods sakes, your Dragon Age not Drakengard! You don't need the entire city coming out of the wood-works to murder you every single encounter, plus it makes no sense in some of these encounters how that works when you only saw about five people max in the room before-hand. And speaking of the City..

Kirkwall...by god Kirkwall. By the end of the game i just wanted to see the damn thing burn down so i could escape it. I understand what bioware were going for: Setting the game in one large location and some surrounding area's, and thus allowing the player to explore it as it unfolded to uncover new things to mark player growth. But..here's the issue: Kirkwall is bland, it's boring and it's conflicts trivial and add nothing to the mythos of the series.
In my opinion, i think they should have taken a look at Jak II when designing this game: That game did the idea of 'sticking to a city and it's surrounding area's for a game' really really well. The city changed, area's became open after certain moments and above all while each area was unique it was interesting and you wanted to explore it. Above all, it had interesting stories going on in it. Dragon age 2 should have done that with Kirkwall, and it would have been a whole lot more interesting but instead they made it feel like a chore. The city didn't change, it didn't evolve, and it was just the same freaking area's over and over again with no differences. So Bioware, tip for Dragon age 3, leave us out of Kirkwall and let us explore some more of thedas because i swear to the maker if i have to step so much as a toe-nail into that freaking place...it better be to send it crashing into the ocean never to be seen or heard from again!

And finally, as many others have complained about, The story. I admit the characters were interesting, and arguably one of the few reasons i was able to play through this game but..urgh, the story was pointless. It was nothing but filler so that we'd have something more interesting to go on for Dragon age 3. I understand we don't need to be fighting another Blight yet but there was absolutely nothing at stake until Act 3, and even that was handled poorly.

In closing: Dragon age 2 would have been better as a Tv Series. Something done sort of in the style of game of thrones where all the characters are connected but all have their own conflicts and stories going on in the shadow of an over-arching plot, as well as helping bridge the gap between Awakening/witch hunt and the third game which will likely be centered around the mage/templar war as well as that ominous third threat that's been lightly hinted at. But as a game sequel it failed, while the game on it's own merits was only 'ok' at best and even then it's problems are incredibly glaring.

 

[pixiejedi]

I have spent time pondering how Dragon Age 2 just left myself, and seemingly many other players, kinda disappointed as well. Origins is my favorite game so I knew walking in to DA 2 it was going to be a nigh impossible act to follow but I did manage what I think would have been better execution.

Honestly I think it should have been a book or better yet, a comic book. The three act structure felt disjointed. The Qunari are just kind of there and they just used the lyrium idol to connect the beginning to end. If those and the different interesting side mission had been chapters or different issues revolving around Hawke then I think it would feel more satisfying story-wise. I think taking the player and personal choice out of it would also let the reader actually appreciate the story and not get so frustrated with moments when I at least thought "well how about I do this instead?". I like to refer to this as "Fable 3 syndrome". Of course then I would have to admit that Hawke was a pretty boring and uninspired protagonist.

Then it would likely feed into whatever they have stored up for Dragon Age 3, I figure at least.

 

[cieply]

A good review, shame Escapist allowed you to really criticize DA2 so late after it has been published.

The problem is that site gave them 5/5 and called it "A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be."

It's kinda ironic as for me this was the moment when *Escapist* fell apart.

This game was shit, everyone who ever played a decent RPG knew it. Story that made little sense, poor companions, HORRIBLE mechanics. Waves after waves of generic enemies spawning *from the air* around you, preventing player from even considering using some tactics of positioning. Reusing same location not even twice but many, many times. Dragging player's ass across the entire map several times to accomplish a quest, which is just another way of dragging the gameplay. It all was horrible in every aspect possible.

And Escapist gave them 100% score. I'm not sure there ever has been a better example of a paid review out there (and I'm not talking about money, you can bribe a reviewers with so many other things). Eighter this or you employ morons.

 

[SpaceMedarotterX]

A good review, shame Escapist allowed you to really criticize DA2 so late after it has been published.

The problem is that site gave them 5/5 and called it "A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be."

It's kinda ironic as for me this was the moment when *Escapist* fell apart.

This game was shit, everyone who ever played a decent RPG knew it. Story that made little sense, poor companions, HORRIBLE mechanics. Waves after waves of generic enemies spawning *from the air* around you, preventing player from even considering using some tactics of positioning. Reusing same location not even twice but many, many times. Dragging player's ass across the entire map several times to accomplish a quest, which is just another way of dragging the gameplay. It all was horrible in every aspect possible.

And Escapist gave them 100% score. I'm not sure there ever has been a better example of a paid review out there (and I'm not talking about money, you can bribe a reviewers with so many other things). Eighter this or you employ morons.

Oh it's bribes. Sorry mods but you had Dragon Age 2 plastered as your background, No body should have expected an honest review. It's not even just a matter of integrity, it's also EA's well thought out "Give this game at least X or you don't get review copies of X"

In the most recent case it's TOR, it has to get an 8/10 (Or Equivalent) otherwise reviewers don't get Mass Effect 3 review copies. Do you want to be the reviewer who's site doesn't get the latest 'Hot' release thus losing traffic to everyone else.

The opposite is this, No Review Copies of FFXIV were sent out, and EVERYONE tore it to shreds, It's 1 part bribe, 1 part fear.

Penny-Arcade is in a working partnership with BioEA, so they can't slag the games off, if they do the partnership breaks. I'm sure Gabe and Tycho aren't necessarily struggling for cash, but they run a company now. They also run a charity, and let me quote the founder of "Get Well Gamers" here.

This is from the Ar Tonelico III Let's play on Something Awful

"I would crossdress and sing for the organization" the context is that someone offered to Donate a PS3 if he recorded himself singing one of the games songs (he also worked as a Translator on the game) But the point is, when you know you can help out a charity, your own dignity means nothing.

If Gabe and Tycho bending over backwards for EA, means EA is donating to Child's Play, you better believe they'll be saying "So do you want us to fondle your ball sack as we suck you off?" because dignity means squat when your doing something for other people.

So yeah, controlled through fear, or bribes, EA gets the reviews they want. I don't think the Escapist employs morons even if I have read certain articles I've disagreed with, and butted heads with a few moderators in my time.

 

[unacomn]

DA2 managed to get on my nerves from the start, gameplay wise, and story wise shortly after. Bioware keeps trying to inject that sens of drama and tragedy by killing off characters that have no meaning in the first 5 minutes.
The DA universe as well isn't something I'm fond of, they just crammed LOTR stylistics into The Witcher world affairs.
But I did sort of like the first one.

 

[Kahunaburger]

DA2 managed to get on my nerves from the start, gameplay wise, and story wise shortly after. Bioware keeps trying to inject that sens of drama and tragedy by killing off characters that have no meaning in the first 5 minutes.
The DA universe as well isn't something I'm fond of, they just crammed LOTR stylistics into The Witcher world affairs.
But I did sort of like the first one.

That's a good way to put it - it always struck me as trying to be lotr and asoiaf at the same time. The first one was good, but the setting kinda fell flat. Then I played Witcher and had an "oh, so that's what they were trying to do" moment.

 

[Xanthious]

Wait wait wait so are you saying that Dragon Age 2 isn't *ahem*, and I quote, "A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be"? I have a hard time believing that.

Some more cynical people may point out the obscene amounts of advertising for Dragon Age 2 the Escapist was doing at the time and maybe make a connection between the advertising and perfect score. I, however, like to think they were doing all that advertising for free because the game was just so damn good and they had to spread the word.

I'm a little disappointed that you weren't so thrilled something awesome happened every time you pressed a button (BUTTON, AWESOME! BUTTON, AWESOME!) that you would be able to overlook silly things like pants on head retarded story telling and horrible combat mechanics and rehashed dungeons, and . . . well it was probably just me because we all know that Dragon Age 2 was the pinnacle of role-playing games and what video games were meant to be.

Of course whenever Dragon Age 2 is discussed I feel the need to bring up the time my neighbor's dog took a shit on my walk way. I went out and scraped it up with my Dragon Age 2 disc. Needless to say my neighbor was furious when he saw this. He couldn't believe I'd have the nerve to get my Dragon Age 2 disc all over his perfectly good dog shit.

 

[WanderingFool]

When Dragon Age II Fell Apart

Dragon Age 2's story is just plain broken.

Read Full Article

There's one point in particular upon which I wholeheartedly agree: If you give the player the choice, you must honor it. The corollary, of course, is that if you're not going to honor the choice, just don't present it as a choice -- which isn't a bad thing, it's just being realistic and ensuring your game doesn't draw attention to its shortcomings.

I find it interesting that your misgivings about both this game and Skyrim sound very similar, but read quite differently. In both games, you feel your choices eventually proved not to matter. Dragon Age II countermanded them, while Skyrim simply failed to give them enough weight. Both problems are very valid, and I think they're both equal-but-opposite examples of over-balancing a particular equation:

The number of options you can offer is inversely proportionate to the impact each choice can have.

If you offer more choices, the impact of each must be toned down, so that they can be allowed to coexist in a way that makes internal sense. If you want choices to truly feel epic and world-defining, you need to carefully control how many branches that tree has.

The over-example of "too much weight" is a game that presents choices that have no impact on the ending. In a way, that's what DA2 did with this storyline for you. You played your character one way, and things seemed to be going well, and right at the end the game tells you, "Wrong! You're THIS now!"

And the over-example of "too many choices" is a game that allows you go in a million directions, each of them pretty underwhelming. And that's where Skyrim is for many people. You've rocketed to the forefront of X number of elite groups (some public, some secret), you've killed potentially hundreds of the most fearsome creatures known to man and orc alike, you were once and possibly still are a werewolf or vampire, and you've either ignited or stopped a full-scale war several times over... and the best you get is a few passing mentions in the NPC dialogue.

This means we've successfully defined the two extremes. Hopefully the next step is just dialing in the sweet spot between them...

Oh God... I hope sooner rather than later...

 

[SpaceMedarotterX]

Well Gaider, this was god awful, thanks for that

I mean it's not REVAN bad or DA2 bad, but ya know, pretty terrible.

Also love how it's "From the lead writer of Dragon Age: Origins" for a book set during DA2. Can't say I blame them

 

[Blade_125]

I agree that the ending for DAII was poorly done. which is a real shame as the rest of the game was pretty good. The only serious issue is the repeated dungeons from my point of view.

 

[Blade_125]

Caesar still became the first Emperor of Rome

No actually he didn't... that was his nephew, (who to be fair was also called Caesar, since it was part of the family name.) The Caesar who was assassinated was never emperor.
.

As I understand it technically there never was a Roman emperor. We was "voted" consul for life.

 

[Deadyawn]

Yeah this was my problem with the game. Exactly. You are railroaded into a series of continuously ridiculous fights, killing off pretty much every main character in the entire game. Seriously, at the end of my game the only survivors were my party members, some random templar dude and Hawke's uncle (I think). It wasn't just that they all died that was so dumb, it was that I killed most of them when I had no reason to. It felt like the writers had decided that the only way for them to be able to continue this story with the massive amounts of extra characters and potential choices the player had made was to have everyone die. So they did.

 

[sumanoskae]

I actually thought the ending was the best part, and that all the stuff leading up to it was uninspired and fragmented. I found the catch 22 to be an insightful and disarming illustration of oppression, and the betrayal (You know what I mean) provoked both sorrow and sympathy. It's to bad they were framed with a fragmented narrative with a nonexistent pace, populated by sock puppets.

 

[Zagzag]

Caesar still became the first Emperor of Rome

No actually he didn't... that was his nephew, (who to be fair was also called Caesar, since it was part of the family name.) The Caesar who was assassinated was never emperor.
.

As I understand it technically there never was a Roman emperor. We was "voted" consul for life.

The word "Emperor" is actually from the latin "Imperator" which means a commander, leader of some kind or general. I'm using the word emperor in the context in which it was eventually used by the Romans, and in which we use it today, although it was in fact a gradual change, It was at least twenty years after Julius Caesar's death before the word really came to mean what it does today.
The first emperors were consuls many times each, but were not consuls all the time; their real power that made them overall rulers did not actually come from merely having been consul, but from their titles which were originally granted to Octavian (Julius Caesar's nephew) before he became known as Augustus, in gratitude for "restoring the republic". Over time he built up a staggering collection of titles, only one of which could normally be held at a time. This made him head of state religion, head of justice etc etc, until he in effect controlled most of what was going on in the country. The fact that his uncle had been officially awarded godhood helped with this as well, as he was able to call himself "divi filium" (Son of the deified, since Julius Caesar had adopted him as his son officially) On his death many of these were passed on to his successor, but it had been so long since there had been true republican government by this point that almost noone alive had ever seen it. For this reason Tiberius carried on pretty much where Augustus had left off, and the word "Emperor" began to be exclusively used about him.

 

[Faerillis]

Great article filled with perfectly valid points.

Another that I would bring up is how hard it is to have any sympathy for the Mages at all. You're supposed to feel sorry for the as they're locked up like prisoners in a building that actually used to be a prison. Meredith enacts the harshest of all punishments, Tranquilization, a fate that would be considered infinitely worse than death itself for even the slights of infractions. Annnnnnnnnnnnd yet every - single - mage you encounter is a blood mage. Even the quest where you're trying to find a young mage boy who has apparently been kidnapped by slavers, you go to a werehouse out in the docks and find the slavers ganging up on a poor mage girl who's begging for help....then just up and turns into an abomination. It's really hard to say "Yeah, the Templars are definitely being too harsh on these poor mages" when it certainly seems that everything the Templars say is true. Orsino is the only level-headed mage you encounter in the entire game, and even HE turns out to be a blood mage/abomination in the end. True, the Lyrium Idol that Meredith had forged into her great sword clearly drove her insane the way it drove Varric's brother insane...people said "Meredith has gone mad! She sees blood magic everywhere!" Well maybe that's because Kirkwall is filled with blood mages! I mean hell, you yourself have the option of becoming a blood mage, and yet NO ONE EVER CALLS YOU ON IT! Everyone in your party knows that blood magic is a terrible, evil thing, and yet every time you slit your own throat or impale yourself on your staff to draw blood for the blood magic, everyone just kinda....looks the other way. I mean hell, you can put on a full show of blood magic in front of every noble in the city when you have the duel against the Ari'shok (spelling), but apparently you're the Champion so using magic that is absolutely 10,000% forbidden by Templars AND Mages is alright.

There's that quest where a mage-sympathizing Templar calls you out to a cave and says "A bunch of escaped mages are hiding in here. If I go in they'll think I'm there to arrest them, but I want you to go in and help them escape before the rest of the Templars get here." Once you reach the end, the mages beg for their lives at which point you can either turn them over to the Templars or indeed let them all go. The thing is it makes absolutely no difference which choice you make because you see those same mages again in the next act. If you turned them over to the Templars, they're understandably pissed off at you. If you let them go, apparently within a couple days they were captured again and they immediately blame you for it...which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And, sure enough, they all turn out to be blood mages anyways and they all end up dying by your hand on the Wounded Coast. That being the case, why couldn't you have the choice to kill them all in the cave to begin with? "Oh because those are the mages that end up kidnapping your sibling in the final act." Yeah, well I took Anders with me to the Deep Roads so my sibling neither died nor joined the circle/templars, he/she got to live on as a member of the Grey Wardens.

Which brings up the subject of Anders himself. Clearly he is an extremist, as crazy of a mage as Meredith is crazy as a templar. Why in god's name do you trust a person who is clearly possessed? Granted, you're given the option to either not take him or kick him out of the party any time you wish, but it makes no difference. He still flips out and blows up the church. If you side with the Templars, you should immediately see that he is an abomination and either turn him in or kill him on sight. If you side with the Mages, you should see that he is clearly a danger to everyone around him and to the Mage's cause and either turn him in or kill him on sight. The blame for the church getting kerploded in what is apparently the fantasy equivalent of a magical nuclear bomb lies at the feet of Hawke for not doing something about Anders sooner. Just because I hate extremism in any form, Anders was my least favorite character and thus least used character (which kinda sucks since he's supposed to be your healer ), but that said I did like how if you bring him to the Deep Roads with you your sibling gets to join the Grey Wardens rather than dying of the Blight or, if you left them back at home, joining the Circle or Templars. Also I liked how if you take him with you on that quest where you enter the Dreamwalker's dream, he actually turns into Justice.

There were numerous other problems with the story, but all in all I thought it was pulled off well. I really liked how the story was actually told as a story, one of Varric's legends and tales. It makes the games narrative an actual narrative. To be honest, I had my own problems and nit-picks with the story (such as what I mentioned about it's hard to call Meredith crazy for seeing blood magic everywhere when there IS blood magic everywhere) and this article has added some new ones to the list. But in the end I still liked the story. Though another reason the ending sucked was that it really didn't matter which side you chose, you still end up killing all the mages and Meredith, so that kinda blows.

But hey, at least Bioware managed to 1-up themselves as far as creating a character that was sexier than Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins. Mmmmmmmmm.....Isabella...the dirty pirate hooker..... :3

For all the tl-dr losers out there, here's the short version: It's hard to sympathize with the mages, it's hard to call Meredith crazy for seeing blood magic everywhere since there is blood magic everywhere, another couple exmaples of choices that make no difference which one you choose, no matter how you look at it Anders should have been killed or imprisoned the moment you met him, and Isabella is a sexy, dirty little pirate hooker.

To your points on not being able to blame Meredith for seeing Blood Magic everywhere; if you played through Origins as a Mage you would see that Blood Magic isn't evil by nature, but seen as evil because the Chantry doesn't like it ? Wardens use it all the time. It's hard to see Meredith as reasonable because she hates/fears a group of people for how they are born. It's hard to see Orsino learning Blood Magic as unreasonable as he is supposed to be the leader of all Mages (though his decision to become an abomination was extremely unreasonable).

Now as far as Anders goes. I was playing Hawke as me (as I always do the first time around, which sucks for me considering the game mechanics are too bad to make it replayable), so in a relationship with Merrill and Anders was moreorless my best friend (besides Varric obviously). When Anders did what he did I was absolutely dumbfounded at first; left gaping at my computer screen feeling weak, helpless and betrayed. He had me help him. So what did I do? I executed him. I agree with his idea that Mages should be free of the circle and that the Mages needed a push but not that. He deserved what he got.

What pissed me off when I looked through all the options regarding Isabella (who annoyed the piss out of me and disliked me as much as I disliked her so she didn't show up in Act II), that one wasn't to explain that the blood of every dead Qunari and citizen of Kirkwall in these battles ? including the Viscount ? was on her hands and whatever happened to her in Par Vollen was too good an end. People do seem to forget in all of this that Isabella has so far killed as many, if not more, people than Anders.