Zero Punctuation: Dragon Age II
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
The only ways to break the game were to do it yourself. It wasn't written to be broken, people just found exploitations. There's ALWAYS gonna be those sorts of things.Kaanyr Vhok said:
The other way was to play a mageSickBritKid said:
Seriously, I really liked DA:O, but the combat was crazy unbalanced. A mage with a set of decent crowd control spells wrecks everything, and two mages with decent crowd control spells wreck everything faster. And Awakening solved this problem by making everyone as OP as mages were and not scaling monsters to match haha.
Thats what I'm saying. It wasn't the bugs. The game didn't have many bugs and only crashed once on me. It was just unbalanced. Mages were overpowered and not in a good way like 2nd edition D&D. The level scaling was really overdone, the encounters were just filler, and many skills were underpowered.A polished game would have adjusted that stuff.
Well, ain't that kinda how mages are WRITTEN in the Dragon Age 'verse?Kahunaburger said:The other way was to play a mageSickBritKid said:
Seriously, I really liked DA:O, but the combat was crazy unbalanced. A mage with a set of decent crowd control spells wrecks everything, and two mages with decent crowd control spells wreck everything faster. And Awakening solved this problem by making everyone as OP as mages were and not scaling monsters to match haha.
F**k You
there are plenty of games that have that problem, that is no reason to dislike a game.
i'm not starting a discussion with you, so don't bother replaying cause i'm not reading it.
there are plenty of games that have that problem, that is no reason to dislike a game.
i'm not starting a discussion with you, so don't bother replaying cause i'm not reading it.
When DA:O was first released the head writer said very clearly that they had 2 "Exansions" planned for this game. The first one was Awakening. In the middle of this whole plan, Bioware was purchased by EA.
EA said, "Hey, lets stamp the number 2 on this and sell it for $60 bucks instead of $30-$40. To justify it, we'll make a few easy gameplay changes, and we'll have to use an engine that the Xbox can handle, so we don't have to do extra work and remove maps and skins just for the 360 version." Now you have Dragon Age 2, and a bunch of vexed fans.
So people, just remember, this game is really DA:O - The Champion of Whatever. Not DA 2.
EA said, "Hey, lets stamp the number 2 on this and sell it for $60 bucks instead of $30-$40. To justify it, we'll make a few easy gameplay changes, and we'll have to use an engine that the Xbox can handle, so we don't have to do extra work and remove maps and skins just for the 360 version." Now you have Dragon Age 2, and a bunch of vexed fans.
So people, just remember, this game is really DA:O - The Champion of Whatever. Not DA 2.
The argument on Origins was that it seemed that Fantasy could not escape the 1960's concept of dwarves, elves, and humans. I did not mind this so much. But I do understand that it seems like Sci-Fi can make more types of aliens than just greys, reptiles, and apes, so why can't Fantasy come up with new unique races as well? Or even dig up some of the obscure ones like sprites, naiads, and lamia?ShadesOfKnight said:So...
Dragon Age Origins: It's really a problem that you play the same game with multiple races and backstories...
Dragon Age II: It's really a problem that you play the same game with a single race and backstory available.
That sound you're hearing are the developers smacking their heads against a wall realizing that the only way to please some people is... well, impossible.
In Dragon Age II you get to play a *human*. When there is a world full of aliens or fantasy creatures and you can only play one race, why does everyone seem to pick the default human? We get to be humans all day long, it would be more exciting to see the world or the universe from the eyes of a non-human. It is the one thing that these types of games can offer that things like Batman and NBA Jam can't. Yet it never seems to get capitalized on. It is actually what kept me from picking up DA II for the longest time.
But after seeing the opening at a friend's house I finally gave in and bought it. Now I am wishing I had re-watched Yahtzee's review first. He really has hit the nail on the head. Oh Yahtzee! I should have listened to you!!!
Side Note: Having bought it I have been determined to get my money's worth out of it. The map recycling is awful, but the actual story and voice acting is solid. Once they opened up some outdoor areas it was a lot more tolerable. So, if you stick with it, the game can actually become more enjoyable.
Ummm... Everyone here *does* realize that Dwarves and Elves actually originate in the 13th century Norse Mythology... and not in the 1960s... right? Geez... Now that there's a frakkin' movie about it, no one has any idea that Tolkein *didn't* invent the races he wrote about...Gyrefalcon said:
And exactly how *DO* these other races see the world? Tolkein-esque elves see the world through a long view... hardly fun for humans, whose entire lives pass before an elf has breakfast... Tolkein-esque Dwarves only see the world through terms of money, and who among us wants to play what are in effect bankers? Hardly exciting stuff there...
Personally, I think that DA did a great job of showing the underlying truth (coincidentally the same truth that Tolkein tried to show): that humans are bigoted bastards, whether they're pointing their hate towards Elves, Dwarves, Magic-users, Blacks, et cetera...
"Artists use lies to tell the truth."
Yes, I am quite familiar. I am not only a fan of Wagner's "Ring of the Nibelung", I am also very fond of the "Song of the Seeress" poem from the "Elder Edda" translated by Paul B. Taylor and W. H Auden. My copy is out of "The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces Fifth Continental Edition" which is probably easier to find.ShadesOfKnight said:
But you are arguing that humans are more interesting to play than something else? I take it you did not care for Dragon Age: Origins or did not care to play any race other than a human? You would not want to see a game that allowed your character to live through several lifetimes? And you say banking is not popular, yet Monopoly sales do not seem to be suffering. I guess I will thank you for quoting me; but I don't understand why you would not think that having more playable options than human would reduce the understanding of bigotry or hatred, rather than allow a better understanding of it from the eyes of the oppressed instead of the privileged. Feel free to expand your explanation for I have found it a bit confusing.
quote="Gyrefalcon" post="6.274071.13267546"]
But you are arguing that humans are more interesting to play than something else? I take it you did not care for Dragon Age: Origins or did not care to play any race other than a human? You would not want to see a game that allowed your character to live through several lifetimes? And you say banking is not popular, yet Monopoly sales do not seem to be suffering. I guess I will thank you for quoting me; but I don't understand why you would not think that having more playable options than human would reduce the understanding of bigotry or hatred, rather than allow a better understanding of it from the eyes of the oppressed instead of the privileged. Feel free to expand your explanation for I have found it a bit confusing.[/quote]
Actually, no. Originally I was commenting on this thread about how silly it was for Yahtzee to say two contradictory points.
Your reply seemed to indicate that they didn't take the opportunity in DA to show how other races see the world...
My reply was intended to point out that the issue in DA isn't how other races see the world, but to illustrate what bastards Humanity is... and maybe give us a chance to rebel against it... and also how sensible that is because we, as humans, cannot rationally decide how other races might see the world... we can guess, and that's what Tolkein did, but it's just a guess.
But you are arguing that humans are more interesting to play than something else? I take it you did not care for Dragon Age: Origins or did not care to play any race other than a human? You would not want to see a game that allowed your character to live through several lifetimes? And you say banking is not popular, yet Monopoly sales do not seem to be suffering. I guess I will thank you for quoting me; but I don't understand why you would not think that having more playable options than human would reduce the understanding of bigotry or hatred, rather than allow a better understanding of it from the eyes of the oppressed instead of the privileged. Feel free to expand your explanation for I have found it a bit confusing.
[/quote]Actually, no. Originally I was commenting on this thread about how silly it was for Yahtzee to say two contradictory points.
Your reply seemed to indicate that they didn't take the opportunity in DA to show how other races see the world...
My reply was intended to point out that the issue in DA isn't how other races see the world, but to illustrate what bastards Humanity is... and maybe give us a chance to rebel against it... and also how sensible that is because we, as humans, cannot rationally decide how other races might see the world... we can guess, and that's what Tolkein did, but it's just a guess.
ShadesOfKnight said:
It is not quite how I would interpret the game, but that is a very valid way to look at DA2. Thedis is a very messed up place and the humans are still got the better end of the stick overall. They play out a lot of injustices in the series and shove you out to experience the world in shades of grey. The current installment reminds me of sports stars who gain fame early and then watch their own decline as someone younger and newer comes onto the field. I've never had a "heroic title" bestowed on a character turn to ash like it has in DA2. And I really appreciate the power of the story for it! They missed getting a ton of accolades for their writing in this one due to all the technical issues Yahtzee pointed out.
But I will say, since we are discussing fantasy races, we can decide how they will see the world. ;D Sci-fi authors often take an aspect of humanity and blow that up when creating other races. Warlike Klingons, solicitous droids, etc. etc. are made more life-like/appealing by having at least a single human trait to them. It is equally valid to do so with fantasy races. I like Mercedes Lackey's gryphons just as much as Jim Butcher's Canim. And we can follow a monster or non-human race's motivations and psyche because they are what the author makes them out to be. Human beings have the power to look at a glass of water and imagine an ocean or a planet of ice. We don't have to have been there. Likewise we can imagine being an alien race or an elf or a dragon without having to BE any of those things. I promise you, fiction is alive and well. As amusing as I found the film "The Invention of Lying", I don't think anyone lives there. Have a fun New Year and may it hold many new games for Yahtzee to review and we players to love.
This was my Two Towers of gaming: I had a lot of trouble getting in to it even though I liked the original. Towards the mid-point of the third part of the game I just said "fuck it" and skipped every side quest and battle until the final boss and enjoyed a shitty ending. I've never been more pleased to have been done with a game although it did sour me on the series...I'm at the point where I'll likely have to coach myself into Darkspawn Chronicles and Lilliana's Tale and those were from the good one!