This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Game Discussion > What make Dragon Age 2 a bad game?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3354 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

I have seen more threads bashing Dragon Age 2 than praising it. Dragon Age 2 was a great game. A lot of people have said how Dragon Age 2 had a bad story, gameplay, how there was to much area recycling, and how the characters were bad. The story wasn't bad at all, but it was a little short. i don't if it's because I play on console, but i thought the new style of gameplay was so much better Than Origins. The area recycling bugged me a little bit but I read in an interview with Mike Laidlaw that the area recycling is because making a unique area for every dungeon, tunnel, cave and building would have been to time consuming. I thought the characters in Dragon Age 2 were so much more interesting; the conversations were more than asking an endless number of questions. Overall Dragon Age 2 was just as good as origins if not better. TheKingofKings (talk) 19:35, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, do we have to have another topic about this? There are several threads on this subject already, why couldn't you just post in one of them. If you're asking why people don't like DA2, you could have just perused one of those threads and added to it. Yet another thread on the same damn topic is getting ridiculous and irritating. Tabriel Cousland (talk) 22:11, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

We've gone on like this long enough. If you wish to raise this topic, I suggest you move it to either Forum:Requested: Let's have a civilized discussion of Dragon Age II. or Forum:Do You Think Dragon Age II Was A Let Down?. King Cousland (talk) 19:41, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a bad game but it's certainly not that good of a game either. One of the biggest problems is that expectations were so high following Origins and the marketing for DA2 hyped it up as being some kind of amazing decade spanning worthy successor when instead we got a hack and slash with a few RPG elements, false decisions (sure on the first play it looks like you get lots of choices but when it comes to trying the different choices they all have the same result), recycled maps and most of the best features of Origins completely absent. And the decade spanning, really the timeskips could just have easily been "one week later" instead of three years and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference except that maybe it wouldn't seem so odd that your companions wait three years to follow up on something. Rayvio (talk) 20:10, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

If level design is too hard & time-consuming for you, pick a new line of work. Futonrevoltion (talk) 20:18, May 3, 2011 (UTC)Futonrevoltion

I think it more accurate to say it fails spectacularly to live up to very high standards Bioware has set for over a decade concerning what many of us all thought the DA franchise was going to be after the spectacular Origins. That doesn't make it bad at all, per se, as that's an opinion, and we all know they vary. But it does make it a huge disappointment for a great many, as those types of games are far and away beyond rare now. To see a DA game try to shift so blatantly towards a mass market, action fixated audience was awful after such a fantastic start. Especially so now, as all of this was apparently for naught as none of it has registered as intended. But none of that makes it a bad game at all. Just different, very different. The problem is, we can all get different elsewhere, and done much better to be frank. We can't get another Origins style game though. And maybe we won't, ever again. Which is part of the problem, and a huge part of the response you see everywhere for DA2, and why it's so negative. It's become the battleground for the future of this genre. The Grey Unknown (talk) 21:06, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think the game had plenty of potential, the story/stories seemed divided into separate scenarios though; the Qunari invasion and Mage vs. Templar conflict, both were interesting just to me they did not connect very well and were ended rather abruptly so- I felt that the issues were unresolved/lacking proper explanations and closure if you will (I suppose in the grand scheme of things that alright considering both issues especially the Qunari- are more so world wide conflicts yet to resolved). The story plot holes and lack of closure just left me feeling empty or craving for more (perhaps that is what the intentional goal- is to leave the audience wanting more, but this was horrible executed I found myself more lost than anything).

My second beef is the recycled dungeon map and like of world roaming, restricted to the Kirkwall district was tantamount to boring and uninteresting as well as the constant location design. At some point I was wonder whether or not Hawke and or his companions would notice- reminds me of when I noticed Fenris' mansion in my first play through, first enter it and then later three years walk in and still see it a mess with the occasional dead corpse laying around, (maybe that's extreme, but it sure would have helped to have seen change for the sake game immersion).

The battle play was fun, however I did not like the wave after wave of randomly spawning enemies that were basically all the same design with no variety. Mages' battle style/play was by far more enjoyable aspect of fighting, the charging of spells did not interrupt and the execution of spells are far quicker.

All-in-all a good game, just not great and could have been much better (of course). TheDubious (talk) 21:15, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

What makes it a bad game? The fact that it's a bad game? Duh? SenorCero (talk) 22:11, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.