I mean, the only gripe I can think of is that the combat gets a little boring. I loved the story, the characters, the action, suspense... etc. Overall, I'd give the game a 9.5. But I see a lot of people that just blow it off. It isn't that bad! --Reegar (talk) 03:25, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I Agree. I think Bioware was in a lose/lose situation: If DA2 was a clone of DA:O people would complain about that and if DA2 was completely different (which it was in most aspects) people would complain because it was nothing like Origins. I try to keep an openmind about these things. I believe that DA2 is a "side story" in regards to the WHOLE grand scheme of the dragon age story. For DA2, the writers could have easily have told players what happened in kirkwall, but I think because gamers got to shape the beginning of the story and a side story we will see these results come to fruitation in the next DA installment.
I liked DA2 as a stand alone game, but DA:O is by far my favourite out of the two, not faulting DA2, but because Origins had that "mystery" and that mystical fantasy feel to it. With DA2 it felt "cold" and "isolating from the rest of the Free Marches and Thedas. But alas, every game has a few flaws, some of which are ALWAYS subjective.
Sorry being Dorky, but these are my thoughts and I do think BioWare did excellent with DA2.
BlairCousland (talk) 03:48, July 25, 2011 (UTC)BlairCousland
- Never apologize for being dorky, this wiki in itself is dorky. Tommyspa (talk) 04:21, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Though many people have legitimate gripes about the game (after all, your opinion can't be wrong by default as it is an opinion), I have to say a large factor is probably mob-mentality. The bandwagon was saying the game was bad, so everyone else said the same thing too. Some people legitimately do not like the game, and that is fine. They, however, are far more vocal about it than the people who did like the game, so that's what you hear most. It's like watching the news. They usually only focus on negative stories because those are the ones that get your attention more than positive stories. All in all? I liked the game. It has it's pro's and con's, of course, but I didn't not enjoy it when I played it. I think it's because it's called Dragon Age 2, yet is very different from Origins aside from the setting. People usually feel sequels should be very similar to their predecessors with a few changes to improve things. They also probably feel that it was an attempt to cash in on Mass Effect's formula, which arguably it was. It depends on your opinion, however, whether or not this was a good thing. 75.87.249.217 (talk) 04:11, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
DA2 has a lot of what I like in story/rpg aspects, but I am no RPG purist by any means. Take away my ability to change my companions armor, fine so long as my companions have unique looks (they do in DA2), so what if they don't change clothes ever, no one in cartoons ever change clothes for any reason ever. These things equate to me, and are ultimately not a defining aspect of playing DAO or DA2. DA2's combat mechanics and talent trees are a massive improvement in my eyes, I recall DAO having so many frivolous spells at my disposal. Grease? Spell wisp? yeah, I know what they do and can apply them accordingly with a fire spell and make those grease fires but spells like them are largely pointless. But maybe that was just my play style, I would preferable stop my enemies from attacking by either freezing them with cone of cold or using fireball to put them all on their asses, goes for pommel strike, shield bash and dirty fighting, and all those stun or knockdown talents, those were ultimately how I play Dragon Age. DA2 in its slightly less intelligent way of making base enemies single minded and a lot stronger on the assassin level of enemy does require practical use of talents to bring them down, if you don't play on normal/casual anyhow. But with that drawback, they make the use of talents far more effective per tree, those little upgrades vastly improve the effectiveness of companions (not going too deep into that, as it's too much to talk about) but suffice to say, I preferred them not being frivolous.
The main plot choices being diminished in the "what changes after" effect and Hawke not being the center of attention (see Isabela act 2 and Anders act 3.) Has put off some folks as well, I think they would have preferred to learn more and act before the trouble started in both those cases, but no. Also goes with Hawke not being able to save Leandra. You were forced to follow these defined actions through the plot and some players do not like these things because they take away replayability for them because they cannot change many things.
To cut myself short before I end up making a wall of text here (see other threads on this topic) DA2 was not as well done as well origins as falls short based on not being able to explore all the free marches, but that would require rewriting the story which is too much to expect now. But it being the DA2 we were given it falls behind of Origins but not by much at all by my standards of story experience. Which is what defines gaming for me. Tommyspa (talk) 04:20, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
If DA2 is a 9.5, then Origins is a 12.5? Futonrevoltion (talk) 04:32, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Because it has 2 on the end, and it has nothing that makes it a worthy successor to the first game. Drop the number and pretense that it is a sequel, drop the price to no more than $40 to reflect the little resources they put into it, and market it as a spin off and it could be a mediocre game...not good by any means but not something to be hated either.174.45.9.40 (talk) 05:41, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I like the game on its own, and I think there are things it did better than Origins. The combat is much more bearable on the 360 in 2, though a little too over-the-top and the fact that enemy AI was simplified feels like a step backwards (also, waves were mostly implemented badly). Abilities and talent/spell trees are better. The increased amount of companion quests was a good addition, as were the changes to the gift system (each gift yielding extra dialogue, thus making it feel like what you're giving actually means something and allows you to further develop your relationship with the companion in question). Most of the characters are still good, though generally not as good as their origins counterparts. Giving the player a family involved with the game was a good idea which sadly wasn't used to its full potential (at times seemingly on being there to give you people to lose tragically). Having companions interact with each other in their respective homes is also an excellent addition, and great for showing how the party grows close to one another (it's just a shame it made Hawke feel left out). I didn't really mind not being able to choose the companions' outfits for them (really, it doesn't make sense if you think about it), in fact it was good to see each companion have a unique look (though maybe in the future they should still periodically change outfits, whether on their own at certain parts in the game, through gifts given by the player or upgrades possibly altering the appearance of the outfits slightly - for example, an upgrade called "Padding" visibly adding extra padding to a companion's armor/clothes). I didn't mind the voices for Hawke (they ranged from tolerable to good), nor did I mind having a voiced protagonist overall. The tone icons were a decent addition (if the paraphrases had been done better it'd have been superior to ME's system) and I didn't really mind the dominant personality thing (you can still mix responses as you please, so it's not like you're forced to always pick 'diplomatic' if you have it as your dominant personality) - it gives all 3 classes ways to coerce NPCs (whereas in DAO there were only two methods - persuasion and intimidation - which benefited rogues and warriors, respectively, but not mages). Graphics are better; not by a lot, and some things look worse (elves and dwarves - except Varric - most notably, as well as some lacking/uninspired or over-the-top anime-esque armor/weapon/character designs), but overall it's an improvement (in fact, many character models in DAO looked very ugly when I started playing again after my first few DA2 playthroughs). The friendship/rivalry system is good, but could use a lot of improvement (see below).
However, for all these good things, there's areas where the game also falls short. One, it has almost nothing to do with DAO, and in addition to that, it's conceptually very different; as such, it doesn't feel like a sequel and more like a spin-off or a franchise reboot (which isn't what puts me off the most, since I like a wide variety of games and are willing to forget such things if the game itself is good). Second (and to me the greatest source of complaint), even though there are some very good ideas/concepts found in some of the quests, and I admire the attempt to tell a non-standard story with grey-and-grey morality, the execution of these elements were often so horrendous that the game had to mercilessly railroad the player into doing what it wants him/her to do, which is a sharp contrast to the story's actual premise which oozed with potential to grant the player even more freedom than DAO did (in comparison; whereas in DAO you felt like you had a fair amount of freedom and chance to affect the narrative - whether through actual meaningful choice or just well-done illusion of choice - and the little railroading present usually made sense and thus you didn't think about it so much, in DA2, most choices always have the same outcome, and the railroading is so painfully obvious that it bugs you at every corner). Then there's those minor gripes that occasionally bug you; personality-based coercion being used way too little (it might as well not even have been there), constant and painfully obvious reuse of environments, most of the dialogue with companions being all business and serious (just some laidback casual discussion once in a while like they have with each other, seriously, is that so hard to put in!?), timeskips being very badly implemented (really, only the first two - boat trip to Kirkwall and 1st year in the city - made sense; the other two would've fitted better if '3 years' was replaced with '3 months'), companions staying in the party even though they obviously hate your guts/you hate their guts (I like f/r system itself, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to let you keep companions even if you repeatedly insult them or do things directly against their own ideals - like Fenris staying even though you take on a slave, and Anders staying even if you're a templar sympathizer) - it should be more like non-hardened vs. hardened in origins; really, using both an f/r and an approval meter seems logical to me), the badly done paraphrases (as mentioned before) which forces you to rely too much on the tone icons, pacing in the romances, and especially the fact that the story premise should make it less combat-oriented/hack-and-slashy and dialogue/non-combat oriented than DAO, but is actually more so due to the removal of most non-combat features (creating the worst kind of gameplay/story segregation; the story pretending to be an intricate political/ideological conflict with many angles while actually playing out as a dungeon crawler).
Really, the game is good, but compared to origins, it doesn't really measure up, nor live up to the hype or as a sequel. For every improvement there's something else sacrificed which distances it from its predecessor, and good ideas are horribly implemented (which is almost more frustrating than bad ideas being badly implemented). Overall, it isn't made with the core DAO audience in mind, but still offers some decent gameplay and story. That's my opinion, anyway. Matt-256 (talk) 09:09, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
What? No one hates Dragon Age 2. It's universally acknowledged as the best of the Dragon Age games and the greatist game of all time, it makes Ocarina of Time feel like pong. The reuse of dungeons is accepted as a genius way to minimise confusion when entering a new area. The lack of world changing decisions is a great way to focus your attention on the story. And the reduced number of weapon and armor options just make it easier to find the beast gear. Andy the Black (talk) 09:40, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'll repost what I said in another thread: What bothered me personally is that from my point of view, DA2 has "good" and "evil" choices. I can't side with the Templars, ever. I've tried. I really want to have a rivalmance with Anders. But I can't bring myself to support Meredith when she's so clearly off her nut, hunting down innocents, and making mages tranquil left and right at the slightest provocation. Not to mention that as a mage you're turning on your own people, and as a warrior/rogue you're betraying the little sister you've supposedly spent your entire life protecting. There's no way to pick the Templars' side without being cruel or callous, because picking the Templars means picking Meredith. So the way I see it the only choices you get are between rude and polite in your dealings with the Qunari, and good or evil with the mages and Templars. Oh, and you get to be polite/sarcastic/aggressive about it.
And all that wasn't even my biggest problem with DA2. When I was playing Origins, sure I had questions I wanted to ask of my companions that sadly weren't included in the game (though not all that many), but I never once felt like I wanted to say something that wasn't in the list of dialogue options. Every single time there was a dialogue choice that matched my own voice. In DA2 I spent half the conversations shouting at Hawke to stoptalkingrightnow cause that's NOT what I meant. What I hate the most is that oftentimes the polite/nice option agrees with what your conversation partner is saying, while the aggressive option disagrees and the sarcastic option makes a joke about it while staying neutral. What about those times when I agree with what they're saying in spirit but disagree with their proposed methods? Or when I want to be blunt in keeping with my Hawke's personality but I also want to be supportive? And let's not forget the time I wanted to tell Anders "I love you too" to complete the move from flirting to an actual relationship, and what came out of Hawke's mouth was "I want you right here until the day we die." That little sentence had me literally gawking at the screen and reloading to pick the less cheesy option. There wasn't one.
What I suppose I'm trying to say is that it doesn't bother me at all how little Hawke's choices impact the game world. The problem is that Hawke isn't ME, and never can be, because the game doesn't allow me to make Hawke a reflection of myself. My Wardens are all me, some not exactly me as I am right now, but the person I wish I could be if I had the guts to say exactly what I thought all the time, or if I were more selfish or more ruthless or a better/cleverer/nicer/crueller person. Hawke though, Hawke can be 3 different versions of Hawke, but all of them at best vaguely resemble the person I would make her if the game would truly let me choose her personality.
On, and that's not to mention the fact that Hawke is *stupid*. The thing with Isabela and the Qunari? Figured that out as soon as the Arishok said they were missing a relic. Meredith and the idol? Figured it out when Bartrand said he sold it to a woman who "shone like the sun with a heart cold as ice". Then I had to sit through an act and a half each time waiting for Hawke to do something about it. And you know what? She didn't. Both those things were apparently a shock to her (and everyone else). Anders doing something to the Chantry was pretty much a given after Dissent, and again shockhorror on Hawke's part when he does his thing. That right there is really, REALLY bad storytelling. The only thing in Origins I realized before my pc was Alistair's relation to Cailan, and even then you can somewhat imply in dialogue that you knew and were waiting for him to tell you. In fact my Warden often knew more than I did, which I actually liked because you learn something from your own dialogue as well as npcs'. The only really shocking moments for me in DA2 were on my first playthrough when I didn't bother raising friendship or rivalry with Isabela and she didn't come back like I'd expected, and the fate of Hawke's mother and remaining sibling.195.240.236.190 (talk) 09:58, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I think it actually more accurate, at this point at least, to say that most people don't hate DA2. They just don't care about it, or are indifferent about it when compared to Origins. Now, you're not going to get that response as much at this point either, because a whole lot of those people have abandoned the series and will not be here any longer. The only ones who remain are those who actually did like DA2, and those who are still mostly furious at the game. The middle ground so to speak has been largely abandoned. Unfortunately for Bioware, if taking important things like sales and response into account, it really would be accurate to say that DA2 was not a very popular game. Hate though? Not really. Those spewing the hate are fairly small in number. Of more concern is the exceptionally large number of people who bought Origins that did not even bother with DA2. That's indifference. And honestly, not caring is worse than caring to much and hating it. The Grey Unknown (talk) 11:59, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I liked DA2 but the fact every cave/warehouse/mansion/lava filled dungeon are the same except some areas are blocked off is ridiculous, the design team at Bioware must of simply said "f**k it, lets just make 4 gigantic areas and just use boulders and fake doors to block off most areas, nobody will notice/care." and "f**k off, why should we make several cities or small towns/villages, Kirkwall's large enough to keep people happy" as if spending a extra few days on designing areas would be a problem, another thing I don't understand is why you still can't explore after completing the game and most importantly, why, no matter what you do or don't do, the same thing will happen in major events (E.G. what happens to the chantry)...wow, I was simply going to complain about the cave bit, I'm amazed I do like the game considering what I just typed. Welshman15 (talk) 12:18, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
DA2 is not Origins. DAO is one of those games that's a phenomena, and as such any sequel will not match up to the original simply because it's not the original. DA2 does have its faults, and because DA2 is not Origins, those faults get magnified. Everyone complains about the reuse of environments in DA2 (which is definitely one of DA2's faults and bugs me), but does anyone complain about how DAO reuses environments? Gruedragon (talk) 13:08, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Because DA:O doesn't reuse them as shamelessly in-your-face as DA2. Dorquemada (talk) 16:31, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Mechanicly, I prefer DA2... they have made a number of improvements. I like the elimination of friendly fire for area effects, the new patch making stun lock harder, the sell all junk, (with the 1.03 patch) you can choose between two class stats for different effects or balance them. There is a definate difference between the various classes which I like, and they made archers impressive. Also the art is better, which is probably why there is so much reuse of dungeons. Note to complainers: It is not trivial making up new areas. On the plot side, I dislike the character relationships. It seems that if you behave consistently, you will alienate everyone in your party but one person. I also do not like that reward of virtue is often disaster (help a mage and you get abominations). Bioware: how about giving more money for evil decisions and experience for good decisions?Folnar (talk) 14:53, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't think DA2 was that bad of a game. When I first played it that is. I was really moved by the story, especially the involvements with Hawke's family. The ends to the Acts felt very action-packed and cinematic. I didnt mind the reuse of levels, cause quite frankly I just overlooked them and continued playing the game for its story. The romances were good and deep, at least to me they were. All in all, by first impression, I really liked the game, and I liked it even more than Origins. Now, my second playthrough. I wasn't disappointed in regards to the idea of lack of difference in player choices cause honestly my second playthrough was completely different from my first. What I was disappointed with were the bugs. I can stand a texture bug, hell I can suffer through a bug that lags the game or infringes on the combat. What I can't stand, is a bug that changes to plot I have for the game. For example, I had a fling with Isabella, but ended it and fully romanced Merrill. But at the end of the game it states I romanced Isabella. Now I understand this bug is now fixed and all that, which is fine now, but as a player during that time-frame when the bug prevented you from playing a certain way story-wise, that really pissed me off and caused me to hate the game and stop playing it altogether. What I'm getting to is that I didn't hate the game for the content it gave, I just hated the game for the condition of bugs it was released with. Now that the bugs are getting fixed, I'm starting to appreciate the game more, but I think though whenever I play the game now, I'll still harbor some hate for the game, simply because one of my playthroughs was wasted because of a bug.Vonoran (talk) 15:36, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
It's all a matter of opinion. In terms of gameplay, I loved DA2 on consoles. In story, however, it felt like it was ripping from the tension between Mages and Templars from DAO. That, and it forces you to take sides. there is no way to stay neutral. That, and it's very distinctive of who's good and who's evil, unlike the first game where each side had it's ups and downs. There was also a massive amount of backtracking and lots of reused areas. But the worst of a to some people, was a voiced protagonist. As you can tell, people HATE that shit. I personally would have been fine with a choice between voices, and having them seldom used, like in Baldur's gate and the original DA. But they force they use of a voice and don't give you an option to change it. But some people, like these changes. Not nearly as many as the nay-sayers but still a certain amount. It might just be that we're in an epicenter of hardcore DAO fans that it may seem like everyone hate it.--XeroSnake (talk) 17:13, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Hate? No. Disappointed? Very much. I´ll probably repeat myself, so I´ll make this condensed. First and foremost, I see DA2 as wasted potential. The story is good - in retrospect. When I finished the game, the story felt much more compelling than while I was actualy playing. I virtualy forced myself through Act I, doing quests I wasn´t interested in, for people I didn´t care for, with family I felt nothing for, in a city which held no appeal for me. In comparison with the Cousland origin, where I was immediately drawn in and wanted to kill Howe with my bare hands for what he had done, DA2 failed to make me emotionaly engaged. I couldn´t relate to the family or companions, as there were so few opportunities to talk to them something _else_ than quests. Antagonists were poorly fleshed - Meredith was nowhere near Loghain´s depth, Orsino was totally blank, the Arishok was... uhm... hard to grasp (which is probably psychologically correct but not good story-wise). I did become intellectualy engaged several times, but only later in the game, the first time in Primeval thaig, but the intellectual appeal was constantly brought down by the discrepancy betweem the lore and the gameplay, as in a city especially hostile to mages mage Hawke happily casted all the time without repercussions. Add to it the lack of options (why not follow the white lilies n Act I when it´s crystal clear that there is a connection? why not EVER tell Leandra what was going on? why not pursue Noble Agenda and form a third part in the finale? etc.), and I end up playing a game that makes me howl with despair every now and then. There were so many details which could have made a difference, so many times...not the re-uses, not the re-spawns (though boring for sure), but the lack of care for details, for fleshing out the story and its protagonists, that killed the joy of playing for me. I believe that the reason behind the failure is the rushed release, and to some extent care - that no-one stopped to put themselves in Hawke´s shoes; I found them uncomfortable to wear. --Ygrain (talk) 18:42, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
For me DA2 is simply less interesting than DA:O. Don't hate it. Just... well it's boring. IMO this resulted from a corporate decision at BioWare to change the Dragon Age series into an action game series. I used to attribute the changes to Mike Laidlaw, but I'm starting to believe that Laidlaw is a result, not the cause, of the decision to change to an action format.
There's an interesting interview about ME3 reported today at http://www.rpgwatch.com/. BioWare's David Silverman is quoted as saying:
- "We're hoping for a big hit. It's the best game we've ever made at BioWare Edmonton. The stuff we're doing - making the gameplay more action-adventre-y, making it on a par with some of the best action games you see today, whilst on top of that adding in these RPG elements that maybe people were upset we didn't focus on as much in Mass Effect 2 - it strikes a balance."
If you look real closely, Silverman is saying ME3 is an action game, first and formost. The RPG part is just "RPG elements" that are being added as an afterthought to the action game.
Again, IMO, it seems that a great deal of the RPG character of DA2 is of this same "afterthought" caliber. Build an action game first then go back and add RPG elements. In contrast, DA:O was story driven from start to finish. The story dictated the the layout, flow, and the "action elements" of the game.
I miss DA:O and particularly its pure RPG character... WarPaint (talk) 21:54, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
The "you'd hate anything that's a sequel, because you're an impossible to please hater," will always be a specious argument. Know any casual movie fans who say that Empire Strikes Back is strictly worse than Star Wars or fanboys who, when Luke's hand was chopped off, gave up on the series and immediately returned the video to the store in disgust?
And, yes, a game designer using precise technical terms, like "action-adventre-y", frightens me, as much as a film director saying that something was included because it "seemed cool, at the time." Futonrevoltion (talk) 22:58, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I don't hate DA2, I think it was rushed and flawed. Great story if you ignore the holes, which would have been filled if it wasn't rushed. Varric, awesome. Aveline, awesome. Isabela, awesome. And then they bring in my favorite character from Awakening and make him what I've dreamed of being for years, a violent, by any means any revolutionary that doesn't care about anything but his cause. Wonderful.
It was certainly Dragon Age, but it wasn't on the same level as Origins.HomelyDrugAddict (talk) 23:24, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I don't hate DA2. I thought it was a good and enjoyable game despite its problems. It's just disappointing in that it doesn't come off as "more epic than Origins" or even with its original story tease of "your actions change the world of Thedas forever" when in reality the story is more like you dealing with what Flemeth calls "the inevitable plummet into the abyss", that the world will change around you regardless of what you actually do and that you will become the Champion of Kirkwall through how you handle the battle with the Qunari and how it ends. Hopefully DA3 will be the kind of sequel game Origins fans are hoping for without it becoming a bland and uninspired rehash. (VicGeorge2K9 (talk) 12:55, July 26, 2011 (UTC))