Dragon Age II - Page 11

I'll try that tonight.  Pretty sure all my friends have it so I may put it up for grabs here.

 

Yeah because any changes to the Dragon Age style is due to corporate skullduggery rather than the change in project leads between games. I vastly prefer the art style of 2, largely because it feels like an art style rather than a just lame, muddy looking, Lord of the Rings rip-off.

 

I really don't know how they could have made a Dragon Age: Origins 2. Origins itself was only the way it was because of it's protracted development time and rather uncompromising lead developer. Essentially it was a game at least half a decade out of step with everything else when it debuted.

 

Also if you're just button bashing and not relying on tactics you might want to pump up the difficulty. The game gets really tough later on unless you've got great tactics set up.

 

The thing is I don't even like the game all that much (love the story and characters, but the gameplay and the way they keep cheating with the narrative really bugged me) but I just see a bunch of people who've essentially already made their mind up about the game before even really giving it its due.  

I happily conceded these were simply initial thoughts at the beginning of a play through Spike. Much of my negativies are merely irritations rather than deal-breakers and I sincerely hope they fade into the background as I continue.

 

...but then I get the feeling I've stepped into a much longer and protracted argument here and you're not really directing this at me at all.

I'm ranting into thin air, to be honest. I'm coming at Dragon Age 2 from a different place from most people. I kind of hate most Western RPGS. BioWare and Bethesda are the two companies whose games I really like, but I've had people try and get me to play stuff like Divinity 2, and the Gothic games, and Risen and I've liked none of them. As such I'm kind of distanced from the usual Western RPG audience and as such I can't help  but find their whining a little myopic, because the one thing that Western RPG players want is games that actively distance themselves from the playerbase. 

You're aware of the reason for the project lead changing, right?

 

Let me remind you:

EA/Bioware: Nice game you made there. Now here are some changes we want you to make for the sequel. Oh, and have it ready in 18 months.

Lead designer: No, I won't. You're nuts.

EA/Bioware: Oh, yes you will.

Lead designer: I quit.

EA/Bioware: Bye. You! Get over here! You're the new lead.

 

It is the very definition of corporate interference.

 

You'd figure Bioware would have more clout to say no to that. Reading the former lead's blog post he didn't specifically call out EA for the change, but noted the game was aimed in a direction he didn't want to go down. Classy of him not to take a shit and piss over everything before departing.

I half imagine the doctors receiving notes from EA asking why they can't make Mass Effect 3 more like Call of Duty; where's our FAMAS rifles with ACOG scopes, the dual wielding shotgun perk, licensed Gary Jules song while everything plays in slowmo, and/or placing the end user in an unwinnable situation while the world around him is ravaged but not tell him it's unwinnable (unless we sold that story to gamestop for pre-order sales) until they reach an arbitrary point in the game, and if there isn't a multiplayer mode can you at least enable random voice chats piped through to the mouths of common npc's so randoms can call you a dog raping fag as you roam the citadel?

So that's why you posted your lengthy, into thin air, rant after some guy plopped down 60 bucks on the game he just bought and wanted to share his thoughts on his experience so far? EA and Activision are both guilty for the jaded nature of gamers on message boards; it's just how it's going to be after you see them from time to time rob good developers of the vision they want to execute for the sake of short term profits. And it's expected to see the parody-esque level of posts, like the one above, when you see a beloved property receive the shortend of a shareholders stick repeatedly.

Here's the thing, after spending nearly 100 hours playing the various Origins campaigns the first thing I do is babysit the tactics. Even then it still feels like I'm playing me some motherfucking Torchlight, but with more verbose storytelling in the background. So why are any of us out there in message board land the bad guy for bemoaning a game, a sequel, that ends up partially different from the experience that we enjoyed from the first time around?

Nothing has stopped Todd Howard from making the kind of feature rich games he's wanted to make, if anything those kinds of games still are being made, and importantly there is a ravenous audience that wants that kind of game despite how long it takes for the dev cycle to complete. And you later admit that you like Todd Howard games, but fault Brent Knowles for his vision? I am genuinely baffled at how you consider a full featured length 100 hour game half a decade behind everything else. Or why so many magazines and websites would laud such a backwards game with numerous Game of the Year awards and nominations. So mr game designer guy - what will your epic 100 hour rpg look like when it ships...? Seriously, what would a modern day 100 hour epic rpg look like if it was made by you and how it improved over the decrepit design and systems of Origins?

I have no beef with you Spike. You're obviously passionate about your games as any other dude or girl would be on these boards. But this feud you have with whomever is getting old.

I was talking about how unviable the game design would be. Origins being the way it was was almost a happy accident, but in terms of mechanics it'd be like the next COD game only allowing you to look around on a singular horizontal field like the Doom games. I also wonder how many people liked Dragon Age: Origins for its gameplay mechanics and how many put up with the gameplay for the story. If BioWare had used the same engine from Origins but done everything else exactly the same I'd be more inclined to believe that the game was a rush job due to EA corporate pressure. But the design of the thing suggests to me that this is always the game that BioWare wanted to make, as the first chapter in their Dragon Age series. Dragon Age 2 feels like it's mistakes are down to a bad creative idea rather than down to external pressure. There are elements which feel rushed (the repetition of dungeon design) but in general it felt to me like the series finding itself again after the loss of its creative lead. 

Yeah, this game... it's not for me. I bought it on launch day, and played it for a few hours. Wasn't impressed. Let it sit on the shelf for weeks. This weekend, I decided to give it a real try, and I fucking hate it. I'm tired of visiting the same six caves over and over (BUT WAIT! Now a different door will open this time!), I'm tired of doing dozens of "fetch this/kill that" quests that don't drive the story at all, and I'm tired of Anders and Fenris being angry at me because I won't accept their advances (I'm a proponent for gay characters, but this is ridiculous).

 

It's kind of sad when a sojourn into the damned Deep Roads is a welcome change of scenery. And now I can't kill the Ancient Rock Wraith, and I don't feel like trying anymore.

 

Dug the first game, but not enough to spend an additional 80 hours to play through it a second time. And they've totally lost my interest with this one.

It looks like some DLC should be coming out soon for this, I was on Xbox's site and they have 5 new achievements up, here's to hoping the story in it is worth a damn (it probably won't be but a man can dream).

Anyone give the new 'Legacy' DLC a spin yet?

I have no urge to drop more money down this hole. And any pending sequels are going to have to really prove something to me before they get my money. No game sequel has ever disappointed me like DA2.

Yep, no buy.

Which is all fine and good, but the main game remains the same.

I watched a lengthy video showing the new DLC, and it looked exactly like Dragon Age 2.  I enjoyed the game well enough, but I'm done with it. There's nothing about this DLC that entices me to play DA2 again.

I'll get it when it's 400 points but I'm not buying it for full value.

I'll admit I didn't read the whole thread, and I'm sure what I'm going to say is probably echoed a hundred times, so forgive me. I have mixed feelings.

 

On the positive side, for those who play a warrior who specializes in two-handers (which I admit is probably a small margin), the new combat mechanics were a lot of fun. I can't even estimate at the amount of times in Origins that there was a horde of darkspawn in front of me, and I lamented that I only had ONE attack that could hit multiple targets. I wanted to feel like a DS-slaughtering badass wielding a massive, forged chunk of steel death, and the very singular targeting mechanic made me feel like sort of a lame duck. The ability to hit multiple targets in DA2 and the gratuitous splattering blood effect were brilliant, I thought. I enjoyed the new art style, primarily because it didn't look like hammered shit, unlike Origins.

 

I also enjoyed the companion quests and interactions. I thought that they were varied and interesting enough, as those things go. I found myself switching out my party members often, which I never really did in Origins, beyond the obligatory "go here, find this" loyalty quest. I also found the "dumbed-down" party equipment mechanics to be less of an issue than most, it seems. 

 

 

However, on the negative side of things... I missed things from Origins. It sounds trite and stupid, but I miss the occasional scripted kill animation, as opposed to vanquished foes just erupting in a fountain of blood and vanishing. The game did feel less tactical and more arcade-y, which was probably the goal, making the game with console gamers in mind. It still lost something though. I rarely worried about flanking, as I could just charge in swinging. I missed the party camp... maybe I'm lazy, but having to run all over hell just to find that nobody had anything new to say was a bit frustrating.

 

The main problem for me, as it was for most people, was the story, or lack thereof. I understand it was sort of a "rise to power" game akin to the original Fable, but it honestly felt like there was no direction or purpose beyond day-to-day bad guy slaughter until the last two hours of the game. The final confrontation was no different and no more challenging than the average qunari-with-general encounter you were dealing with in Act 2. At least for me, there was never any real sense of mounting tension or story progression. 

 

I guess I'd recommend the game, for the chance to get out of Ferelden and see something new, but on the whole I don't feel like it matched Origins in quality or execution.

 

Addendum - Can I just ask, (POSSIBLE SPOILERS) did anyone else find the mid-game quest involving your mother to be the single-most disturbing thing they'd ever encountered in their video game experiences? Or was it just me?

I don't understand this "make it more arcadey for people playing on consoles" thing. I played Origins on my 360 and loved it. I played the sequel on my 360 and was very disappointed by it.

I don't know, I felt like positioning was a huge pain in the ass. Select a guy, my character runs into a corner and stands there. Select the guy again, my character runs into the back of an AI companion and stands there. Physically move my character all the way around behind this guy I want to hit, my character turns away and attacks somebody else. 

Especially in fights with something big, like a dragon, where you got stuck in animation cycles and didn't ever actually land a hit. Don't even get me started on the "right hand never connects" golem in the fade. 

You guys need to play Origins on the PC. 

DAO/A is fun and replayable.  The different story possibilities (based upon your origin, race, and profession) make for interesting story arcs.  The destination may always be the same, but the journey can be radically different.

 

DA2?  Well, you can be an asshole or a nice guy.  Apart from which sibling dies, the game is pretty much the same no matter WHAT you do.  

 

If you have the PC versions, there are plenty of mods out there that will enhance/improve your gaming experiences.  Indeed, DA2 without mods is virtually unplayable.  Check out www.dragonagenexus.com for mods.  Good stuff on there, including a mod that will enable you to equip armor on the human companions in your party.

 

Also: I went ahead an picked up Legacy and played it.  It's about a 2.5 hour expansion with some good fights in it.  Play the final boss in Nightmare mode for a really solid and entertaining battle.

I finished DRAGON AGE II last night and I gotta say ... I didn't hate it. In fact, it's safe to say I quite enjoyed it. Yeah, it's not as good as ORIGINS. And, yeah, some of the design elements reek of short-cutting. But the Bioware writing is intact. I found myself pretty swept up in the mages vs. templars story, especially in act three (which has some great twists in it). And, on the whole, the characters here are among Bioware's best. Not a dud in the bunch. I was constantly re-arranging my party just to hear everyone chat with each other. It's also a pretty full game. I put in over 45 hours and never really got bored with what I was doing. (Things like the cool little haunted house mission near the end helped in this regard.)

 

Plus ...

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

So, ultimately, the game gets a little bit of a bum rap for not being as good as its predecessor. But I found it was still plenty worth playing. DRAGON AGE III will certainly still be a day-one purchase for me.

Cool. Got the dlc a week or so ago and promptly forgot I had bought it. Think I'll pop open a Beck's and make this my Sunday afternoon romp.
 

 

It took me almost a year to finish this, which should have been unthinkable considering the amount of time I sunk into DA:O.  But it really became a slog quickly, despite having considerable upsides.  I can think of several reasons why this is, most of which revolve around words like "rushed" and "cheap".

 

-The lack of variety in dungeons has already been harped on repeatedly and deservedly.  Inexcusable.

 

-The lack of variety in enemies is just as bad, however, and seems to have gotten a pass from more people.  I feel like 90% of the bad guys I slaughtered were either bandits, shades or Qunari (and even they disappeared in Act III).  In Origins, sure you fought a lot of darkspawn, but they came in different shapes, sizes, and strengths.  In this, every darkspawn is a hurlock, and they all look exactly the same, which is to say scrawnier and less monstrous than their earlier counterparts.  They can't even be bothered to give them labels like they did with "Hurlock Grunt" anymore, you just get mobs where some "Templar"'s have 4x the health of other, identical looking ones. 

 

-The lack of variety in terrain and enemies is complimented by a lack of an overarching narrative thrust that might keep you interested in making your way from one ambush of nameless, faceless baddies to the next.  The diffuse plot is at least a deliberate story choice, but it's a risky one and this doesn't have the gameplay to support it.

 

-I fucking hate the way every battle spawns multiple waves of enemies.  In theory, it should make combat more unpredictable and exciting, but in practice it just highlights how mechanical and arbitrary the whole thing is when the triggers become some obvious.  Speaking of triggers, what the hell is the point of having the flash and sound effect once your AI registers an opponent? 

 

-On the harder difficulties, the claustrophobic nature of the maps made it so my brilliant strategic combat options always narrowed down to one move:  get slaughtered, reload, hold position, send one guy forward until I get the flash, then take turns running my party away one by one to get as far away from the 2nd wave spawn point as the map would allow before fighting the first wave.

 

-Potion cooldowns.  Fuck the fuck off.

 

-The framing device hardly peeks its head in after opening, and you never meet the antagonist from it, or even the super-special order she represents, in the game proper.  It feels like an interesting idea that they never really utilized at best, or at worst a half-assed attempt at a diegetic explanation for all the shitty gameplay elements they didn't have time to fix, like interchangeable baddies, repetitive dungeons, enemies that "appear from nowhere", or superpowered assassins that literally disappear into thin air while your entire party is surrounding and swinging swords at them.  Or the art design, which encompasses and enhances all of these issues, because...

 

-This game is, quite simply, ugly as shit.  DA:O was not the prettiest game in the world, but it had an actual color palette that it employed to differentiate between the varied settings, lighting effects that made the Deep Roads feel different from the Mage Tower from Haven, and I'm sure other elements that someone who knows more about art design could articulate better than I can.  Setting the entire game in and around a single city is not a gamebreaking limitation (no one accuses a GTA game of feeling small when they do it), but you have to go to the effort of making it feel like a complete, varied world to itself.  When everything has the same dark yellow/light brown tint to it, there's nothing to distinguish between the time you get ambushed by a bunch of thugs in dark armor in Hightown and the time you get ambushed by a bunch of dwarven thugs in dark armor in Mediumtown. 

 

But despite all this, my enthusiasm for DA3 remains undiminished.  I still like the world, in all its detail and mythology, and the characters/interactions so much that the next one will be a first day buy despite the fact that I had to force myself to finish DA2 once where I played through the original at least 3 times. 

I wish Dragon Age 2 had more time put into it, because I theoretically support a smaller more character focused fantasy RPG over the "Time to save the world from Orcs/Darkspawn/Dragon skeleton horde" type storylines.

 

But yeah, you are very right.

I'm with you all the way, Schwartz. I DID end up playing through it multiple times, and I credit the mods that are readily available in making the game interesting. Once I started creating my own mods, I stopped playing the game and just tested my creations. Hopefully I'll be able to port some of them over to DA3 when it comes out.

Such a terrible disappointment, maybe my biggest this console generation considering the boundless love I hold for its predecessor. 

 

Bioware are going to have to pull something pretty special out of their arses for the third installment to get my loyalty back with this particular franchise. "Fool me once, shame on you" and all that.

Meh, I didn't love Dragon Age 2, but I don't really hate it.

I don't either, it's just feels like a side company expansion pack compared to its predecessor.

 

 

DA2 is really KOTOR 2 all over again for me.  Bioware knocks one out of the park in a familiar setting (DA was our introduction to Ferelden, but it's very traditional despite its depth), then rushes out a sequel that changes little gameplay-wise, but eschews the standard save-the-world-from-the-evil-horde fantasy for a more diffuse and personal plot, emphasizing the interplay and relationships between a more interesting and diverse group of supporting characters.  Both games had some great writing, but were hamstrung by obviously shortened release windows that made for frustrating experiences.  At least KOTOR 2 included some minimal graphical improvements, while DA2 got a fuck ugly makeover to boot.

 

I worry that in both cases the wrong lessons were learned in both cases, and that we won't be seeing games developed around smaller-scaled stories, when those were actually the successful parts of otherwise repetitive/incomplete/ugly experiences.
 

To be fair, BioWare didn't develop Knights of the Old Republic II.

Quote:

 

 

Exactly. There's so much stuff in Dragon Age 2 that could have been built into something incredible, or actually are pretty great that it pisses me off that the game was so absolutely rushed.

 

Oddly enough I do think Dragon Age 2 has some of the absolute best romance options they've done, at least character-wise.

 

Yeah, I was just struck by the pattern, and thinking it sucks that other developers might look at it and think "people don't respond to smaller scale fantasy stories".  That may well be the case (by and large), but the waters are muddied by the best examples being hamstrung by other gameplay/development issues.

 

Still, while DA2 was hugely frustrating, it was also one of the most interesting games I've ever played.  There's a lot of great choices, from the way the Qunari are handled to the matter of fact handling of gay relationships to big 'ol balls on the endgame scenario.  And you know, I can't even be sure that this game is actually any smaller than Origins when it comes to actual level size, but it sure as shit feels like it because of the drab, repetitive art design.  I think I would've enjoyed this game 4x as much if they had just ported Origins graphics over with no tweaking at all.

 

Also, anyone know how this sold in comparison to the original?

I certainly agree it was a step backward from Origins, but somehow I couldn't hate it, even found it fun most times (largely thanks to the cast), and ended up giving it a few playthroughs. Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better received if it hadn't had the "2" slapped on it, but some other story title after a colon. I think I read somewhere it was originally titled "Dragon Age: Exodus" -- if they'd left it like that, I suspect that even the most virulent haters may have seen the exact same game as merely a disappointing bump in the road. Giving the status of official sequel to one of the best games of its generation, though, put a lot more weight on the far-lesser follow-up than it could stand up to.

Of all the game's issues (and there were many, as we all know) I think I could have forgiven all of them if it wasn't for them cheating with all of the mobs that "poof" into existence.  That was one of the things I loved about Origins, the ability to size up a fight before I engaged.  Origins did have enemies that you couldn't see right away, but they were rare and always hinted at before you began the fight.  I never messed around with the Tactics much, I preferred to space bar pause the game and manage the fight as I went along.  DA2 completely took away the planning stage because no matter how many enemies I saw I knew there'd be more popping out of nowhere every single time.

For what it's worth, the LEGACY and MARK OF THE ASSASSIN content was pretty fun. Both of them have truly spectacular and challenging final battles that I find myself occasionally replaying.

Yeah, I mostly remember how much annoying time I spent on the same beaches and dungeons, but when I reflect on the story stuff, it was all pretty damn good. I had a great relationship with the mannish Captain of the Guards. I was rude to her the whole game and it made her depressed and lonely. But she still took my side at the end. 

It was always a hoot to keep Isabella in your party. Her comments to the other characters were usually pretty damned funny, especially with Aveline.

Definitely.  I like that I lost at least one party member in the finale of each act, although I clearly didn't have to.  It felt very right in a role-playing sense that my guy wouldn't let Isabella get away with starting a war just because we'd boned once, or that despite being a mage that wouldn't let the Rite of Annulment happen I also couldn't let Anders live, and that given our relationships over the course of the game Sebastian would stick with me by the skin of his teeth while Fenris would join the Templars (and come back! His "I changed my mind" explanation to Meredith as the final battle kicked off was hilariously curt).  They did an excellent job of making you feel the weight of many decisions, big and small, come to bear on the resolution of the party relationships. 

 

Plus the fact that the spaces you're fighting in (even on the open area maps) are so small means that they're going to be popping up directly in the middle of you, which means you aren't going to have any time to do any strategic maneuvering, even if you pause immediately. 

 

 

Legacy was actually really good, in no small part because the maps are large enough to give you some room to move.  It had a unique level design, varied enemies, and a really well done multi-part boss fight.

 

Try MOTA, then. There's some good design on display and some genuinely funny moments to be had. The final battle is great, almost as good as the one in LEGACY.

They're both good, but I'd give the edge to LEGACY in terms of quality. It looks great and plays great, and you get a really powerful weapon for your class.

Mark of the Assassin made me actually put my burning dislike for Felicia Day aside for a while. Some real fun Scott Lynchian-inspired shenanigans going on.

 

 

They also get a lot of points for making a characters like Merrill, who can so easily fall under the old Bioware staple of "awkward nerdy nice girl" and put her in an honestly dark direction.

 

 

The only companion that I actively hated was Anders. He was great in AWAKENINGS but a complete wet blanket in DA2. mope mope chantry this mope chantry that. Sebastian was kinda the same, but I never really used him; Varrick filled the rogue archer role perfectly and was funny to have around. Anders...it was strictly my desire for 100% completion that made me complete his side quests. The big DECISION MOMENT regarding his fate was pretty easy.

I actually like Anders, even if I'll admit to missing him as an actual source of levity.

 

Really I think one of the ways the story actually stumbles a little bit is the way his obsession with the Chantry, his possession by a fade spirit, and his rather unwavering goal of freeing all the mages gets treated as an annoyance or quirk by the party for a good deal of the game. Dude's practically a ticking-time-bomb-magic-Martin Luthur/Lenin/Carlos the Jackal combination, and a good deal of the party banter throughout a good chunk of the game is "LOL lighten up man!"

 

Or maybe that's just me. Because while I like the idea of a big Mage vs. Chantry showdown, there seems to be something slightly off about it that I can't put my finger on.

Oh man. On one hand I like that I managed to stick to my guns and make this the only Bioware game I've ever skipped. On the other hand, it bothers me to no end seeing this discussion and not being able to join in.

Quote:

It's cause everyone in the situation (except the player) is a dickhead.  The Chantry is all like Final Solution on the mages and the mages are all like Freedom! The Chantry just wants to oppress mages! even though they all go evil at the drop of a (demon-possessed) hat. 

 

Nobody, except for perhaps the player, wants to find a compromise that works for both sides.
 

 

Well, his arc was that he was becoming a terrorist...

 

I didn't use Sebastian much either, for the same reason (Varric=great).

 

 

Varric, Aveline and the Revered Mother all seem to want things to just chill out.  Granted, none of them seem interested in doing anything about it.

 

Quote:

Yeah, pretty much.  At the end I kinda wanted to go "screw all y'all, I'm going to take Isabella and become a pirate.  Peace out, bitches."