Back to Reviews
Reviews Comments: A Miserable Experience Dragon Age II game review by lorddaddyfunk
DA 2 is one of the worst games I've ever played, it takes the strengths of Origins, dumps these strengths (Good characters, well executed Grey And Gray Morality, tactical combat system, and hordes of dialogue choices) in favour of one dimensional characters who only ever have one issue to discuss (Merrill and Varric aside), making the main conflict into a direction-less mess that ends with a fight between two unlike-able forces that you'll be unlikely to care for (With Gray Morality, I was under the impression that both sides are meant to be sympathetic), complete with both sides turning out to be evil anyway, as well as limiting you to three dialogue choices most of the time, preventing you from seeing what you're going to say, and leaving your choices having the exact same outcome for the conversation 95% of the time.
Even worse, the weaknesses from Origins (A little bit too much reliance on enemies attacking from everywhere, especially for boss fights, lackluster sidequests, and sub par environment designs) have not only been ignored, but made even worse.
For Combat, they decided to abandon all pretense of battle design and just dump hordes of enemy waves against you from all directions, making positioning and planning impossible, make you have to constantly mash the A button (Which was only just fixed in a patch....which I can't get due to no Xbox Live), and give no feedback from attacks (Or being attacked), making it feel lifeless.
Sidequests are basically just "Kill that guy!", or alternately just consist of you finding a random object in Cave No.135, running around for someone it belongs to, finding them and magically knowing that it belongs to them, and then just giving it back for a quick reward, cheap, and disinteresting.
And I don't think I really need to talk all that much about the environment recycling, it's there, it's obnoxious, it's been complained about to death by everyone who lives under the sun, the reasoning for this was that Mike Laidlaw decided that the team still had enough resources to build sidequests, so they started recycling more than a member of Green Peace, to which I say, no, Bioware didn't have enough resources, because if they did, they obviously wouldn't need to force you through the same cave over and over.
Oh, and Retcons. Everywhere. They fill me with rage
Overall: Poor
In order to post comments, you need to
Get Known
Comments
which retcons? I don't see any.
2.okay
3.varric's narration
4.wrong lord
5.not confirmed, as in, they don't ingest the thing or anything
6.never said they can or cannot in origins.
7.because that would be the first time he escapes the templars
8.okay
9.varric's narration
just saying.
=Indeed, I personally thought they were bland or obnoxious
And I liked them better than most of the characters in Origins, so whatever.So? Just because there's no antagionist doesn't mean that it's done well, both the leaders turn out to be loons anyway, 99% of the mages turn out to be Blood Mages (ditto said leader) which just leaves the Templars POV proven right time and time again, sure people in game tell us that the mages suffer at the hands of the Templar, but we rarely see any of it, we never even see the Circle in which the mages live in.
Yes, well your standard of morality is a little different from the standards of most people who play the game. I'm pretty sure the point of having so many blood mages in the game was to try and give players a hard choice on whether to kill all the mages or not. But you know, that doesn't work too well if the player doesn't have much of a problem with genocide.Origins put enemies in tactically sound positions for it's best fights, which made you have to think more than "Hack and dash", DA 2 meanwhile, has 99% of it's fights with enemies spawning in waves and surrounding you, kind of like Origin's trash mobs which everyone hated
You mean the fights where they spawned your party in the middle of a room with enemies everywhere? Because most of the fights in Origins were easy unless they did something like that, or you were facing a boss. Or you decided not to use a mage, but that would be like not using a warrior in DA 2.Was there something wrong with the old system?
Is there something wrong with improving something? Or do you normally just lash out at anything different? And you know, it does kind of help prevent you from accidentally moving the plot forward when you wanted to ask a question rather than reloading.I would hardly consider Meredith turning out to be insane under the influence of the Idol Of Plot Influence and nearly all the mages turning out to be Blood Mages to be not evil.
So because Meredith went crazy in the last 5 minutes of the game, the entire game failed at gray vs grey morality? Oh, and assuming all mages are blood mages because the small percentage that you saw were has some rather unfortunate implications.Half the time you don't even get that, and without investigate options Origins still usually had more options.
1. Yes you do. 2. No it doesn't. I already told you, you only think that way because the investigate options are put in the same place as everything else.That's not what I was referring to, 95% of the quests I played ended the exact same way regardless of what decision I made, even non epic choices.
There's plenty of quests that let you alter the way it ends. At least the same amount as in Origins anyways. Maybe you should actually pay attention while playing?I've never needed it in DA 2, and the fights still drag out to the sheer number of enemies.
Unless they have assassins, or some other boss, or something, most fights in DA 2 should last about as long as the ones in DAO. They don't have waves of enemies in every fight, and the combat is faster anyways.I was referring to normal attacks, even KOTOR had sparks fly off when you hit an enemy, and while I'm on the subject, the sheer amount of enemies exploding is simply put: Fucking stupid and tedious
You know even normal attacks can cause people to stagger, right? Better than in Origins anyways, where you know, there was absolutely no feedback from a normal attack. You complain about lack of feedback and now you're complaining about too much feedback? Typical.Really? All the sidequests I got all ended in needless slaughter.
Yes, welcome to the world of video games, where 95% of all problems are resolved by killing someone. I don't see how the sidequests here are any different than Origins in that regard, other than more killing things and less fetching items.''I would consider it a big deal since the plot relies on a big one, i.e, Anders and Justice's fusion, since on my playthrough Anders was sold off to the Templars in Awakenings, and Justice lived for a few years/months until dropping dead on his host's wife's doorstep, coupled with the fact that I set the Ferelden Circle free, I honestly don't see the Anders in Awakening's wanting to go to Kirkwall anytime soon.
Seriously, if they want to do the import option, then ignoring your major decisions (Same with Leiliana's possible death) isn't a good way to go around it.'' Guess it all depends on how seriously you take the games then.And eveil: you are overall just trying to fit his complaints into being "They Changes It Now It Sucks", even when they are not.
Yes it is. DAII was better than DAO in many ways, specifically with the gameplay (yes, even with the lack of customization and rushed parts) and story. You're only whining because the game concentrates more on the story rather than the role playing. Ugh, this is why game developers spend most of their time banging their heads on a wall when dealing with their customers.When it comes to gameplay, I don't think it was better. I don't think it was horrible either. It was just... different. It could've been better. In terms of gameplay I'd say that DA:O is a well-made game within a more limited conception. DA II, on the other hand, is a more ambitious project, has a better conception, yes, but also has so many flaws. They are probably on the same level here overall.
DA:O's gameplay was outright boring unless you were directly controlling a mage, a combat stealth rogue, or a double-hasted warrior. Although Awakenings made HUGE improvements in this, and all it did was add a few new skills. DAII was much faster and funner, though controlling a shield and sword warrior was still boring unless maybe if you gave it area of effect attacks.If the roleplaying part is not at least very good, I'd rather not play it. It's just the kind of RPG player I am.
Good for you. Now are you going to quit pretending that the game sucks because you happen to have western D&D tastes, or can we admit that Bioware just failed their marketing and targeting?An important reason why I think the Dragon Age franchise, specially, should be focused on roleplaying and storytelling is because Bioware is basically one of the few companies out there that proved it can't be done and done it right multiple times. The are just SO may other games focused in other aspects out there!
More roleplaying = Less story. Bioware creates the illusion of good storytelling by putting small chunks of story here and there and filling everything inbetween with filler, in which the decisions you make there have little effect on anything outside of it. The story isn't exactly bad, but if you take out the filler, it's surprisingly short.I never said the game sucks. Just that it is "So Average It's Ok".
That's simply a less aggressive way of saying that a game sucks.More Roleplaying = Less story. Sadly. Still, I'd rather have more roleplaying. Or at least a better balance between the two.
Good for you. Now stay the hell away from anything that isn't a traditional western RPG.DA 2 has objectively worse writing (meandering plot with no real conflict for the vast majority of the story, plot threads coming out of nowhere or forgotten, inane characterization, and blatant ignoring of what the player might have done in the first game) objectively worse gameplay (removing tactical combat in favor of pressing "the awesome button" over and over again with dozens of trash enemies, the same area reused for almost every dungeon) and finally, objectively worse graphics.
Why don't you go learn what the hell the word "objective" means before using it, k?"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"
So you don't know what any of these words mean. Ok.So all that tension involving mages, Templars, Qunari, and Chantry was what, a hallucination?
The mentality is "if you're changing the world, it's not meaningful".- Mages were somewhat overpowered in Origins, but in II, they seemed quite a bit less effective than warriors or rogues. Their abilities take longer to cool down, they do much less damage, they're more fragile than before, and their healing is greatly reduced. If you've played an MMORPG, you will likely see that there are times when a certain class is overpowered at one point or another, then is nerfed until they become almost useless, then buffed up in response; class balancing is difficult and often, a step in the right direction can also end up going too far.
- The party member balance seems better in this game. There are two warriors, two rogues(plus one more in the DLC) and two mages, plus one warrior or mage depending on your selection so that, unlike Origins in which Alistair essentially became your first tank, you weren't penalized for your character build (although in all fairness, the Ostagar temporary party members were a nice touch).
- In my experience, II is easier for a few reasons.
- More plentiful supplies of money, healing items (you don't need to worry about buying more potent poultices or lyrium potions)
- More stamina and mana. While using most of the Two-Handed moves on my warrior, I hardly ever lacked the stamina to execute them, and when I did, I could usually use Second Wind.
- Most of the ordinary enemies are weaker than those in Origins, and instead of getting hit with the full might of an enemy group at the start, it comes in waves, making encounters less difficult but longer.
- Origins' morality is better than II's in that the decisions have consequences, and despite not being clear-cut, typically do not involve both options being reprehensible.
- In Origins, there were times when your morality decisions were not easy, but in nearly all cases, they have consequences. For example, in Orzammar, Harrowmont turns out to be completely ineffectual, while Bhelen, despite his less than ethical deeds in seizing and keeping power, is better for the dwarves as a whole, especially the casteless. Another case is the main quest in the Brecilian Forest; both sides omit critical details from their stories, so you have to decide who to believe as well as who to support. And the Connor decision may seem like an example of Debate And Switch, but if you don't limit yourself to the two choicse presented, you can either save him and his mother or betray him for personal gain.
- In the endgame of II, however very little changes based on your decisions. You are unable to prevent the Mage-Templar war, have to fight both Orsino and Meredith, and have to leave Kirkwall regardless of your choices. To make matters worse, by the end of the game, both factions' leaders have fallen into the same behavior as the extremists among their followers, so the choice hardly seems to matter.
- The dialogue wheel in II (but also in Mass Effect) seems to make conversations more linear, with many options only affecting companion approval, and giving fewer chances to ask questions or choose which points to make.
- Winning companion approval in Origins required more thought than in II. Does the character more appreciate sympathy or being told to suck it up? What are their opinions and how far are they willing to go for them? In II, the main characters tend to be defined by their stance on the Mage-Templar conflict
- Not only were the areas in II often repetitive, but you spend the majority of your time in Kirkwall. It might have been nice to spend some time in another city or quest hub.
- I didn't mind the retcons. I liked the new look for the Qunari, as it made them look more like the Ogres that came from their broodmothers. Merrill's new personality made her a more interesting character than in Origins, and helped her serve well as a main party member rather than a Guest Star Party Member.
- If the Four Point Scale exists, it's because few people would seriously consider buying an "average" game unless they disagreed with many of the review's criticisms. Additionally, while critics would not seriously recommend buying a mediocre game, they give games in that category those scores because they are far better than a buggy, poorly-designed game with a terrible concept.
In general, as I stated in my review, I like the first game more, and think some of the changes in II removed or diluted the first game's stronger aspects. Despite its flaws, though, II still has much of what makes up a good RPG (plenty of character customization, an interesting world, lots of sidequests, good combat system), as well as some improvements (the talent system, character quests). I would give Origins a 9.5 for being a great game, and II an 8.5 for being an excellent one, and would recommend both games.