1012 réponses à ce sujet

[stonemyst]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Hi everyone

We want to hear from you about what you liked or disliked about Dragon Age II. As this is in teh Spoilers forum spoilers can be revealed in the reviews, spo read them at your own risk.

Please remember that simply saying "This game sucks" or "This game rocks" is not all that useful. You can love DAII, like DAII, dislike it or hate it, but please tell us what we did right or what we did wrong. Saying "I dsiliked X" is fine, but saying "I disliked X becasue etc etc" is even better.

We want to hear from you. So let us knwo what you thought of Dragon Age II.

Thanks.

Chris I am mad you killed the gold xp glitch on locks of the golden fool with out adding a way to get more gold or increasing the treasure piles to 100 gold or more for each pile not 37 silver or 3 gold in the deeproads. What if we want to pay dwarf the 100 pieces of gold for helping us. It takes for ever to build that. How about you add a quest to collect 20 raven feathers for a 100 pieces of gold and make it respawn so every 20 we get gold.
\\
One last question chris I found a Mug Door in the Blooming rose in act 2 that does not seem to go anywhere but you to hear mage banter from apostate mages hanging out there. Will the be adding new stuff like playing cards. I found playing cards and have looked everywhere for a game but I cant find one.

[Nameless2345]

First, I’d like to apologize in advance for my poor English. It isn’t my native language.

Second, HUGE spoiler warning.

Third, I try to offer possible solutions to some issues. I fully understand that most of them are impossible to implement after the release and perhaps would’ve been impossible to implement from the beginning in given time/budget constraints. They are just what could have been done.

Fourth, to put some of my opinions in perspective, I’ve played all Bioware PC RPGs since Baldur Gates 1. However, I don’t believe that a good, enjoyable game has to even be an RPG in any meaning of that word. So, I don’t give a damn about whenever or not DA2 adheres to some “old-school RPG” traditions or rules. Also, while BG 1 was good for its time I wouldn’t pay a cent for a faithful 3D remake of it.

Review (very, very long).

Part 1: story/plot/world

It is somewhat subjective area. Personally I’ve read and played through more than enough “Save the world from evil monsters” plots and quite tired of them. Is it possible to make such clichéd plot look good? Yes, of course, but it would take really excellent writing and originality in settings/characters/secondary plot lines (see Mass Effect 2 as an example of a good game with not only clichéd but simply nonsensical main plot).

I like diversity. I like personal stories. I like conflicts without clearly defined black and white. So, in general, I liked the story in DA2.

Still, weak points:

0)One too many supernatural influences. Yes, the whole fantasy genre is about using them as allegories (or sometimes eye-candies). See Justice->Vengeance->abomination as an example. But lyrium idol is not an allegory, it is just an unexplained devil ex machine. The story would’ve been better without it, being based purely on human flaws. Same with thinned Veil in Kirkwall.

1)Lack of real choices. Take, for example, Fallout 2 (yes, I know, beaten to death, but still an example). Many places were really changed in the end by the actions of the protagonist. Take DA:O, namely Orzammar and Dalish clan (not exactly the best example, since the choice doesn’t affect the game much, but still). H. spends a lot of time in Kirkwall and…nothing noteworthy. As the matter of fact, at first I was surprised by the lack of DA:O/DA:A/F2-style epilogue with a list of various outcomes for various parts of the setting. Later I realized, on the 2-nd playthrough, that the reason is simple: there are NO variations worth noting. Only fates of several people are changed by H.’s choices and they were mostly covered in letters. I mean, even stronghold side-quests in BG2 had more meaningful choices. Or take NWN2 development of an actual stronghold.

1.5)Lack of evolution. Seven years later you see the same merchants, the same streets, and mostly the same leaders.
Several examples of not really expensive solutions to both:

   a)Act I, quest “Magistrate order”. H. helps magistrate, H. gets in Act II his son as a merchant (and a quest to stop serial killer). H. helps elven guy, H. gets in Act II him as a merchant (and a quest/investment offer that broadens his stock in Act III and gets mentioned in an epilogue). Replacing one of generic merchants would’ve been cheap in man-hours.

   b)Act I, “Act of Mercy”. H. forces Grace to surrender and recommends making her Tranquil => Thrask rises to higher positions (also survives and becomes Cullen’s aid in the epilogue). H. kills (why not, there is an option to kill completely innocent Javaris and Grace actually attempts a blackmail) Grace, same. In both cases some generic extremist participates in “Best served cold” instead of Grace. H. helps Grace to escape or she lives and wasn’t made Tranquil, see current game. Once again, relatively cheap thing, more interactive world. 

   c)Bone Pit mine. Good start, as the matter of fact. But H. doesn’t seem to have any return of his investments. And his actions ultimately change nothing: mine still goes straight to hell. Vanamingo’s mine if Fallout 2 serves as an example of various outcomes. That would lead to replacing Hubert with other possible owners in Act III (with different stores, and, perhaps, different bonuses such as items/runes/followers enhancements). Or Bone Pit could’ve been something similar to BG2 stronghold quests, a source of H.’s wealth. 

2)Lack of a goal during Act II. In Act I, H. is motivated. He needs money. He needs protection from the templars (for himself or for his sister). He likely wants to change his social status. And he acts. While player doesn’t choose Act 1 end, at least H. does: whole Deep Road expedition happens due to his actions (gold + maps + clearing the road).

In Act II H. merely reacts. The future Champion of Kirkwall no longer has any overarching objective. He becomes just another passive person in addition to the Viscount, seneschal and the grand cleric. There is no “Rise to power” in Act II: H. is just busy running errands, and all of them are HUGE FAILURES.
People are poisoned. Qunary ambassadors are killed. Saemus is killed because there is no option to start searching him before night. Mother Petrice is either killed in a very provocative manner or succeeds in framing qunary (effectively the same result). Leandra is killed horribly. H. becomes the Champion not as a result of a conscious effort through Act 2, but only because he kills the Arishok in the end. Until that moment he could’ve been picking daisies together with Merrill. More, Act 2 is currently about two unconnected plot lines (and yet underlying quest engine makes them tied to each other: you have to progress in both to end Act II): personal and political. And H.’s role is mostly passive in both.

Possible solution: introduce another drive, another goal in this act, one that somehow ties H. to the whole mess. Isabella’s quest comes way too late. In DA2 the story is personal. So, the tie could be personal as well – and cheap, too. For example, begin with the Leandra’s kidnapping and proceed with meeting Emerric, search for Du’Puis, and, finally, “All that remains”. Understandably, next comes search for Quentin’s accomplices (‘O’ from the circle in the current game, not an optimal lead though). And that search somehow connects H. to the whole qunary/Kirkwall conflict (qunary convert, protected by Arishok? Need for Viscount’s help to investigate suspicious nobleman?), preferably allowing H. to take more active role in the events and, perhaps unwillingly, bring the final confrontation.

3)Lack of a real choice in the Act III. Same quests, no matter who you support. Same final battles and bosses too.
Possible solution: Of course, pro-templar, pro-mage and neutral paths (see Witcher), same locations, similar objectives, different sides. I think it was actually planned, since “Best served cold” makes little sense as a task from Orsino; as the matter of fact, most NPCs act as though it was Meredith’s task. Constant attacks and Grace’s hatred make little sense in pro-mage playthroughs.

3.5)Orsino’s idiocy in the Act III: whole cutscene is absolutely unbelievable. Suddenly, there are dead mages everywhere. Even if all of the templars died to AoE spells before entering the room. Suddenly, despite easily winning a battle, Orsino decides to transform into a monster and attack everyone nearby. And H. has no option to stop this strange and disgusting magic ritual. The idea of Orsino turning to necromancy and going insane isn’t really bad. The implementation, however, is terrible since it takes like one second.

4)Tons of blood mages and abominations. The idea, of course, was to show one more time that the story isn’t about pristinely white innocent mages being oppressed by religious zealots. Sadly, it quickly became really, really heavy-handed. Practically every notable mage is an abomination/madman/blood mage. I can’t even think of a single significant, named exception except Bethany and Emile, and the latter is an idiot.

The problem rises from the very conflict Bioware decided to use. Of course, most sensible western people would feel sympathy for the “oppressed”. For the people who fight for freedom against religious tyranny. So, writers needed a lot of effort to show that the situation is not as black-and-white as it seems to a modern person. Alas, they clearly overdid it. Along the way they overdid templars abuses also. The only sensible templars you see at work (that is, controlling mages) are Thrask (who has deeply personal reasons) and Cullen (only after you already side with templars). Others? Rapists, murderers, bullies on power trip. The idea was, I think, to make ethically ambiguous conflict. The implementation was to make both sides be represented mostly by dangerous psychopaths, idiots and criminals. As opposed to mostly sensible people with different ideologies and/or conflicting goals. Throw in a couple of criminals/psychos, if you feel it is necessary for an “adult” setting, but do not make them a majority among faction representatives. By representatives here I mean not official positions, but simply faction members with significant presence in game.

Interestingly enough, there is a setting with very similar magic dangers: warhammer 40000. The writers could borrow some inspiration. For example, make demons and abominations much, much more dangerous. Instead of showing crazed killers, who are actually crazy first and mages second, show how one good-natured guy, who wasn’t even aware that he was a mage, becomes possessed due to a bad nightmare and destroys part of a city district, killing dozens of people in process. Perhaps also make magic wielded by party members inherently random and dangerous (chance to summon minor demon, chance to backfire, etc).

5)Gameplay and story segregation went too far. It makes no sense that in Kirkwall, of all places, an apostate can walk around with huge mage staff, wearing robes of a famous templar-killer (Spiral Eye) and blasting enemies with flashy spells – sometimes under the nose of, err, Cullen himself. In DA:O PC was somewhat justified, being a Grey Warden (of course Grey Wardens were outlawed too, but still). In DA2? Just plainly lazy and makes no sense. Same with blood magic (more on this later).

Possible solutions:

a)Relatively cheap, modifies little in the game:

• Introduce “mundane” mode for mages similar to dead (or anti-) magic area in NWN:HOTU: abilities are disabled, ranged attacks are disabled, essentially, melee only, staff acts like an enchanted spear;
• limit encounters with templars and guards in combat situations in act I and use “mundane” mode in them. Meeting Cullen during “Enemies within” and street fight to protect the guard officer in Gallows, and both can be done via cutscenes/QTEs;
• in the end of the act I/beginning of the act II give H. some sort of an excuse: perhaps Kirkwall has some more or less unique system that allows “certified/sanctioned” mages to live outside the Circle and requires difficult test and/or huge donation to the Chantry/Viscount. Such system could be dismantled, obviously not retroactively, by Meredith and/or Elthina immediately after H. uses it, adding to the whole templar/mage tension. Or perhaps Kirkwall has Tevinter embassy, willing for a price in gold/some item (AWR “heart”?) from the Deep Roads enlist H. as a [fictive] representative, thus granting him diplomatic immunity

b)Requires large modifications in game: all this oppression of mages and mage PC/companions mesh very, very poorly. Ideal solution would’ve been either to make Kirkwall a place of freedom for mages (requires complete redesign of main conflict) or to make Bethany the only available mage companion. Anders, Merrill? NPC and quest-givers. H.? Warrior/Rogue + couple of new classes. Or perhaps instead make him a mage for the sake of the plot no matter the class – with “magic” abilities serving as a unique enhancements/specializations of the chosen class and usable only in dungeons/wilderness. 

Rogue, for example, gains vampirism/invisibility/variety of debuffs.
Warrior gains damage shields/revenant’s pull/crazy jumps a-la Force Jump/sword throwing/healing.
Alchemist/Archer…well, he would act more like a current mage.

Part 2: companions, NPC

In general they are great. Friendship/Rivalry system is an interesting addition too, since it allows for working relationship between characters that doesn’t boil down to adoration/mindless support. I also like that Bioware continued, despite mixed reactions, to include non-flexible, for the lack of better word, companions. By non-flexible I mean companions who have their own priorities, agendas and lives, which can be influenced but not completely changed by the PC. DA:O example was Morrigan, although Alistair had his moment too. In DA2 it is, of course, Anders.

Gift system is very nice too. I like how every gift allows different interpretations.

F/R system has one problem though. Unlike previous like/dislike systems, which were universal (i.e. could describe relationship between any two characters in a very general terms) it is not. Rivalry in DA2 is essentially a “yes, but…” relationship. Or antagonism on a common ground. The best example in the game is Carver. Yes, he is annoyed by H, overshadowed by H., but H. is still his sibling and they have a common goal: their family survival and welfare. Or, alternatively yes, H. is his sibling, H. saves their family and gets a pass into city, but H. doesn’t let Carver to make a name for himself.

But it doesn’t cover real animosity. And the funny thing is, “yes, but” relationship in the game is all too easily results in the middle of the scale, which means indifference and is actually punishes the player.

Also, there is a flaw in pacing: most of the information (conversations, quests) about companions comes only in Act 2. For example, you have absolutely no idea what is the deal with Merrill, her clan and blood magic until then, and blood magic is a big issue in the setting. Escorting a blood mage to basically defenseless alieanage elves? That’s like letting a junkie to live in a drug store but with more dead bodies.

1)Anders.
General: excellent writing, probably the second-best character. Some people say that he changed way too much since the Awakening. I say he is the only character, except siblings, who really changes in DA2. In the first act we still have traces of witty Anders from DA:A. In the second act, they are mostly gone. And then the third act and the whole doom, gloom and insanity.

Relationships with other characters: make sense and nicely demonstrate his descent into obsession. I think in Act 3 he manages to ****** off everyone but Varric.

F/R scale: somewhat tricky. Rival H. is, basically, a pro-templar person, and Anders is a fanatic, and not entirely sane one to boot. I’m not sure what common ground can exist, Anders [almost] murders young girl for agreeing with templars. On the other hand, H. is probably his only human contact who knows about Justice and still aids Anders instead of sending him to Meredith tied with a pink ribbon (I kinda miss that option, though).

2)Aveline.
General: Jaheira without druid/balance mumbo-jumbo. Genuinely strong woman without being overly clichéd/walking feministic message. And I liked her introduction.

Relationships with other characters: mostly make sense, except for Anders. Covering a murderous abomination seems like way too much for her.

F/R scale: works. Rivalry is basically clash of methods and attitudes (lawful vs. chaotic, if you wish, or snarky H. vs. serious Aveline), but Aveline and H. endured hardships together, aided each other in crucial matters (assuming Aveline is a guard-captain) and just know each other better than probably anyone. I wish there were more opportunities to annoy her, though :-).

3)Bethany.
General: nice character. Some would call her boring (no real conflict, no dark secrets, not insane) but she is a good-natured normal, despite her magic, girl. Somewhat of a center in the company of pirates, blood mages, escaped slaves, exiled princes and shady dwarves. G.W. Bethany undergoes noticeable evolution too.

Relationships with other characters: make sense.

F/R scale: family members automatically always have “yes” part. Anti-mage/thuggish H. can, understandably, provide “but” part (didn’t try).

4)Carver.
General: walking showcase of “R” part of the F/R scale. Resentment toward mages is slightly over the top. I mean, his father and two siblings are mages and no one of them became crazy blood mage and/or abomination. In DA2 that makes them either saints or two-headed cows.

Relationships with other characters: generally make sense, but shouldn’t his “mage problem” show in banters with Merrill?

5)Fenris.
General: whines too much. Without any “dark magic” many, many slaves both IRL and in game had it so much worse. And not only slaves, too. It gets especially disgusting with Hadriana: you expect to hear something really tragic, like death of a friend/lover at her hands, or tortures, or sexual abuses, but no. The guy broke his word, murdered woman (though she deserved death) and threw a huge tantrum because he was…bullied. And he actually got his lyrium markings willingly? Even competed for them? Is Fenris supposed to be a whining fool/some sort of “take that” to JRPGs? Do not take me wrong, I’m not ranting just because I don’t like this character. I don’t know what to make of him. Thing is, providing him truly horrific past would’ve been easy.

Relationships with other characters: generally make sense. Some sort of a small fight between him and Anders would’ve been nice. Both are stubborn idiots.

F/R scale: doesn’t work in certain circumstances. His sensitive issues are slavery and magic. Anti-slavery and anti-magic H. is a friend, all ok. Anti-slavery BUT pro-mage H. seems like a rival (similar ethics, but dangerously wrong application) – and yet we are closer to an indifference here. And, say, mage H. who is fine with slavery should be an enemy, not a rival, because there is no simply common ground. No “but”.

6)Isabella.

General: seems like a sadly underdeveloped character to me, currently nothing more than a walking booklet of sex jokes. She acts like a teenager. And that’s it, her defining characteristic. Whole pirate thing is merely mentioned, and it could provide an interesting dark side. You know, being pirate isn’t about bedding everything that moves. So. Much. Potential. Wasted. Why not just make her some bored noble daughter (eighteen years old [virgin] preferably)?

Relationships with other characters: make sense. Lack of position in mage/templar conflict is somewhat under explained. Pirates and sailors in general were superstitious lot.

F/R scale: didn’t try rival, didn’t bother to read wiki.

7) Merrill.
General: Aerie with an obsession and a dark side. Interesting character and a walking paradox in a setting: innocent and naïve blood mage who deals with demons. And her story provides probably the best tragedy in the game, because it stems solely from the best intentions mixed with personal flaws (low self-esteem and naivety). She loses everything she held dear not because she was selfish. Not even because she wasn’t good enough or stupid mage. Merrill was more careful in her dealing with spirits than Anders and obviously understood risks. Merrill’s attempt to sacrifice herself for knowledge backfires because Merrill didn’t, and never would, expect anyone to value her life so much. For Merrill worst-case scenario was getting possessed and then killed by her friends. Due to low self-esteem she didn’t seem to believe that killing her would really upset anyone. The only problem is that her naivety is sometimes feels exaggerated, for example, “mugging as a greeting”.

Relationships with other characters: make sense and actually provide new depth to other companions. Varric’s protectiveness, Isabella’s “big sister” side, non-whining Carver… Probably the most informative set of banters, especially when Merrill explains to Anders, after several provocations, that he is a foolish one, not she.

F/R scale: another excellent example. Rival H. is basically “Yes, we are friends. But I’m still not helping you to commit a spectacular suicide using demons, blood magic taught by demons and tainted mirror. And no, such wonderful combination just can’t possibly produce anything good no matter how skilled you are.”

8)Sebastian.
General: feels somewhat bland compared to others. And for many reasons inferior to Shale as a DLC character.
Relationships with other characters: should be much more worried about Merrill’s blood magic and Justice. And H.’s magic, if H. is a mage. For a religious figure Sebastian isn’t even open-minded – more like indifferent.

F/R scale: not sure. Common ground for rivalry is, most likely, aid from H. What happens if you don’t do his quests?

9)Varric.
General: complex, nuanced character. I’d say the best in the whole game. Sometimes ruthless, sometimes compassionate, storyteller, businessman... And believable altogether too. It is somewhat strange (or perhaps not) that this storyteller tells very little about himself.

Relationships with other characters: provide a lot of insight about the dwarf. Funny that it is Varric, not H., watches over Merrill and protects Anders from racket.

F/R scale: works. Basically same as Aveline, except Aveline’s rival is roguish H., while Varric’s rival is too brute force H.

Part 3: combat

On the bright side it is fast and responsive. Character classes feel distinct and interesting. Rogue jumps around the battlefield, taking out dangerous targets. Warrior gets in the thick of melee, butchering droves of enemies and attracting attention. Mage disables/heals/protects or just blasts everything to hell (depends on a build). All classes are interesting. Compared to D&D games (which have practically sacred status among “true RPG gamers”, the most pathetic pseudo-elitist group I’ve ever seen) where warriors and thieves were just right-click grunts DA2 is a huge progress.

Some people call combat animations unrealistically fast, but in fact it was DA:O that had unrealistically SLOW animations, especially for 2H weapons.

On the down side, in DA:O typical combat was: party faces a bunch of humans/darkspawn/whatever. Perhaps enemies were prepared (traps), but not always. Enemies have spellcaster, some archers and some melee fighters. Species have no importance, except dwarves do not get spellcasters. So tactics are always the same: disable mage first, archers second, taunt with warrior, get scattershot in the face (almost certainly), sit through it, kill everyone. Oh, reserve some stuns for things like grab/overwhelm. And keep an eye for carefully placed traps. Still, gets boring. And many imbalances, too.

In DA2 it got worse. A typical combat is droves of respawning enemies. Taunt doesn’t work due to cooldown. Sinlge-target stuns are somewhat excessive – enemies usually have no channeling disables and casting can be interrupted just by doing enough damage (hello, BG). Only enemy mages and assassins provide some need for special reaction. Again, there is no real difference between templars, darkspawns, human bandits, qunary bandits and dwarves. Only elemental resistances differ.

Possible solution: enemies already have different skills from companions. Why not give every group of enemies unique skillsets and AI to create dangerous combinations? Not necessarily through CCC, more like buffs, debuffs, disables, etc. In short, different enemies should provide different challenges and require different reactions. Player should adapt by using different skills in different encounters, by changing priority targets on the fly and by breaking enemy tactics through use of disables, focus fire, etc.
Respawning should be reserved for special cases, but individual enemies should be faster, stronger and smarter. I believe that good examples can be found in Left for Dead (didn’t play, but different enemy types + AI Director sound like good ideas), various tactical JRPG and, perhaps, strategies from Blizzard. Also, uh, Mass Effect 2.

class synergy got marginally better than in DA:O. I refer to CCC, of course. But it was, I think, a cheap, uninspired and unfinished solution. Synergy shouldn’t be represented by status effects with simple bonus to damage. I’ve spent some time playing DOTA (Warcraft 3 mod, see Demigods, League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth for standalone implementations) and one of my friends is a big fan of this genre. So, several example of synergy done right. 

1)Character A has abilities that deal massive AoE damage/long stun but require casting time. Mage can wave hands, warrior can concentrate/prepare charge/whatever. What is important is that enemies are smart enough to try to get away. So, character B steps in: he has zero-casting time but weak stun/slow. Or perhaps some sort of ability that allows manipulating opponent’s position.

A variation is heavy damage-over-time AoE.

DA2 has some forms of this synergy in Force Magic and Elemental Magic. However it is limited to mages.

2)Character A has debuff ability that makes enemies take heavy damage if they attempt to move/leave some area. Of course, most enemies except bosses, constructs and animals are smart enough to stop moving. Character B has some sort of powerful knockdown ability (Telekinetic burst, for example, currently mostly useless) that helps. Character C has Horror spell that forces enemies to run away. Character D has, hm, massive AoE damage with casting time from 1). I said “except bosses”? Yes, they have so much HP that they don’t care. So ability works as heavy damage-over-time in boss battles…if party tank doesn’t just stand there.

3)Character A has debuff ability (say, something like “Scare”). If enemy dies under its effect, nearby enemies get some debuff for free (seeing that the course of battle is indeed controlled by their opponents). As such, other characters should make certain that once this debuff is cast, affected enemy dies, preferably surrounded by many other enemies. Of course, there is one such ability already, namely spirit bomb. However, currently only Force Mage and rogue with a stun can actually manipulate enemies’ positions reliably.

4)Character A has some sort of buff, similar to Tech Armor in ME2 (damage protection->explosion). Of course, it already has two uses: saving wounded characters and turning tank with taunt into a bomb. Could be an interesting upgrade to Barrier spell.
In short, I think that class synergy should be:

a)implemented in multiple ways;

b)rely mostly on tactics, not on straight damage bonuses;

c)be inherent in most class abilities so that almost ANY combinations of builds can actually benefit from each other, not necessarily in the same degree and certainly not in the same way;

Also, I think that most usable abilities should have side effects (perhaps via upgrades) that can, with correct tactics, give them a second purpose. Current examples are spells that give target a debuff like brittle. Here some other ideas:

a)upgrade to heal that deals AoE damage/gives a debuff like “Blind” to nearby enemies/gives a buff to target (the point is, if you heal your tank mostly, you want debuff; if you heal your damage dealer you want, for example, attack speed increase);

b)upgrade to Barrier described above;

c)upgrade to telekinetic burst that allows to throw enemies in a selected direction (into an active AoE);

d)upgrade to straight damage abilities that drastically increases damage if target moves/uses spells;

e)upgrade to debuff that bestows small buff (inspiration, if you wish) on nearby party members (good for mostly melee party).

Of course, all of these ideas are somewhat tactics-oriented and require relatively intense party management and pause-mashing. Good for cooperative play through too. For single player mostly action-oriented game… not so good.

Part 4: art and animation


Mostly I’m indifferent about such things and can’t really judge. However, some small, not really significant nitpicks:
1) Exploding enemies instead of promised finishers. Would’ve been better with dismemberment and finishers/sync-kills (examples: DA:O, Dawn of War). Actually, just dismemberment in Fallout3 style+ragdolls. There is a mod that removes constant explosions.

2) Some very, very strange combat moves. For example: why does my rogue turn her back on the enemy just to stab it with both knives at the same time? Why does my mage twirl his staff like some sort of a dancer? Yes, old staff animations were boring. New ones are over-the-top and don’t make sense.

Possible solution for a mage: introduce animations based not on the “dance” of the mage himself (except in close combat), but on the energy. Already receiving end of the ranged attack cycles through different animations and depends on the element. Mage himself can be more or less immobile, but an energy “field” around the staff and his hands/head could be animated.

3) Just like in DA:O, running animation on PC make metal armor stretch and deform. I understand that it is not a simple issue, nor it is easily noticeable.

4) Female running animation is over-the-top. While it is possible to wiggle that way, I have yet to see someone do it 24x7. There is a mod that replaces female running animation with male, but it also look weird.

5)Female 2H warrior looks especially unrealistic. Lack of muscles and upper-body strength + oversized weapons. Why not scale models somewhat for warriors, increasing extremities’ radius and shoulders’ width? Or perhaps I’m too picky.

6)Darkspawns look like clowns, so much worse than in DA:O.

7)Hands of certain characters look strange, to say the least. Bethany and Merrill, for example. There is a mod that fixes it.

Generally I can understand a wish to make a unique “DA only” stylized art style, not necessarily realistic, but I think an attempt has mostly failed. There is nothing unique in oversized weapons. There is nothing worth keeping in new darkspawns or exploding enemies.

Part 5: area design

And it’s blatant, obvious reuse. Not even bothering to remove inaccessible parts from the maps. Placing ankle-level “obstacles”. The problem is painfully obvious yet I wonder why.
Rushing doesn’t seem to be an answer. I mean, most of the side quests are simple in structure. You have entrance, you have location of the objective, you have some encounters (in DA2 case that means random mobs of generic creatures, usually no carefully prepared battle location), you have some chests with more or less random loot. In short, such dungeon can easily be replaced or even generated randomly.
One team could prepare quests in the generic dungeon, including dialog, cutscenes, etc. At the same time several teams of 3D artists would produce new locations. And well, there are DA:O, DA:A and ME 1,2. Surely some locations could be “borrowed” (with retexturing, perhaps)? And if not, why on earth does the game studio use such incompatible data formats in basically very similar projects?

One possible explanation is that DA:O sold, say, N copies and it was considered an absolute top for such genre. So, the only way to maximize profits was to cut the expenses and to try to find some internal optimum. But doesn’t that mean downgrading the studio from AAA titles to niche products?

Another explanation is that TOR meets some internal deadline and all available personnel and money were needed there. The problem is, personally I see no reason why TOR would succeed. Bioware’s portfolio just doesn’t have impressive multiplayer projects with polished, bug-free, addictive game mechanics. People don’t play MMORPG for story or voiceover, AFAIK.

Of course, I don’t expect an answer.

Part 6: GUI.

On the bright side are the new mini-map, in-combat locking of the skill-bar and healing/mana potions as separate buttons. Also, “move to junk” command.
On the down side are:

1)Level-up GUI. To see skill description, or even upgrade options, I have to zoom in a specific tree. DA:O system was less flashy but more user-friendly.

2)Lack of secondary weapon sets and, hence, no fast switching. An option that was available in BG 1 and, uh, DA:O. A really useful option. For a rogue, who can switch between melee and ranged combat. For a mage, who can switch between different staffs. For a warrior, who can switch between physical and elemental damage.

3)Lack of fast party modification. Once again, it was present in DA:O.

4)Strange rating system for jewelry. Ring +4 stamina gets one star, ring +12 stamina gets four stars (numbers are approximate). Both are worthless actually and yet the second one rates on par with a powerful elemental damage booster(forgot the name).

Part 7: character development system and items.

On the bright side are upgrades and unique specializations for companions.
Problems:
1)Lack of accomplishment (not sure if it belongs here, in combat, or in area design though).

Level 1-5: you are killing darkspawns, ogre, generic humans and shadow assassins.

Level 20: mostly the same, but you have more buttons to mash (usually in the same order).

Items? Mostly the same generic swords, rings and amulets. Auto-leveling makes unique named weapons obsolete way too fast (and many user-made mods actually fix this, making unique items auto-level too).

Possible solution: well, any old-school RPG provides one. Diablo did it better. Gothic 1,2 did it better. Even vanilla Oblivion did it better, and it was free-travel sandbox unlike linear DA2. New acts need new enemies. Or visibly new equipment for old enemies to show their elite status.

Now, obviously budget was limited. But why not just split enemies among acts and plot stages? Something like:

Act 1: no demons, no shades, at most one templar fight that has like 3-4 templars who really pack a punch and their leader can be defeated only by Justice/Vengeance in a cut-scene (party goal is to survive for a given time). Battle with Arvaarad is basically four-on-four battle and very hard.
Battle with Tal-Vashoth…moved to Act 2 or remade: enemies are mostly human bandits, qunari are leaders.
Regular human enemies are wearing incomplete leather armor or rags.
Walking corpses are few and really dangerous (have higher level).
Abominations are treated like bosses, similar to mature dragon in general power (in lore these things are deadly), but with tricks/spells instead of brute power.

Act 2: No pride demons, desire/sloth come relative late and much stronger than now, Qunary and templars are regular mooks, humans come in good armor, walking corpses similar to current game. Abominations are more like rage demons in current game in strength.

Act 3: Pride demons appear. Abominations and non-pride demons become regular mooks. Basically, current game.

Also, items should be more unique. Take amulets, rings and belts in BG2: most of them were unique, useful for a long time and often had usable abilities. Crafting armor/weapons from components wouldn’t hurt as well. An option to “reforge” an existing item to improve it (similar to “improves with level-up” items) would be nice too.

2)Blood magic. Once again, wasted potential. In the setting it is dangerous, forbidden, powerful, vaguely demonic school that provides mind-control, necromancy and summoning of demons. Only demons can teach it and only for a price, according to Anders. In the game it is just another little mostly useless skill tree that can be learned just like any other specialization (i.e. effortlessly) and allows controlling one guy in combat for like ten seconds. Oh, and it allows to use HP instead of MP but your character needs high willpower for armor anyway. And no one even notices that H. uses it. Not Fenris, not Anders, not Aveline.

In short, the in-game blood magic has almost nothing in common with the blood magic in lore and cut-scenes. It would’ve been better to remove it or, perhaps, transform to plot-only power similar to the spirit-binding in Jade Empire. With consequences.


What to replace it with? Well, there are currently crowd-control and support specializations. Logical addition is a DPS specialization, either AoE or single-target. Perhaps melee/self-defense specialization (shape-shifting/arcane warrior). Perhaps something similar to Anders’ Vengeance tree (lower cooldowns + damage bonus to all spells/resistances bypass + passive bonuses on kills).

3)Lack of a second good specialization for an archer. Assassin is godly. Duelist mostly useless. Shadow isn’t bad but suits DW rogue better.

4)Warrior has 2 DPS specs (reaver, berserker) and no tank specialization.

Part 8: dialogue system

Some people bash it mercilessly, but to me it was a major improvement. Thing is, old school-style (fully written variants) is very, very limiting in a game with facial animations and voiced protagonist. Pure text generally cannot fully describe a conversation. Absolutely the same phrase, depending on a tone and mimics, can be a compliment, an insult or a joke. That’s why smiles are widely used in text-messaging. And dialogue wheel is essentially compressed text + a tone-defining smile. Full text of a response wouldn’t hurt, sure. Wouldn’t really matter too, because conversation options are more like milestones, not every phrase of a PC in a conversation can be explicitly chosen. It was the same in older games too.

And the choice of a “personality” was simply brilliant. My favorite so far is a snarky female. Best protagonist in any game I’ve played.

Side note: I’ve seen people expressing opinion that associating themselves with a fully voiced protagonist is harder. Perhaps it is so. I really cannot say because I’ve never associated protagonist with myself. For me it is either a story/world exploration tool, sort of a large animated mouse cursor, if no personality is predefined (BG2, Fallout), or just another character in a story (DA2, ME).
Second approach seems more interesting and it certainly works for people in many other games: see most action games, strategy games with a plot, Witcher, JRPGs. It is also makes producing convoluted plots easier. I mean, only “save-the-world-again” plot works for most possible characters/alignments. And even then Stupid Evil “kill-em-all” thugs are tragically left behind.

Part 9: Crafting

Way too limited, too late and not balanced.
Armor runes? Until Act III that’s runes of protection, almost always. Unless on a second playthrough (and how many players actually replay the game?) you have no idea resistance to what you will need in a next quest. You want to give players an opportunity to improve elemental resistances? That’s what potions are for. Just like it was before DA2.

Currently armor runes are one of the few ways to customize companions. As such, they should have more variety. At the very least such things as every possible jewelry bonus (attack, attack speed, stat bonus, blood magic bonus, etc) should be available in the Act II. GUI and whole concept could probably resemble enchantment in TES. More resources=more effective runes.

Weapon runes are pretty bland (mostly just damage bonus). Things like vampirism, AoE damage, threat generation would add some spice. In fact, there is a mod on dragonagenexus.com that provides more runes already.

Potions, grenades and poisons are OK. Would’ve been nice to have (elemental resistance) potion packs: a single command applies potions to the whole party.

Part 10: Conclusion

DA2 is a good game, obviously rushed and under-financed though. Either future huge failure (SW:TOR) drained resources or some high-ranked financial genius with zero knowledge about game development decided that time/expenses can be cut in half without sacrificing quality.

Comparison to huge improvements in Mass Effect -> ME2 makes DA2 no favor.
Story could use more choices, more active H.’s stance, generally, more of that “Rise to power” thing. Currently after Act I the plot isn’t really affected by H.’s actions, either player-controlled or inevitable.
GUI, combat and equipment aren’t really bad but could use some polish too. Isabella and Sebastian seem to be lacking compared to other companions.
While cutscenes and personally-dependent voiceover are good additions, don’t take me wrong, it feels like these parts of DA2 cannibalized everything else while it should’ve been, in my opinion, the opposite. The money and time, if severely limited, should’ve been used to improve a game (more maps, more enemies, better battles, more loot), instead of making even more cutscenes and voiceover.

Best things: writing and story. I’ve played every PC RPG from Bioware since BG 1, enjoyed all of them, and there is an obvious progress. Mostly I am glad that Bioware isn’t afraid to experiment. Compared to, say, KOTOR or NWN 1 DA2 is much more personal, tragic and less black-and-white. It holds a big promise for future titles, not necessary in the DA setting.

Worst things: area recycling, repetitive combat, lack of choices and general lack of attention to details and actual gameplay. And ton of bugs in 1.0. There is a painful similarity between DA 2 and KOTOR 2. Also, was DA2 an attempt to attract people who prefer action-rpg genre? Because if so then almost everything was done wrong, I think.

Best way to solve game problems: DA2: Enhanced Edition. I realize that instead this game will receive couple of patches, couple of DLCs with reused areas, couple of DLCs with new clothes for companions and will be called “a financial success”.

Strange thing 1: a lot of complaints on the forums about some “gay content”. By the liberal, “politically correct” standards I’m a so-called “homophobe” (because placing vaguely insulting and misleading labels is the only truly liberal way of discussion), and I’ve seen nothing wrong in DA2. Yeah, Anders makes a brief single non-violent advance (more like a compliment, actually). Couple of lines among many thousands. That sort of things happens IRL, you know. And the game is rated “M”. And compared to what Anders does later…

There are far more disturbing scenes in Bioware games, DA2 in particular. In what kind of a twisted mindset seeing a gay is worse than seeing a murder or rape attempt? Or broodmother?

Strange thing 2: I’ve read that Bioware wanted to make a better selling game than DA:O. How could anyone among its managers think that such goal could’ve been accomplished by rushing, sacrificing quality, neglecting core gameplay and generally putting less, not more effort in the game? Action games/party-based RPG games both require exciting, varying combat. DA2 doesn’t have it. Flashy animations are not enough to make combat truly good.

Little obnoxious advice for developers: check mods, especially highly endorsed ones on dragonagenexus.com. I’m not saying that ALL highly rated mods should be used as a guidelines, but I’d pay attention to recurring themes. Currently that seems to be:
 new/modified textures for PC, NPCs and terrain;
 auto-leveling and rune slots for most of the unique items;
 enhanced unique weapons for party members.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 28 mai 2011 - 04:50 .

[Angela1027]

Now that I've played the game for a while, I think I can give a better assessment of the pros and cons without emotional comparisons to DA:O.

COMPANIONS
This is the major reason I play Bioware games.  Overall, the companions seem more real and independant--like they have lives outside of when you call on them to help battle a dragon.   It seems like they were lovingly crafted.  At the same time, I kept wishing Hawke could have had a deeper relationship with them.

The 'lovingly crafted' bits come through the art design of the companions.  I eventually came around to the idea that they had their own, unique armor.   It was always a let-down to view these great concept drawings of companions, only to see them become so vanilla in the game (I'm looking at you Zevran).  I understand some people's complaints about not having control of the armor, but maybe there's a compromise that could be made?  Maybe let the companions actually wear the armor they buy or loot, but give the player the choice of whether or not the look of the armor changes?  Kinda like the 'hide helmet' interface choice you can make for Hawke?

I loved that companions could become participants in your conversations with NPC's by adding their own comments and quesions or even by helping out  (e.g. Anders testing to see if a templar was possessed).  Again, upped the reality and independent nature of the companions.  Some of this was done in DA:O, but it was done with greater frequency and depth in DA:2

Companion quests were more involved and were interwoven into the story better.  With the exception of Alistair and Morrigan, the companion quests in DA:O were short, one-shots that had "this is a companion quest!" stamped all over it.  DA:2's companion quests were multilayered and evolved as the years passed.

Now for the companion cons...
Most of the 'remoteness' of the companions stems from the fact that you can't talk to them whenever you want.  This is not a small point.  Almost all the intereactions with your companions in DA:2 seem plot-driven.  Plus, you have to go to their home base to talk to them.  Totally unreal.   This also means that your conversations are always limited to the subjects the companions initiate--and almost always involve a quest (if they don't involve an actual quest, the conversations are so short, you wonder why you bothered waiting through a loading screen to go to their home).   If you try to click on them when it's not the right time, you just get them speaking a canned phrase.  I appreciate the depth of some of these conversations--the writing and acting were well done, but unless they want to talk about it, you can't even ask them a bloody thing about certain subjects.  For most of the companions, Hawke didn't have a clue about their basic backgrounds.  How did Anders first notice his magic abilities and how did the Templars find out?  We learn in DA:O that Isabela is a widow, but we learn nothing more about her in DA:2--only that she has a two-track mind (sex and ships).  If you've known someone over a span of ten years (or even just a year), eventually, you will have a conversation about their past, their likes and dislikes.  The option to have these conversations is gone. 
The plot-driven conversations also made the companions seem one-dimensional.  OK, I get that Anders is anti-templar and pro-mage, but does every single converstaion have to revolve around it?  Fenris has issues with his slave-past and mages, but can't he ever talk about anything else? I. get. it.  and  I. got. tired. of. it.
I miss conversations about lamposts, and cookies and stories about witches and escapes from failed assasination attemps.

You have these great, interesting, fascinating characters, but they seem so remote--like you're watching a movie instead of
playing an RPG.

Personal aside:  why did Bioware make Anders into such an ass?  Next to Alistair, he was my favorite character in the Dragon Age world.  I'm fine with the dev's decision for him to destroy the chantry.  I'm fine with him merging with Justice.  But he's just so unpleasant to be around if you take him into your party.  He's rude to everyone and his party banter is so off-putting sometimes that I find it easier not to bring him along anywhere. I don't even  recall Justice ever being that obnoxious in DA:A.   Made me sad to see a character I liked so much turn out to be so awful.

AH...L'AMOUR
The ten year span didn't seem to add much in the romance as I thought I would.   There seemed to be a lack of development of emotional attachment.  I keep thinking back to the Alistair romance.  It seemed to develop in a really natural way--starting with small references that Alistair made about the Warden being attractive, then to flirting and gifts, culminating with a final declaration of love (with all the goofy, charming and nervous Alistair moments in between).  In DA:2's first act, Hawke has maybe two conversations with the LI, three years pass, and then they're jumping her bones.  In some ways, this disjointedness felt more believable with the Fenris rivalmance, but the Anders romance suffered for it.   Again, I think much of the problem has to do with the lack of being able to inititate conversations.  We don't get enough conversations between Act I and II with the LI to build a solid foundation for a believeable romance.
Also, it didn't annoy me as much with the other companions and NPCs, but having Anders just standing there in Hawke's home in Act III with the same line over and over again when you click on him was really off-putting.  Couldn't the devs have him doing something while staying in the masion?  He just looks like a prop or a piece of the decor.  (same comment for Hawke's mother and the elf servant).  Bethesda's Oblivion has NPCs that actually do things (sleeping when it's dark, working during the day, etc).  Since he's all about his manifesto, Anders could have been at a desk busily writing away when you see him in the mansion.

COMBAT
Mike Laidlaw said that when you push a button, something awesome would happen.  For the most part, he's right.  I like the faster speed of battles.  I also like the animations.  Mages look like elegant dancers, and backstabs are exciting.  Cross combos are fun (though I find I only really make use of the Stagger/chain lighting combo).
There's waaay too much blood and gore whenever an enemy dies.  I can see this for some spactacular critical hit, but to see an enemy burst into a mess of limbs and bones for a simple hit with a mage staff is silly.
The cut scenes of Hawke killing of an especially tough boss seemed awkward (esp. if Hawke was dead at the time) and stopped the fast pace of the battle.  I much prefer the finishing moves (killing the ogre at the tower or the high dragon dying sequence) in DA:O.  These were much more exciting while still keeping you in the thick of the battle. 

SETTING and GRAPHICS
Overall an improvment from DA:O.  Areas have a particular ambience about them now.  I thought the story would be about the Free Marches--but it's just
Kirkwall and the surrounding area.  It felt a bit claustraphobic at
times.  I wish there'd been more to explore.
It's been said a billion times - rehashing of areas is baaaad. 
I like that the elves are distinct in appearance from humans.  I'm even okay with the redesign--i just wish the majority of them didn't look like fish.  Fenris and Merrill are quite attractive, so I know it must be possible to make 'average' looking elves without making them look like they have genetic defects.

STORY
I liked that there was no GREAT EVIL that had to be destroyed.  In some ways, the story seemed more intricately woven than DA:O.  DA:O's plot seemed a bit formulaic: to fight the blight, get the help of 4 factions, each of which has problem of it's own you must deal with before they will help you.  In DA:2, you didn't have that formula, so you didn't know quite where the story would be going, and that made it interesting. 
Theone thing that really bugged me about this game revolving around the mage issue is that I can play a mage, and do magic right in front of people, (and, in once instance, right in front of Cullen), and no one says anything about it.  Huh?  Fenris notices Hawke is a mage after she helps him, but Templar Cullen cannot?  Such a big deal is made about apostates in the game, yet nothing ever happens to Hawke in Acts I and II. 

Anders exploding the chantry was a great OMG moment.  And the battles after were exciting (though I was dissapointed that just about every mage in the game turned to blood magic).  The disapointments were the two boss battles with Orsino and Meredith.  Orsino because it made no sense. If you sided with the mages, they were winning.  Orsino's reasoning for turning to blood magic was poor, and felt like an obvious way to get two symmetrical (one for the mage side and one for the templar side) boss battles in the game.
Meredith's battle was initially interesting, but as soon as she made that fifty foot back flip into the air and then animated the statues in the courtyard, I actually laughed out loud.  It was cheesy, and not scary or intense or dramatic.  And then added to that, having Zevran, Nathaniel and everything but the kitchen sink suddenly coming out of the woodwork to help you just made it funnier.  It just didn't have the intensity of the battle with the archdemon.

Okay, I've spent a number of paragraphs criticizing the game, but in all it was pretty fun to play, and there were some moments that exceeded DA:O in emotional intensity or interesting plot.  And after Mike Laidlaw's recent post about listening to the fans and hopes for DA:3, I eagerly await the next installment.

[armonistan]

Nameless2345 wrote...

-snip-

Wow...just wow. Incredible. Put my review to shame. I would just like to say great job and +1.

[DialupToaster]

I was wondering... Would it be at all lore frindly to have a combo like class? Sort of like in mass effect 2 you had characters with abilities that are the same but with a unique ability? A mage using a sword and armor to better protect against templars/be desguised and I do not mean arcane warriors I mean an actual mix of classes. A warrior with a lighter build, a rogue warrior combo?


Pros. VOICE ACTING!!!!!!    Gifts with meaning. Boss fight was breathtaking. Rogue was greatly inproved. The wave system I actually enjoyed, I had to changed tactics instead of rush in and kill/drop and AOE and laugh at the fools as the are frozen, burnt, and shocked to death. I liked that conversations had more meaning then "you agree with everything I say, I you so much now" +50 approval or "you did not kill that bandit back there but instead let him live" -100 appoval "you are evil and mean" (So and so has left the party.) The bloodmage class was greatly improved and more usable. I am happy you got rid of the almost slow motion attack movements in the original.

Cons. I feel a little unhappy about the lack of conversations you can have with your followers. I wish your hawke could actually intimidate/persuade people instead of relying onPartymembers. The warriors lacked on demand abilities as a sword and shield and most just were to get people to attack you, Fenris as the damage dealer only ever had sustained for example. For some odd reason Aveline never could get anyone to attack her because she did to little damage, the Arishock battle when fighting in a group battle some enemies seemed to just stand there and not attack until attacked (for example the Arishock stood there and whatched his men get cut down. If I click on they characters portraits it highlights them instead of switching to them, then when I try to use offensive abilities it tries to use it on them (sorry starting to get into bugs but I thought I should mention them.) Alot of the main quests had almost no meaning to the main story and some side quest should have been main quests. Why are the enemies still using the first games attack animations?

Things I can't fault you for: Was a little unhappy about the reused places, I noticed that I was going to the same place however so it made sense. The problem is that you used the same map in places completely different, it is like Mass Effect 1 all over again except this time it affects the maine quests! The tactical view is gone but I never really used it because I felt it so hard to see what I wanted to see with it.


I have the complete respect for you guys and I am happy you are trying new things, even if others don't like the change. JUST DON"T DISAPPOINT US ON MASS EFFECT THREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mirthadrond]

Loved the game:  Give it a 8 out of 10 stars. 

Not as good as DA origins, however.

Things I didn't like:

1:  Gibbing.  I'm mean seriously?  Exploding bodies?  Yes, i can understand this 'sometimes' especially with some magical attacks, and such, but when a dual blade or sword turns a darkspawn into gibblets, I think 'over kill'.  Trying to appeal to the console games kiddies to much???

I much rather prefered the finishing moves from DA O..  The occassional decapitation, or impalment were cool, and not too frequent as to be annoying.

2:  No companion customization.   Yes, I understand it can get overwhelming for some people to outfit themselves AND their companions, but some of us traditional RPG'rs like having that much control.  I found all this cool loot and weapons, and armor and such that only I could use???

3:  Still no exploration.  We want a more open world.  Think 'Oblivion'.

4:  Not as 'Epic' of a story as DA:O.  Ya I know... hard to beat DA:O, but...   resorting to the 'Anders gone crazy' ending was a little disappointing.  I'm not even sure his action would cause the type of chaos in Thedas the game implies.

I would have liked an ALTERNATE ending or circumstance, other than "Anders gone Crazy", based on player decisions.   All in all, I did not feel that my decisions in game, had as much impact on the world around me as they did in DA:O.

5:  WTH???   No music during the credits??  Way to kill the mood....

6:  Reusing the same map for different missions....  lame.  Likely why the world felt so much smaller.

7:  Seemed like you took a turn towards RPG lite, and I think most of the DA fans would have prefered a more open living breathing world instead.
Don't get me wrong, it's still fun to play, but I think 'other' titles out there are going to outshine this series, which is a shame.


Things I did like.

Graphics looked nice.  Characters were interesting.  The conversation wheel, the personality stamp for our characters and VO's were great.

PS:  Forgot to add:  The MAGE combat effects and animations were a HUGE improvement!!!  I actually loved playing a mage this time around.

Modifié par Mirthadrond, 30 mai 2011 - 02:15 .

[Tommy6860]

Nameless2345 wrote...

<snipped>

All I can say is WOW!

That was very well written and comprehensive. Even if it is long, I would say that it was worth the read. I may disagree on a few points, but your thoughts and ideas are very convincing. Your English is fine by the way.
:wizard:

Modifié par Tommy6860, 30 mai 2011 - 04:33 .

[Shastadog]

I thought a great game, played through 3 times.
Thought the beginning was tedious, didn't like the recycled areas, and hoped for a little more variety of outcomes. great summation Nameless2345, and enflish better than mine

Some of the lengthy battles were very tedious and didn't add much to the game.

Pretty good companion characters I thought and overall a great game.

[Ileanos07]

Ok Il keep it simple . And please forgive my bad english - I am not native speaker nor did I learned english in school.
Liked: 
Feeling from combat - it was intense and fun. In intensity better than DA1 - in depth little worse.
Skill tree - Nice change from DA:O - more choices. I liked it.
Storytelling techniques - Flashbacks? Time jumping - very nice.
Dont liked:
Story - Boring and not interesting... I really didnt dig into the story and my friends had the same problem. Yes, DA:O was uninventional but the story was so much better crafted.
Dialogues - Terrible. One word says everything. I was giggling half the game. For example Witcher 2 pull out nice and believable dialogues. DA 2 is just crazy.
Characters - Except Varric and to some extend Aveline I hated every character in the game. Why is everyone so dull and 2D? No depth in them. Everyone is just one archetype of character.
Romances - Everyone is bisexual who is hitting on me no matter the gender... Sorry but this was very anoying in the game. Especialy parts when you cant refuse them without loosing respect.
"Real choices" - Before release there were a lot of information about real choices and their influence on the game world. Reality is... The city wont change during the game and few choices isnt real choices. Everything will end the same way. Just a little differences (once again - look at Witcher 2).
Recyclation of everything - dont need anything to add.

Neutral:
Voice acting - some voices were good but overall it was worse than Mass Effect 1 and 2 (I think this is better comparison than to DA:O)

Overall: I would give DA II 6/10. While it is nicely crafted game it dont have good story, characters and so on... It is just soulless game. From creators of DA:O, ME series, BG series I expected a lot more. We all know that Bioware is great company and I still love them (just for the endless night with BG  ), but they should think about their work on DA II. For example I pre-ordered the game as soon as it was possible, I have every Bioware tittle since BG I. in my shelf, I am real fan. But I will be really considering if I buy DA III. I just hope that ME3 wont suffer the same fate... Yet still there is hope - just give your games more time, do them with love again .

// It wasnt that simple I see...

Modifié par Ileanos07, 30 mai 2011 - 02:45 .

[Thursnextus]

Well, I've just finished this game. so time to add my opinions to the pot ... NB SPOLIERS ALERT! (and spelling / typo apologies ...)

Likes -

- It's Dragon Age! Flemeth, Zevran, Templars, Mages ... it's all back. Even the Deep Roads got a small smile. The Mass Effect Voice Acting is good. Also as someone who's 'hearing impaired' I like the subtitles. Very helpful indeed.

Neutral

- Graphics - brighter and clearer. Kirkwall looked good. Particle effects clearly impressively used - e.g. the soot from the factories. The blood effects seemed to work, or at least not be completely off putting. But huge problems remained in the recycled locations (concrete doors??) which broke the immersion. The two handed swords were stupid and completely at odds with any attempt at realism. As were exploding mobs.

- Combat - different enough to be interesting.
On occasion worked well. (Final boss fight being one example - imo) but more often than not parachuting enemies / random spawns destroyed  tactical positioning. It also broke immersion.

- Difficulty. By preference I liked 'hard' as this allowed for some good tactics. I killed Meredith on this setting and frankly enjoyed it. It was a well structed, (slightly 'Ahn'Qiraj' type), fight. But in order to get past some sections I had to turn the difficulty down just to get through.  It arced all over the place. Very odd.

Dislikes

- The story - just enough to keep me playing but edged into dislike by the end. An unusual framed narrative, one shocking moment (Hawke's mother dying), but no where near as good as DAO. For simplicity lets split this into (1) side quests and (2) the main plot / ending. 

(1) Side Quests
This is where DAO excells.  DAO has an arrow straight aim (kill the Archdemon), but allows multiple other choices. Who will be the Dwarf King? What will happen to Andraste's ashes? The game ending plays this out in cinematic style and begs a repay ... I played a whole game again mainly so pilgrims could visit that damn urn as I forgot about killing the dragon first time round. Also I wanted another king, to save Alistair, etc.That is, the ending may be the same (the Archdemon dies) but all the extra bits can and do change. 
In Dragon Age II we have a similar non-negotiable ending (start a war) which is part hidden from the player by using a framed narrative.  Fair enough.
But then the side plots either fail miserably, are pointless, or have little or no major consequence. The only thing that is referred to by Varick at the end is the romance. That's it? I cleaned out a mine three damn times, got given it, and never heard about it again? Even when I did hear about side quests I got letters that often felt the need to remind me who was writing.Even the game writers seemed to know they were unmemorable.
Some parts made no sense what so ever. e.g. I find a spoon. I walk in Kirkwall and find a random character. 'I believe you were looking for this?' I get money. What??? Am I now a hero of lost and found?
Companion quests were acceptable enough but there never seemd to be any huge consequence or possibility of trying something else.

(2) Main plot
In DAII the main game point (side with mages / Templars) seems artificial or morally repugnant and crassly handled. DAO - kill a demon that threatens the world. Easy choice, just about everyone can get behind that. DAII has to end in a Mage / Templar war. OK. But for some weird reason the game only offers two ways of achieiving this. Side with mages who are a walking advert for tranquility ,(nearly every single one is a blood mage, they kill Hawke's mother, and there seems to be more demons than people), or side with the Templars (who are quite happy killing innocents, make mages tranquil to make a point, and are led by a power-crazed, lyrium-addled, magical harpy). What about offering the player the chance to assassinate Meredith or Orsino in an effort to avoid full on conflict, involving the Qunari or simply setting sail with Isabella and leaving the whole city to stew in its own corruption. All these could have triggered the war the narrative demanded but also - more importantly - given the player the illusion of choice and encouraged another play through.
As a player I felt cheated and felt the designers hand on my shoulder - ('you shall cause a war by publicly siding with a faction' ) . Even if the key narrative / gameplay decision was there has to be a war, it effectively forces the player to make a public decision  into doing something they maybe don't want to do. In the end I sided with the mages - my reason? I needed the mass murdering Anders to heal my party. Not good. This above all else leaves a sour taste in my mouth at the end of the game. By all means create a mage / templar war and have the sequal looking for the Champion / Morrigan, (if that's whatr its going to be), but at leats make me feel as if I have some choice in how I get there. Don't 'force my hand'.

Most importantly, I don't think I'll play it again. I see little point.

Will I buy DAIII? Very likely, yes. I've invested too much in the world, but please Bioware, at least give me the illusion of making choices that have some effect.

Modifié par Thursnextus, 30 mai 2011 - 09:03 .

[Zeevico]

Overall review.
1. I tired of the absurd combat system mid-way or at the beginning of Act III. I can only describe it as boring and poorly designed. At that point I switched it from nightmare to casual. Not because the combat was unbeatable. It was just boring. The reason has been said many times before. Wave-based combat. The same enemies over and over again. As there is no prospect, to my mind, of the combat system being improved in the DLCs or expansions, I see no reason to buy them as yet. Reviews will have to strongly praise an improved combat system for me to reconsider. I fear this is the beginning of the end of the franchise, or at any rate, my interest in the franchise. Disappointing, given that I quite liked DAO. The sheer lack of chalenge makes me want to play BG2 again.
2. The story felt pulled along. It was the story of the Champion, but there is, in the end, only one such story that we see. Having switched the combat to casual, I breezed through the story. I cannot say it was spectacular. I can hardly say I would play it again. Act III is such a disappointment.
3. After the hundredth time you attack a skeleton archer, you can only conclude that the game was rushed.
4. I very much doubt that Bioware can get away from the design philosphy it espoused for the original campaign in any DLCs or expansions. I very much doubt that it will stop throwing money away on unnecessary voice acting and cinematics, and start putting more money into designing a game with interesting battles, combat and tactics--along with more dialogue and choices. Who honestly thought this game was better was Mekel and his brother had a voice actor to each of them? I mean, really?
4. I play games, Bioware. I don't play movies. Don 't have the money to make a movie with a game? Then just make a game.
5. Abandon the framed narrative structure. It destroys agency.
6. I'd give this game a 6.5/10. Sometimes enjoyable, but often barely playable (and re: the dullness of Act III).
7. To all the devs, I say this genuinely: thank you for trying to make a good game. To my mind, however, you didn't pull it off.

[Wunderwolfer]

I really enjoyed playing DA2. Things I liked about the game:  The characters, especially Varric, Isabella, Merrill and Aveline (I could listen to their discussions all day) and I really like the way that they didn't always do what you told them to do i.e. Isabella at the end of the second act and Anders at the end (I was literally open mouthed in shock followed by shouting profanities at the television). I'd love more converstations with my companions both between themselves and with Hawke, I found talking with them really enjoyable and sometimes very funny.

I loved the extra combat tactic slots and the skill trees, it really got me into managing my party rather than using the default settings as in Origins.The battles also felt much more streamlined than DAO and the characters also felt a lot more powerful especially the Mages and Tanks. I also liked the addition of a stash box because it meant that I could keep armour, weapons and runes that I knew my character could use later in the game without my inventory becoming full when I'm on a quest. 

I really liked Hawke as a character. I loved the new converstation wheel, and the fact that the Protagonist now has a voice made the converstations much more engaging and interesting. It would have been nice to have been able to choose the race of Hawke i.e. Elf, Human or Dwarf but it wasn't a major disappointment for me.

The things that I didn't like about the game have been said by others such as the overused maps, the lack of armour customisation for the NPCs etc etc. There were a few other things as well such as the lack of a central base for the NPCs (running round Kirkwall to talk to them all got a little aggrevating) and not being able to change their weapons and level them all up at the time was annoying. 

While playing the DA2 I definately thought that the DAO main storyline was better. In fact I found the NPC quests in DA2 much more interesting because it had such an impact on their lives and Hawke's relationship with them (especially loved the funny quests such as Aveline's The long road) . It wasn't really until I finished the game that I realised how good the main plot was and I'm really itching to see what has happened to Thedas because of Hawke's decisions. I can see that Dragon age is about pivitol figures in Thedas history, the grey warden in DAO and Hawke in DA2. I'm really not sure whether I want DA3 to be a coninuation of Hawke's story with him/her as the protagonist, the person trying to find Hawke or just a Mage or Templar during the uprise. I think that any of these will be really ineteresting and I can't wait for DA3.

Modifié par Wunderwolfer, 02 juin 2011 - 03:33 .

[Neowiz]

 All right people. These are some things I honestly don't like about Dragon Age II.

-The fact that some characters from Origins appears just for some minutes to make people like the game. Those characters doesn't have any participation in the champion's story.

-The Eluvian Mirror and Merril. Remember the questions the DLC "Wicht Hunt" left instead of giving answers? It could be more explained in Merril's quest. 

-Morrigan story, hope this is explained in the future. The DLC Wicht didn't explain anything.

-Less options to choice and modify the story.

-No race choice.

-The sex scenes. If you will add sex scenes in the game, make sure it is a real good scene, otherwise don't put it on it. This was suppose it is a Mature game, kids from 13 years old already have seen this kinda stuffs. It's on TV at all time. Most of the fans here are probably mature and adult. 

Things I liked:

-The combat system, probably many people said they didn't like it. For me I loved it! I mean, it can be a real nice RPG and I hope in the future they make it similar to Origins, but they could implement that bloody action fast fight combat system. It makes the game a little bit more interesting and fun to play.

-The overslap story. Why do I like this? Because this gives us a possibility to have some answers from Dragon Age Origins in the future.

Hope guys take note of this.

By the way, I cannot say I didn't like the game, honestly I played and liked it... But it isn't at the same level as Origins.

PS: The soundtrack compositor is the same from Dragon Age Origins? I miss those instrumental soundtracks with soft female voice on the background.

[embrace eternity]

Compare and Contrast Dragon Age Origins (inc Awakenings) with Dragon Age 2

WINNERS:
• The Mirror of Redemption (not its real name) in the Black Emporium (DA2).
The pre-release DAO character creator was OK as far as it’s gamma settings were concerned, but both DAO and DA2 have such a low gamma setting on the “in game” character creators that it is hard to distinguish just exactly which color tints you will end up with in the game.
With the Mirror we can make adjustments as necessary and redeem our character without having to start over again from the beginning. We can also use the Mirror to “age” our character (making hair style changes etc) over the ten year period in which the story takes place.
• The Mass Effect style “voiced PC” dialog box is definitely a huge improvement in DA2
• Character movement and combat animation was timelier in DA2
• Voice acting and story line quality was superb in both DAO and DA2

LOSERS:
• The Art work continuity (look and feel) between DAO and DA2 was definitely inferior to the Art work continuity between ME and ME2
• The elimination of “tinkering” with armor and equipment was sure to upset Dragon Age purists who like playing with the game within the game; a better choice might have been DA2 dialog box and combat structure with a DAO Inventory control.
• Not being able to use the game’s signature move as an in-game useable power, that being: “pulling an Ogre in half by hand” ala the collapsible prison power.


All things considered I am a ME fan that prefers DA not only because of its more robust character creator and Modder friendly programming structure, but specifically because I am more comfortable with “the Mouse & Pause button” game-play than I am with “WASD and Mouse” gaming. Looking forward to DA3.

[geoffsbg]

Things I liked:

1. Some of the companion side quests are great - namely Varrics and Avelines. And I love that your companions have their own homes you can visit. This aspect has always been where Bioware games shine the brightest, and DA2's strongest writing elements come out when you're interactinng with companions.

2. I actually like the dialogue wheel with symbols and all, and I'm pretty fond of hearing my character's voice.

3. Some of the music and scenery is very stunning.

4. I like the new crafting system; I wasn't a fan of collecting dozens of frost rocks and elf roots in DA:O.

5. I like the friendship/rivalry concept; it could use some touching up, but it's a good idea to offer bonuses at either end of the spectrum, so you can feel free to ****** off your companions if it suits your character.  DA:O was sort of lame in that way - I'd purposefully swap out party members at certain points to avoid taking a hit to their loyalty.

Things that bother me:

1. Even though I listed companion interactions as a major plus, it still comes up short in this department compared to DA:O. The romances are more awkward and generally lack depth, and same with the friendships. There were way more conversations you could have in DA:O, and they were more memorable.

2. The story is basically set and your decisions have very few meaningful consequences. This is particularly bad with the end game. I played DA:O through to the end at least 8 or 9 times just to see how different a game it could be based on your role playing. I'll probably play DA2 with 2 or 3 characters, just to explore the gameplay elements, but not for the story, and I doubt I'll finish the game more than once.

3. Why must EVERY fight in the entire game be an ambush with waves of enemies literally just falling from the sky or rising out the ground? How can you tactically place your party when enemies constantly spawn anywhere they want?  And the tactics you assign just don't seem to work most of the time anyway, so pretty much every battle turns into a chaotic mess.

4. Why must everyone you kill explode into blood and weird mannequin parts?

5. Making the player run across the room to open a barrel to get a moth eaten scarf nullifies the coolness of the more streamlined crafting system. 

6. Why don't I care at all about my family in this game? DA:O openings were so moving, especially the human noble and elf alienage stories. DA2 isn't nearly as compelling or moving.

7. The same can be said about the storyline in general for the two games. Not only is DA2 less compelling, but its just simply implausible and full of major inconsitencies and gaps in logic.

8. Some of the combat AI doesn't make sense - the mages putting up barriers right at the start of a fight, for example.  In DA:O it was one of my favorite tactics to put up barriers around ENEMY mages right at the start, and now they do it for me for some odd reason.  

9. The Rogue class as a whole needs work.  Rogues aren't mages, they shouldn't be able to teleport or vanish right in front of you, or rain down a hail storm of arrows across the battlefield that rivals any mage spell in terms of damage.  Having someone who can make and disarm traps, dodge well, and perform strong flanking attacks is good enough, and there's plenty of ways to explore those strengths further to keep rogues interesting without making them defy physics in crazy non-magical ways.

Final analysis: its still a great game on the whole, but comes up short in every meaningful area compared to its predecessor. The areas that it improves on aren't the right areas and don't add depth or replayability to the game, but rather seriously detract from both.

Bioware, you guys know what you do well, and what we like - we like the rich stories, and memorable character interactions, and the sense that you're actually affecting both with your decisions in the game. Please dont sacrifice those things for a more streamlined game that tries to please everyone across all gaming genres. Respect your core fan base above all else.

EDIT:  added a few more things, and trimmed out some stuff.

Modifié par geoffsbg, 04 juin 2011 - 06:06 .

[Neowiz]

Yeah... That thing about choosing some little phrases from the wheel, like 3 or 4 words that expalins everything does not give a huge pack of interaction and conversation.

Both Dragon Age Origins and II, they are very lined. You have a location and you have to go there do a mission following a prescripted route. I don't know if I can name another game here, but how awesome it could be if the game were ambiented into sandbox gameplay.

Make the game more deep and not hack and slash action role play. Honestly Dragon Age, this is not your style, If i want to play an action RPG with awesome story I rather prefer Demon's Souls.

I play Dragon Age because of the choices, full and rich story and dialogue, and the possibilites of making decisions. Dragon Age II does not bring this.

[randomcheeses]

Liked the game.

But I really, really miss item descriptions. They were cool. The weapons in DA2 were boring without the descriptions and info. Also the rating system for equipment is incredibly frustrating. It would be nice tobe able to equip all possible party members at one like you could at the camp in origins.

[andar91]

Now that I've finished the game, I can finally give my full feedback.

I enjoyed DA2, but there were problems with it. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd probably say a 7.

VISUALS: Visually, the game was much more interesting than Origins, although I'm not overly fond of the darkspawn (but I can live with it) or the barefooted elves (I hate that). The environments were much better designed, but the repeated use of them was a problem for me.

STORY: The plot was the weakest part of the game for me. However, I tend to view a game's story as split into two different categories: characters and plot. I think that the character writing, overall, was at least as good as Origins'. My only complaint about that was that there didn't seem to be very much of it; maybe that's because you couldn't initiate dialogue when you wanted or there was simply less than Origins had, but I wish we would have had more chances to interact with our companions.

The plot, however, was very weak when held up next to Origins' plot. First of all, I will say that I applaud Bioware for being brave and taking the risk of trying new things; it's necessary for growth and learning. That being said, a lot of those new things did not work. The framed narrative, in and of itself, wasn't such a bad idea, but it's implementation ruined the plot (in my opinion). The three act structure left a very bad taste in my mouth, as I feel it greatly diluted the strength of the story. Technically, they were important chapters of Hawke's life, but they felt like glorified sidequests. But side quests are not good enough to carry a game's story. The reason that I say they felt like this leads to my second big point. I'll also say that I enjoyed having a new protagonist and hope we get another new one in DA3.

We need 1.)A goal and 2.)an antagonist to provide forward momentum to play through a game's story. In Origins' we played the Warden and we knew without a doubt that we had to gather up an army (a goal) and defeat the Archdemon (a goal and an antagonist), and Loghain was a secondary antagonist. Going back to my point about the three-act structure, you can view Origins as having acts as well. Act 1 was Origin story and Ostagar; Acts 2-5 were the Circle Tower, Brecilian Forest, Redcliffe, and Orzammar; and Act 6 was the lead up to the finale. The reason the acts in Origins worked (again, in my opinion) is that they were all linked by a goal and an antagonist. The only goal that I can think of that was present in DA2 was to figure out why Cassandra was questioning Varric (which is a rather weak goal because there's nothing concrete for the player to focus on such as an Archdemon).

Going back to the characters for a moment, I do have one criticism: Anders. I do not mind character's being opinionated, but I do not like it when they are obstinate and Anders had an utter lack of flexibility that drove me nuts (and I say this as someone who played as a mage and supported the mages). Fenris had the same issue on the other side of things, although he was slightly more malleable if you worked for it.

On the subject of Friendship and Rivalry, I had few issues with that system. I did not like, however, how unpredictable it could be. I would have a character agree with me in a conversation and then gain rivalry with them. Overall, however, I think that Origins' more traditional scale of approval and disapproval worked better. It's been done before and a little cliche, sure, but it works.

COMPANION GAMEPLAY: I was not one of the people who was that upset about the companions armor and weapon style being set in stone. I also like the idea of companions having unique talent trees. There is one MAJOR problem with that, however. In a game where companions will leave you at certain points, and there is a limited number of companions, it really, really, REALLY sucks when you are suddenly deprived of someone you need. The best example of this is Anders. Besides Hawke (in some cases) and Bethany (a temporary companion), he is the ONLY healer in the game. After he blows up the Chantry, I thought about killing him. But if I did, I would not have access to healing magic (besides the basic Heal spell I had learned-other players would have been even worse off) during some of the hardest fights in the game! This also applies to weapon styles, but to a lesser degree. I would humbly suggest that if you decide to give companions unique abilities in the future, do so like you did with Wynne: have them connected to the plot and not locking out other abilities. If you absolutely MUST lock out other abilities, for the love of God don't make it healing of all things.

GAMEPLAY: The gameplay in DA2 was a bit of a mixed blessing/curse for me. Overall, I enjoyed it a great deal, but there were certain things about it that just grate on my nerves.

I'll start off with one of the first things you do in any game-deciding on a difficulty. I played on Normal for the vast majority of the game, and a lot of the fights were manageable and about what I expected. The thing that I could not stand were the sudden increases in difficulty for no apparent reason. On bosses, I can understand a difficulty increase, but I still think it shouldn't have been as intense as it was. For example, I beat the Rock Wraith on the first try, but the dragon I had to fight in the deep roads before that wasn't even the main boss and it killed me about four times before (with much swearing and cursing at the erratic difficulty) turned it down to Casual and beat it (and if I remember correctly, I still had a tough time). In the future, I hope the difficulty is better balanced. Oh, and a toggle for friendly fire would be kind off nice, but not having it didn't bother me a whole lot. That and helmets are about the only things I think I really think toggles would be good for; I know David has said over and over again that a toggle is not an answer to bad game design, but friendly fire is one of those things that I think some people love and some people hate. I'll admit it would have been terrible with all of the people flipping around like crazy in DA2.

As far as abilities go, I really liked the new system, but I have some minor grievances. I wish either requirements for upgrades were less restrictive or that we were given more talent points. It felt like you really had to invest in a school to get the most out of the spells, and I liked how you could dip into a couple spells in Origins and now have to take them all. That's a lot harder to do in DA2. As a mage player (and I mean exclusively a mage player) I did feel like they got the short end of the staff (heehee) on new content as compared to the other classes. Granted, they had way more abilities than the Warrior or Rogue in Origins, but I hope all classes get some new stuff in DA3. I like how you cut the fluff (spells that nobody liked), but I'd like some new ones in the future. For example, Earthquake didn't work well in Origins, but I don't see any reason why you can't create a similar spell for the Earth line (something like Seismic Shock that goes out in a radius around you and knocks enemies back/stuns or in a cone or Tremor that knocks down a group of enemies or an eruption of rock kind of like a fireball but with way more knockback or something-there are tons of ways to do this).

The speed of the combat was a major point of contention on the forums, and I have to say, after defending it and being excited for it, I'm a little bit conflicted. To be honest, I think the best combat (possibly in DA3) would be somewhere in the middle-ground between DA2 and Origins. I know one of the goals of the team was to make combat more fast-paced in DA2, but I think there is a big difference between speed and fluidity. While I do think combat should be faster than in Origins, that does not mean I want to be killing trash mobs that come in waves with two to three hits. Because of the waves, the combat is long and tedious despite being sped up and it feels really artificial at times. I think Origins had it right in terms of encounter design-you walk into a room with four enemies and spend two minutes killing them. In DA2, at least two of the four enemies are going to go down in three hits and then be replaced with another wave of weaklings that take about the same effort that the Origins encounter would have taken when you add it all up. Therefore, I think the waves of enemies were redundant because they artificially lengthened combat, but actually made it MORE tedious than Origins' was in terms of encounter length.

I think the combat needs to be slowed down a bit in the future. I want to go into a room with six or so enemies that aren't going down in two hits and fight them, and then have the encounter end. I want my attacks and moves to be performed with speed, but I don't feel the need for unrealistic speed. I kind of liked how Origins felt a little more realistic in terms of that and I still think you can do awesome animations that look cool without resorting to being QUITE as over-the-top as they were in DA2. Granted, I didn't mind that much, but I would be happy if it took a little bit of the leaf from Origins' book and brought the volume down just a little bit. Mind you, Warriors and Rogues should have interesting animations and moves, but there's a point where it just gets cartoony.

Going back to fluidity, then, is where DA2 really succeeded. I don't think the length of combat was as much of a griping point as the feeling that when you hit a button, you had to wait for the attack to take place because of pathing issues and lag, much like in the oft-mentioned example of Alistair shuffling to perform a shield bash instead of dashing forward and doing it.

CONCLUSION: In the end, I enjoyed DA2.  When comparing them, however, I have to say that my biggest fear about DA2 is that, after the credits rolled, the game didn't feel like Origins did.  I think that the feel of Origins (a general sense that comes from combat, story, and visuals being my definition) worked really well, as evidenced by the hugely positive feedback.  Even though I liked DA2, I think it needed way more Origins in it (even though a lot of the changes were good ideas at the very least).  Make no mistake about it, to "rest on your laurels" as David Gaider has said in several interviews would have been a bad thing; games need to constantly seek improvement and refinement.  I just think that you may have strayed TOO far away from the game that started the franchise.
 I feel that despite its flaws, some serious and some minor, it still manages to be a fun game. What I feel it didn't have was that feeling of immersion and believability that Origins did (at least in comparison) and I'd like to see that make a comeback through a combination of a good storyline that gives the player something to strive towards and combat that manages to be fun, immersive, and relatively believable at the same time. I think Origins had the basic flow of combat right; all it really needed (in a general sense) was to be freshened up and made more reactive while still retaining the elements that made it great; namely, depth of abilities, classes, and builds and the ability to play tactically while still being fun (something that DA2 improved on even though the difficulty, for me, was a little too much of a challenge). It didn't need the waves of trash mobs. I think DA:O was a great game, and I think DA2 was a good game. By combining the best of both games and taking the lessons learned from both to heart, considering the reactions of fans to a reasonable degree, and drawing upon the spirit of creativity that has brought Bioware this far, I think that Bioware can make another great, and maybe even better game, than Origins. My reactions to DA2 may not be as glowing as they would have been for Origins, but I can assure you of one thing without question: I couldn't be more excited to see what the future holds for Dragon Age.

Also, I'd just like to say thanks to all the folks at Bioware who helped make this game, and also Origins. I don't think it can really be said enough; you do a great job.

Modifié par andar91, 08 juin 2011 - 02:35 .

[stoicsentry2]

Pros:

1. Visuals.
2. Fast combat.
3. Laidlaw's apology.
4. Now that I've beaten it, I no longer feel compelled to play it. Thank... god.

Cons:

1. Virtually everything.

2. This is not a roleplaying game. This was supposed to be a roleplaying game, but it is an action adventure game instead. Deceptive.

3. No choices you make matter.

3. No choice on player character (at... all)

4. No choice on non-player characters.

5. Storyline is bizarre and random. No ending? Seriously?

6. Same damn maps over and over again. Booooring.

7. Buy Dragon Age 2 sword DLC! Buy a new hoodie! Buy a new Mage robe with pretty colors! Buy a billion things that don't make our crappy game any better!

8. Laidlaw's initial comments.

9. God... just everything. The game was just brutal. Make an RPG next time?

[Dracotamer]

Everything I have to say can be found here...

http://social.biowar...4/index/6562832

And here...

http://social.biowar...4/index/7074071

Seems I am not the only person who feels that DA2 was a horrible example of a Bioware game and that you all got greedy. Mike Laidlaw lost all respect from me and it will be very hard for me to touch anything he is heavily involved in.

[Freckle Face]

Thursnextus wrote...

Dislikes

- The story - just enough to keep me playing but edged into dislike by the end. An unusual framed narrative, one shocking moment (Hawke's mother dying), but no where near as good as DAO. For simplicity lets split this into (1) side quests and (2) the main plot / ending. 

(1) Side Quests
This is where DAO excells.  DAO has an arrow straight aim (kill the Archdemon), but allows multiple other choices. Who will be the Dwarf King? What will happen to Andraste's ashes? The game ending plays this out in cinematic style and begs a repay ... I played a whole game again mainly so pilgrims could visit that damn urn as I forgot about killing the dragon first time round. Also I wanted another king, to save Alistair, etc.That is, the ending may be the same (the Archdemon dies) but all the extra bits can and do change. 
In Dragon Age II we have a similar non-negotiable ending (start a war) which is part hidden from the player by using a framed narrative.  Fair enough.
But then the side plots either fail miserably, are pointless, or have little or no major consequence. The only thing that is referred to by Varick at the end is the romance. That's it? I cleaned out a mine three damn times, got given it, and never heard about it again? Even when I did hear about side quests I got letters that often felt the need to remind me who was writing.Even the game writers seemed to know they were unmemorable.
Some parts made no sense what so ever. e.g. I find a spoon. I walk in Kirkwall and find a random character. 'I believe you were looking for this?' I get money. What??? Am I now a hero of lost and found?
Companion quests were acceptable enough but there never seemd to be any huge consequence or possibility of trying something else.

(2) Main plot
In DAII the main game point (side with mages / Templars) seems artificial or morally repugnant and crassly handled. DAO - kill a demon that threatens the world. Easy choice, just about everyone can get behind that. DAII has to end in a Mage / Templar war. OK. But for some weird reason the game only offers two ways of achieiving this. Side with mages who are a walking advert for tranquility ,(nearly every single one is a blood mage, they kill Hawke's mother, and there seems to be more demons than people), or side with the Templars (who are quite happy killing innocents, make mages tranquil to make a point, and are led by a power-crazed, lyrium-addled, magical harpy). What about offering the player the chance to assassinate Meredith or Orsino in an effort to avoid full on conflict, involving the Qunari or simply setting sail with Isabella and leaving the whole city to stew in its own corruption. All these could have triggered the war the narrative demanded but also - more importantly - given the player the illusion of choice and encouraged another play through.
As a player I felt cheated and felt the designers hand on my shoulder - ('you shall cause a war by publicly siding with a faction' ) . Even if the key narrative / gameplay decision was there has to be a war, it effectively forces the player to make a public decision  into doing something they maybe don't want to do. In the end I sided with the mages - my reason? I needed the mass murdering Anders to heal my party. Not good. This above all else leaves a sour taste in my mouth at the end of the game. By all means create a mage / templar war and have the sequal looking for the Champion / Morrigan, (if that's whatr its going to be), but at leats make me feel as if I have some choice in how I get there. Don't 'force my hand'.

Most importantly, I don't think I'll play it again. I see little point.

Will I buy DAIII? Very likely, yes. I've invested too much in the world, but please Bioware, at least give me the illusion of making choices that have some effect.

Extremely well-stated.

[Freckle Face]

andar91 wrote...

-snipped-

^^^This. What a great review.. I agree with just about every word said.

[sphinxess]

Guess its time to write one of these reviews: I wont go into detail over the usual stuff - all rings you find being called ring and the repeating dungeons in any detail its been totally covered by others....

 Value- the first play through took me about 52 hours doing all the quests I could find so compared to a lot of games these days it gives excellent value for the money. Will I buy another DA game? most likely unless the games becomes even closer to the Mass Effect type of roleplay <can't get through even the first 2 hours in ME1 or ME2.

Party Members - wonderful dialog and interaction - the greatest strength of the game. That being said sometimes I would want a hug and there is no interaction with a member unless it is time for it to happen according to the game mechanics. Also romances felt one scene too short <for example you go to bed with Merrill and ask her to move in with you all in the same night>

Battles - bored after like the 3rd fight - unable to use tactics or traps or sneak in and scout the area <DA:O tactics>. For example if I cleared out a dead end alley it didnt matter - new enemies would pop up right inside my group. Ended up just running my party back a bit when it was time for new spawns <spawns were so predictable> - not heroic at all. I finally placed it on eaay to skip the fighting unless it was a boss battle or looked different enough I wanted to try something.

Replay value - I simply cannot continue with another playthrough once the game hits act III and starts down the same path no matter who your character is. First and only complete playthrough I kept going back and reloading earlier and earlier saves cause I thought I had messed up somewhere in the dialog wheel to get the fights I was getting. Also facing Orsano and his idiocy <a cutscene where Orsano panics or kills a swarm of Templars before losing control would have really helped here>  if your a mage supporter and Meredith and her walking statues and spiderman jumping ability gets to be too much - I don't feel awe at the last two boss fights I feel anger at how ridiculous the whole thing is

Overall Impressions - Games for me have a tipping point - DA:O has many flaws but the overall feeling I had was that its a fun game. DA2 for me its the ending - Act III tipped it over into a game where I no longer remember the fun moments - the horrible end game shoots everything else out of my head and thats all I remember 7.2/10

[hobbit of the shire]

Whooo, finally finished my first playthrough.  Now for the lengthy review I've wanted to vent for a while.

Story
-------
I never felt like there was much of a goal to the campaign.  Sure, there were some story arcs (making a home in Kirkwall, try to get into the Deep Roads, mages vs. templars, etc.), but none of them felt like "OMG I must see this to the end."  It was moreso, "crap, I'm stuck in this situation, I need to get out of it."  Half of the time I didn't know what the quest was really about and had no idea why I got rewarded, which brings me to the dialogue which I will mention in the next topic.  In Origins, I cared for the character and its companions from the beginning.  The whole point was to save the world from the darkspawn, and at the end it was a cringing and sad ending (for my character at least).  Here, I didn't see the whole point of doing things.  The only thing I could think of at the beginning was what an ass my brother Carver was.  Hated him and hardly cared when he was kidnapped.  Even at the end, since I was a mage, I had to side with the mages and kill those templar bastards, but how it came out never tugged at my heartstrings.  I mainly wanted to rid of the lunatic Meredith.

Dialogue/Text
-------------------
DA2 is way too low on dialogue and text.  Most of the time I don't know what the quest is about.  Or, since it's taken me a few months to finish, I do not remember what the quest was about and when I complete a task all I get is one sentence saying this guy is happy, and I'm left scratching my head who that was.  Obviously because of the VA, creating more dialogue is expensive.  But this is an RPG, which has STORY.  One needs to know what's going on and get a feel for those around you.  In DAO, there were a ton of options to talk to the companions and we began to understand them pretty well.  Here, the companions were quite 1-dimensional.... wait, scratch that... we don't learn enough about them to even really tell.  I mean... I had no idea Aveline got married.  First it's hook her up with Donnic (that was the stupidest quest line in the world.... and SHE is in charge of Kirkwall's security??  No wonder the city is in shambles.), then I must've missed that 2 seconds of dialogue that says she's married.

I was not happy with the dialogue wheel.  First of all, giving icons is a sorry excuse for not needing more text.  If the text is written well, one can easily figure out whether he/she is mad/happy/joking.  I liked how in the past square brackets were used to determine mood.  e.g., [Sarcastic].  I understand that too much text would seem moot if the VA would just repeat the text.  However, I'd much prefer longer text like DAO.  And THEN, perhaps, the VA can say that sentence and expand on it more.  A complete thought in text and the VA can repeat that and expand on it.  But here, the dialogue wheel text is so short I have no idea what Hawke is getting at.  I almost had to rely on the icons and just pick a mood.

I wasn't fond of Lady Hawke's voice and that really affected my immersion.  Didn't really feel she was "me".

Romance
-------------
Hardly.  Was that a romance?  I from the outset wanted to romance Anders because I liked him from Awakening.  I didn't choose the <3 icon the 1st time it presented itself and he remained an ass for most of the game, not wanting to talk, getting mad if I clicked on him.  I stuck it out, but by the time it came to really start the romance, I had no feelings for him, since there was no dialogue to really chat with him.  Anyway, I did choose the correct options and the love scene.... gee... it this a G-rated game?  I wasn't expecting hardcore, but at least something in the likes of DAO would have been good.  I liked the DAO love scenes.  Chose to run away with Anders, although I really didn't want to and in truth, wanted to stab him then and there when he kablooied the Chantry.

Companions
-----------------
I liked Varric.  First time we have a good Dwarven companion (unlike the typical Oghren).  He was funny and had attitude.  Actually, he would've made a much better romance.  Anders was totally bleh, and I was disappointed he lost all of his joviality.  I loved him in DAO.  Now he's just a drag.  Didn't like much any of the others.  Aveline and Isabela were okay, I suppose.  Most of their companion quests were not interesting.  What I did like was some of the party banter as one passed those conversation triggers.  Some were quite amusing.  But why can't Hawke banter more with the companions, then???  Could've done with more VA.

Combat
-----------
Not sure if it was due to the patches but gameplay got better the more I moved along.  Act 1 and 2 were button mashing mainly and whatever I clicked on didn't matter since all of the enemies would just explode.  By the time I got to Act 3 (which I think was all played with patch 1.03), I had to start choosing the correct skills and conserve mana (and health).  Combat became somewhat challenging and interesting.

Graphics
------------
Now right before playing the end of Act 3, I started playing through DAO again and wow, what a difference in the combat.  DAO now felt boring (like, did my spell actually even work because nothing blew up??!).  So, I think Patch 1.03 calmed things down a bit so that DA2 combat is now plausible.  At the beginning, when the game first came out, I thought the animations were totally over the top and stupid.  Now they seem more normal.  I still do not like the rogue animations, since they seem like magic tricks.  I mean, this is melee/ranged combat, not a disappearing magic show.  Mage and warrior animations are okay.  Way too overpowered early on, but this may have been fixed in 1.03.  So by the end, I liked it.  The power of the characters matched what one saw on screen.

Cinematics are okay, but nothing to oooh/ahhh over.  Started playing TW2 and those graphics are way better.  Facial expressions/body language are very awkward and unrealistic.  Some nice cinematics were the one with Flemeth (Flemeth is cool!!).

Armour
----------
Hated how companions could not be equipped with armour.  Makes most loot moot.  I would've liked to dress up the characters.  Runes that are non removable which probably actually makes sense, but the lack of variety and of the ingredients to make them made it much less interesting than in DAO.  The mage robes were largely ugly and repetitive.

Items
--------
Droppables were repetitive and there is no lore description on them.  What is the point of the "junk" category?  I am happy that there is way less loot overall so that it isn't like a lootfest like DAO and certainly getting rid of useless junk was easy, but to label items as junk beforehand make the whole point of having items to loot pointless.  There are no descriptions for these items.  You might as well just given me money.  The junk added absolutely no value to the game.  Loot needs to have lore descriptions.  It is up to the player to read them if they want.  I enjoyed having minimal backpack/inventory load worries, however.

Why do most games have non-humanoid enemies drop coin and equipment?  They should drop body parts or nothing at all.

Potion use greatly reduced.  I sorta actually liked that.  I was downing Health Potions in DAO like the air I breathe.  Now it's much better.  I hardly used any at the beginning, but as the game wore on, I had to make use of them.  I used very little of the other potions and bombs.  I guess that is a bonus since I did hate all those shards and poisons that cluttered my inventory in DAO.

I am a mage!
------------------
Don't you see the giant sign tatooed on my head?  Rather, don't you see me with a big sparkly stick that shoots magic out of it?!  The fact that you are an apostate mage wandering about Kirkwall when the dialogue specifically states mages aren't allowed to wander around is plothole large enough to swallow a whale.  It would've been hard to design a 2-storyline game, and so with that said, mages should be tolerated in Kirkwall, but not basically banned, since obviously, you (and Merrill, Anders and Bethany) are certainly not.  A mage visiting the gallows and templars didn't make much sense, either.

Quests/Codex
--------------------
Quests need to be way more detailed in the reasoning behind them.  Randomly finding loot which spawns a quest item is a waste of time.  Entries need to show up on the left for longer.  Entires in the journal need to be longer.  The codex list was much easier to manage here than in DAO.  Allowed for easy access if one is interested to read it.

Other NPCs
-----------------
In general, they need more exposition.  At the end, I couldn't remember who Samson was.  All I could remember that there was some lyrium-addicted guy earlier in the game.  I had to use Wikia.  Meredith is an okay powerful village idiot.  I liked the Arishok.  Nathaniel needed to stay longer and talk.  Anders barely flinched seeing his old buddies.

Areas
--------
Is this an eco-friendly game, since there was LOTS of reduce, reuse and recycling?  I could predict where/what sort of enemies would spawn.

Movement
--------------
Wandering to get from A to B was greatly reduced than in DAO which was somewhat arduous.  However, it almost seems "too" easy now.  The map allows you to go from one place to the other without really any thinking.  The top-right corner livemap makes it so easy to just stare at it while making Hawke walk, so that one doesn't even need to really look at the screen and where Hawke is actually walking.  Almost seems like designing the area was a waste.  So, I'm torn at what's better.

Conclusion
---------------
Well, since that's all I can think of now.... I'll just say that this was a mildly-entertaining game.  By itself, it's not too bad.  Comparing to DAO, it seems like a step back.  The mechanics of DA2 overall are better than DAO but the lack of motivating story, variety, interesting characters, dialogue make it pale in comparison to DAO.  After seeing the ending, I really hope that DA3 will NOT be about Hawke, because I feel no affinity for Hawke, compared to say, the Warden.  I'd rather see Hawke in an Awakening-like expansion and for DA3 to be totally different story, or somehow tie into the Origins story.  Or something set in Orlais or Antiva.  That would be an excuse for new exciting scenery.  And I hope Bioware realizes an RPG needs a story!!!  It is ROLE-playing and so one needs a role!

[PheonRen]

I've held off on posting this. I'm sure that it'll be very unpopular, but I guess I figure I'll say it anyway, even if doesn't get read or gets flamed.

A brief note on myself, and why I feel like it's okay for me to speak my mind on this issue... I am a strong source of word of mouth advertising. I write a very large amount of reasonably popular fan fiction, both for DA and for Warcraft. I have a fair following of people who have tried DA:O simply on my recommendation alone.

So first I would like to express my gratitude from a couple of angles. That you are so supportive of (even open to) fan fictions at all. Of course, it's free press, and that's always a great thing. But it's more than that, and that's greatly appreciated. Additionally, I am grateful for the world of Thedas, for DA:O which is a fantastic game and world. It inspired me to a significant amount of creativity, and I am grateful for that. It also left enough "open" to allow for significant creativity, which is also a fantastic thing.

Now, all of the lovey dovey stuff being done, let me be honest with you about DA:2. I wish I could give you the same glowing report I would if I were to review DA:O to you. I really do. But the truth of the matter is that it's a huge let-down. It's a big enough let-down that the SINGLE reason I didn't return it and ask for my money back is Origins. I played the thing through in two days, hoping that it was simply that I missed something or that I was going to "get it" any minute.

However, I never did "get it" and I haven't managed to play it all the way through a second time--and certainly not a third time.

Let's talk some finer points first, if I may:

-- Dialogue:
1. Issue number one for me is the lack of interaction. DA:O has such a high level of interaction. It's one of the things that made me "a fangirl" almost right away. I actually found myself LIKING the characters nearly to the degree that I forgot they weren't real. As an "Alistair fangirl" I can say that Alistair is literally my first "game crush". So silly! But there it is. That, whether you recognize it or not, is a major accomplishment.

But you failed to even come close to that mark with DA:2. You didn't just miss it, you weren't even in the same game. You were playing baseball while we were all suited up for football. It's that detached, that lacking in interaction. I was looking for DA:2 and I got some other game wearing Thedas' skin. I didn't care about the characters. I didn't fall in love with any of them. I grant some of the personalities are alright, and they did come through... but you can't click on them, you can't chat with them... except in designated areas at specific times.

Let me just say to you with candor that I really think that you focused on what you like and don't like and you didn't have any concept of what made your game LOVABLE to your fans. You didn't like these encounters, didn't want to bother with them, and you didn't like the 'pick list' conversation style. What you didn't realize is that this is exactly what made DA:O not just work, but made it immersive and intolerably PERSONAL to the degree where forgetting it was a game was so close to possible as to be almost unnerving. Contrary to my specific wording, I mean that in a really, really awesome way. Like, totally. Yeah.

2. The dialogue between the characters was often funny and very interesting. it happened more often in DA:2 than in DA:O and that's fantastic. It also was more linear and rarely came up repeatedly. Which is a bad-good thing. It is good in that it doesn't get boring. But it's bad in that you could create those conversations in DA:O, but can't really do so in DA:2. That would be okay... except for number 3 (where we'll talk about only having 1 place for discussion).

This random dialogue is one of the things you did right, in my opinion, except that you made a couple of the characters entirely one dimensional. It was like you put a lot of work into the dialogue between Isabel and Aveline, but then you just made Fenris and Anders constantly whine about mages, period. Merril started out stupid and naive and she just stayed that way. What, ten years or so with Isabel and Merrill is still running around blinking like a startled doe every time she says something about girlie bits or man bits? Come on, now, seriously guys? If you're going to make the game take place over years and years, take into account the fact that those years are spent with a complete hussy with a mouth on her that would shame a trucker. But, apparently, 10 years with her isn't enough to knock some of that doe-eyed naivete out of an elf?

3. The fact that you can only activate conversations at specific places and specific times may help avoid the nuisance of clicking on the characters accidentally, but it also destroys altogether the intimate and personal feel of DA:O. In DA:O you could click on your companions and they'd say something. That something altered as their relationship to you altered. Alistair started out demanding, "WHAT?!" and then later would say, "My love?" This alteration in response was integral to the connection and immersion in the relationship. The relationship was part and parcel of the game for those of us who REALLY, REALLY are mad, insane, groupie DA:O people. 

And who's going to tell everyone they know and everyone who reads their stories, "OMG OMG YOU HAVE GOT TO PLAY THIS GAME!!!"? Us crazy diehard fans that STILL play DA:O til our fingers bleed, or the "give me game mechanics" guys who have already been off playing Assassin's Creed for months now? I am not trying to be a jerk, though I probably sound like it. Or maybe whiny. I'm making a real point here. You need to choose a demographic and cater to it first, and then add in what you can to draw in other demographics. Honestly, I don't see that you've done that. The gameplay itself is mediocre, the graphics are nice but repetitive, the 'immersion factor' is moderate, and the level of 'personal interaction' is significantly lowered from the fan base that most adores your first work.

-----------------

Let me just break for a moment to tell you that I understand how you're probably feeling. It sounds like I just hated the game in general, and that I am just on your case about it for no good reason except to gripe and complain and be heard.

I would like to put that concept to rest. I really considered just never writing any of this. Because you're human beings, and you worked hard on this, and you deserve better just by virtue of being human beings. I want you to know that I recognize that you did work hard on it, and no doubt your hands were tied by higher-ups.

But I also invested a lot of time, and money, into DA:O. I really liked it. I really care about it. It's a fine work of ART. It's a masterpiece. A marvel. You guys can do great work, you are capable of incredible greatness.

Which is why I finally decided to put my thoughts out there. Not to be hurtful or mean, because that's not my intent.

I would really LOVE to invest time and money into DA:3. I would. But if you still can't decide which demographic to listen to, and whom you want to focus on getting their wants in there... you're going to fail again. And IMO, DA:2 is a failure. I can't stand to play it over and over again. I really didn't enjoy playing it once. You can keep my money as a big salute to numero uno. But...

DA:3 will have to be better for me to repeat that. I'll bite the sixty bucks for 2, but I won't for 3 if you choose to kick us fangirls in the face again. Frankly, that's what it feels like from this perspective. You didn't like the conversation business and you were disappointed that it was us who fell in love with it and turned it into a hit. But we're here now, and we can carry 3 back up there, if you let us. We won't do it if you take out all the things we most loved though, because you found them annoying. One man's trash, and all that.

Getting back to the discussion at hand (now that I've probably just made you even less likely to read the post any further ):

-------------------

Characterization:

1. Characterization really stunk. It did.

--Isabel seemed to just be there for the boys to look at and to give the game the illusion of "****tiness". She was just ****ty all the time. Few if any real personality traits beyond that. She didn't have any kind of other qualities to speak of. Though perhaps these come out if you romance her... but mostly, she's there for the pervo factor for the threesome nerdy guys, yeah? If not... then she comes off that way. Oh, look, big bazoombas, does a threesome, and can't talk about anything besides sex. But noooo, she's not a nod to trying to keep the interest of the little boys... not at all.

-- Hawk is apprently different per which one you play. I didn't really like Hawk well enough to bother test driving them all. The in-game male hawk is not as handsome as the cinematic Hawk, and I usually play as a girl anyway. So I changed pretty quickly to the girl Hawk, and found her to be rather lackluster. The choices you make in what she says doesn't seem to effect much, except in the rare instance, so for the most part do whatever.

-- Varric is really the most interesting one, in part because he seems the most real. He has his good times, and his pissy times. He has his secrets. He is, however, unflinchingly and mindlessly loyal. Which I personally rather liked, but it's not altogether realistic. Not that a game has to be entirely and perfectly realistic, and if you were going to work on personalities, I personally wouldn't work on his. That he's not an available love interest (so far as i've been able to learn of) is a bit of a bummer. He's likeable and believable, unlike the available love interests. And seems relatively "well put together" mentally. More like Alistair in that way than the available LIs in DA:2, as far as I'm concerned.

-- Anders... well, can I be rude and just tell you honestly that someone totally screwed the pooch here? I didn't like Awakening at all. I disliked it rather intensely because it also broke all of the immersion and personal factors of DA:O. But even I can tell that this Anders isn't Anders. I mean, you just as well have taken Sylvester Stallone and given him Dolly Parton's personality. It was nonsensical to who he was, and took the best parts of his personality out. He's also whiny and abrasive. There was no fun, funny possibility. It was broody obsessive Anders who was as much "Anders" as my left elbow is, or girls, or the ever-negative and spiteful Fenris. You just as well have given Anders another name and you'd have been better off. All of the "well, he was wounded and possessed" arguments are semantics intended to excuse away using a popular character and disappointing his fans. If no one ever bothered to tell you this before, let me be the first (or fiftieth). You don't mess with a beloved character. That's how TV shows jump the shark. That's how you did it, too.

-- Fenris is a big favorite with some folks, so I guess I won't say too much on him. He's greatly beloved as he is, broken person that he comes off as... and I don't expect to like all of your characters. Different strokes for different folks. You hit a niche with him, and that's a good thing, without my personal judgment to cloud it.

-- Merrill doesn't make sense. Her quest doesn't make sense. Her being dead set on "saving the clan" and then being forced to murder them all (whereas a person that set on saving them would rather run away or do ANYTHING to avoid that), is just lame. Whoever came up with that needs a "makes sense" check. I'm sorry, I know I'm being rude, but that quest and the fact that she spends years with total perverts and still blinks stupidly and (in essence) has to ask "what are bazoombas?" is just plain absurd. No one spends ten years with the queen of bisexual pervo-isms and stays that naive. She's not remotely believable from beginning to end.

-- Flemeth was a huge upgrade. But her encounters with them are absurdly random and don't seem to have anything to do with anything. I'm sure it probably leads into something in the next game, but please, make it make sense in the game if you're going to make the "in between" game as it's own enterprise. If you don't do so, then it starts to look like you just couldn't come up with a way to "save them" in the Wilds so you contrived something convenient. I hope you ddin't, but if you did, perhaps make it less obvious next time. Even if you did, avoid making it look like it was a contrivance.

I think I've kind of made my point. Even if I haven't, I doubt you want to hear more, lol. Harping on it isn't helpful, and I realize that. I've said enough here.


-------------------------

Romances:

Well, I'm sure you've heard it before, but all of the romance options pretty much stink. I really, really hated the whole "commit adultery or die" business in DA:O. Really. But Alistair was worth it. That's the conundrum, I suppose.

On the other hand, in DA:2, none of them are worth it, and the interaction and "romance" is minimal. A kiss and then you ignore it... barely a real kiss, even. I could have gotten past all of the problems with Anders, if there'd been the options that there were with Alistair of greater interaction. But not only did you kill the interaction down to the bare minimum, but then you also made the "love scenes" so short that if you blink, you miss it.

My take on it is that you decided to rely on the fans. That was, if you ask me, a very bad choice. You decided they could make mods to give us the "romance" part of the romance. But you even killed most of that by making interaction rare and only under exact conditions as you set them. Relying on fans making your game worth buying and replaying over and over again is just lazy, or uncaring about your fans.

As I understand it, a lot got cut because of time. Rush rush rush, get the game out there, hurry hurry. And what you have is a rush rush hurry hurry game that stomps on the fans. Most of us will put up with it once, but we'll say "screw it" if you make a habit of it. I'm really disgusted by the way that the immersive factor of Origins was dumped in favor of other things for this game. Especially since the rest of the game in no way at all made up for it.

--------------

The World:

Okay. So first off, a lot of the areas are reused repeatedly. Then to top it off, they are pretty generic and repetitive even if they weren't the same exact place. No matter how beautiful it is--and it certainly is beautiful--you can only look at the same places so much before you start to focus on its flaws. I'm getting tired of wroting, so I'm going to cut this short, especially as it's not one of my bigger issues... but it's one, and has been made bigger by the fact that the game is simply not fun...

Too much repeated use of the same models and the same textures. Too many quests in the same spots with too many "make work" type of quests.

--------------

Quests and Story Line:

Okay, I just touched on it, but... too many "make work" type quests. Collect 6 bones. Escort Donny-the-dingbat out of a cave. The story line is there, but it's slow and it's peculiar and a lot of things don't seem in any way related to each other. A lot of incomplete or just senseless arcs (or maybe I'm just stupid, that's altogether possible ). One of the things that really kept me sitting playing Origins late into the night was that there was a STORY and I wanted to know the ending of the story!

I didn't care about the "story" of DA:2... actually, I was super duper curious about the Arishok... until guess what... that part of the story pretty much ends at killing him for no apparent reason except that he has decided he wants to die. Er, okay. I guess that's one way to "nobly" escape duty. Or whatever. What? Who knows.

Oh, and the business with Meredith was kind of peculiar. I know it's really the main story arc, but it wasn't very interesting and definitely wasn't immersive. On the bright side, I got to kill her. On the other side, Orsino? Seriously? What? Did you have a fight quota to meet?

----------------

Battle... well, I play on casual because I like the story and such best. But I played it on hardest because i figured it must have been the reason why you killed the rest of the game. Surely you decided that us fangirl fan fic writing lunatics were not your chosen demographic and you were trying to run us off in favor of the "battle" loving people. But then I was able to get through the game relatively easily on the hard mode playthrough... with lots of pausing. Which was just annoying and unfun. But it was possible, and realistically speaking, I rarely if ever play anything on nightmare mode because I tend to suck at it. If I got through it with minimal dying, I doubt the twitchers are impressed.

-------------------

Misc.:

Really with the mages just running around right in the same city with an obsessive control-freak Meredith?? What were you thinking? It doesn't fit game lore at all, and it doesn't make sense, either. Sure Bethany gets caught if you keep her, but really?? Hawk can be a mage and just run around, and you excuse it away with Meredith's "I knew about you but I looked away because you're a bigtime hero and all that kewl stuff"? It's not believable, and it strikes as an excuse to stray so far from the lore that it's almost like you didn't know it until the end, and then were like, "Oops, how do we fix this?"

--------------------

Okay. I'm going to close this one up. I've beaten you soundly about the head and shoulders with a rolled up newspaper long enough. And it's not my hope to discourage you or to hurt you. I know my review of your game is really harsh, and I am truly sorry. I feel like it's important to speak the truth, and I'm not really very good at saying "not nice" things in a nice way. I wish I was, because if anyone deserves it, it would be you guys. I apologize for the fact that I suck at being diplomatic and kind.

I really, really do care about the game. I wish I loved it. I wanted to love it, very much. But I just don't. I have more to say, but what's the point? These are my main problems with it.

That being said, I really like the day-night thing. That was awesome and fun. I really did like Flemeth, her new look as well as the look of the Qunari was super, super cool.

I'm sorry that I can't give you the same review I would for Origins. I really, truly am. I wanted so much to love it, but I was tragically disappointed. I waited this long to speak my mind about it, because it would have been a lot, lot worse if I'd written right after I played it.

Anyway. I'll close with that. I've shredded your game enough, and I know it's not fair to you when you worked so hard on it. I know you care about it doubtless even more than I do. But maybe some of what I said will get through to the "top dogs" and help them understand a bit more what sells games. Not rushing it out as fast as possible without caring about what the genre fans want, that's for sure.

Well, here goes nothing.

Modifié par PheonRen, 13 juin 2011 - 12:26 .