Merci357 wrote...
You know, of course many of the things mentioned in this thread again and again are no accidents, but deliberate design decisions. All I'm saying - in your post history I found your own review. That's what I'm talking about, why don't you go ahead and copy/paste that one here, just for good measure? It was very well written - far better then I could do (since english isn't my mother tongue) - but covered lot's of points I share. 
If you think it'll do any good, okay. But I doubt it.:-
First of all, I'm going to start off this review with a callback to something that happened prior to the original Dragon Age game. Actually, more something that happened a couple of weeks after it released. When I played Dragon Age: Origins and had finished it at least once and briefly started another playthrough I came onto the forums and apologised to the developers of the game. I apologised because due to circumstances related to the advertising of DAO and the PC release being delayed to coincide with the new console versions that had decided to been developed late in DAO's development cycle I believed that the game was going to be, to put it simply, "dumbed down for consoles" and/or "watered down for the mainstream masses" and the like. I apoligised because I was wrong and Dragon Age Origins was an excellent RPG in the end and pretty much what I was looking for in a modern, deep RPG. It had all the best qualities of deep fantasy cRPGs of the past such as Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, NWN, etc. along with the more modern cinematic presentation of modern games, while knowing what to keep and what to cut. I had been negative towards the game in the year or so leading up to its release because many comments and advertisements for it had worried me that it was going to be something else. And I can pretty much say now that what I was worried the game was going to be is now what we have in the sequel. I was worried Dragon Age Origins was going to be like Dragon Age 2.
I suppose this leads me to the main review of this game. Having played it for about a week and finally finished it a few hours ago (6 or 7) I have to say that it's a pretty disappointing sequel overall. There are several reasons for this which I'll go into further, but what it all comes down to is this game feeling like a horrible, console-ified semi-reboot spin-off trying to masquerade as a sequel to what originally started as a proper, deep, epic PC-centric fantasy RPG. It seems that Dragon Age is no longer worthy of being the "spritual successor to Baldur's Gate" that it started as and now has to be retooled to branch to a larger audience, and this is the result. It it, without doubt, BioWare's most disappointing game yet. It's as simple as that.
Now, that all may seem pretty slanderous and baseless at this point, and I know that BioWare aren't fans of people coming on here and basically bashing their games so willingly without the criticism being constructive. I'm going to try my best to be constructive here and explain why I feel this way, but keep in mind that this is somebody talking who feels rather betrayed and backstabbed lately by a company he once both loved and respected. It's hard to sugarcoat things when you feel turned-on and it's also harder to do it when you actually feel that constuctive criticism isn't enough and what the people who made this game really need is a harsh reality check and a bit of a kick up the backside. Simply put, loyalty and trust that was already wavering after Mass Effect 2 came along is pretty much broken with Dragon Age 2, and I've lost a lot of respect for the Dragon Age team right now. A lot of respect.
Now, to be fair and set things on a more positive note, the game itself isn't absolutely awful on it's own. Also, to be fair, not absolutely every aspect of the game is bad either. And not even all of it is bad for Dragon Age. Had this been a new BioWare IP and a new series, most of my issues with it would be gone. Similarly, had it been a spin-off along the lines of "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance" or "Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood" rather than tacking on those double roman numerals on the end many of my issues would be gone too. The main problem I have with this game is not that it's a terrible game in and of itself, but that it's a bad Dragon Age, at least as far as being a proper sequel goes.
For starters, I hate the new art design. I get the reasoning behind it, but I just think it's gone too far. These weren't just stylistic tweaks here and there, but we've got complete retcons and resets and designs that contradict what came before them, both in the previous game and in David Gaider's novels. Qunari suddenly have big horns on their heads, the darkspawn changed from looking actually scary and diseased to looking like bad Halloween masks, elves look like a mad scientist put WoW elves and the na'vi from Avatar into a blender, templar armour looks weedy and ineffective and most of the characters who reappear from DAO completely change their facial structure and eye colour, just to name a few changes. I don't get why you changed the look of it all so much to something almost completely foreign. I remember one of the devs saying that it's no different from comic book artists changing from time to time, but even then it's usually just a slight stylistic change and nothing major, and that excuse also defeats the purpose of making it "distict" as you so claimed was the reasoning behind it. And when it comes down to it you didn't change the looks of it for the fans who loved the original game; you changed it for the few whiners and official reviews who just complained it looked too much like Tolkien, etc. It's especially flabberghasting when it comes to the darkspawn considering how little they even feature in the game at all. As far as I'm concerned all this new art direction has done is made sure that when I see a screenshot in the future that looks like this I'll know it's a game to avoid. It's as simple as that.
Now, it may seem petty to turn my back on a game due to art alone, but that's not the case. Aside from the fact that I'm now concerned Mass Effect 3 will suddenly have asari with long, flowing purple hair and turians with feathers sprouting from their crests because IP integrity and consistency seems to mean little to BioWare lately, so much more of the game is just constructed of fail gameplay wise. Beyond the fact that I'm now reduced to playing one specific human and beyond the fact that I now have a voice forced upon me along with another dialogue wheel that feels both limiting and like it's babying me, so much of what I loved of the original game is either gone, reduced, automated or changed in a manner I don't really like at all, and in most cases it seems purely for three simple reasons I don't agree with 1) to get the sequel out faster, 2) to appeal to a greater, more mainstream audience, and 3) to make a game more suited to the console than to the PC where the series was technically born. And there's no real point denying it BioWare, considering how many comments from a certain Mr. Laidlaw and other sources pretty much admit to this without apology.
The combat for starters. Beyond being just too damn flashy and fast and over-the-top, it's as shallow and repetitive as hell. It feels less like a proper, tactical RPG and more like God of War or Dynasty Warriors, and it's pretty much the same thing every single fight: run into an area, kill a dozen guys who spawn by spamming your abilities and clicking furiously, another dozen or so will pop down (often out of literally nowhere) and you do the same to them. Rinse and repeat about 700 to 800 times. Aside from a few bossfights the game never felt tactical or complex, and never felt like I needed to really think things through. I could succeed in most fights without ever needing to pause, assume control of other characters or assess the battlefield at all. I didn't even play with the Tactics screen at all for my companions, which was something I really needed to do in DAO I felt, but here they could just go on autopilot and for the most part would just win. It was pretty much just strength in numbers. And it really was pretty boring to just have essentially the same combat over and over and over with no real variation at all. Oh, there may be slight differences between the standard bandit waves, the quanari waves and the shades and demons waves, but in almost all cases it was "take out the strongest one quick and first, then the others aren't an issue really"
Again, the combat's too flashy and fast, which is largely resonsible for this as much as the enemies largely being the same thing each time. It feels like it's trying to hard to be "exciting and badass!" more for those who complained about DAO being "too slow!" than it does for those who actually enjoyed Dragon Age Origins for what it was: a proper, tactical fantasy RPG designed for the PC first and foremost. The complete lack of a proper tactical camera was a major blow too, especially against larger foes such as the High Dragon and Varterrral (sp?), particuarly when you're a rogue and can easily get caught between it and scenery and can't really pull out to see what's happening properly. One of the best things about DAO was the ability to zoom right up and out as well as in down close, and now it's gone just because the console gamers can't have it and because it hurt the gameplay of the original game for them. And here's the point: when a game isn't designed for a system that can't fully handle it you don't go dumbing down the one that can just so that the "lesser" system gets full benefits.
This is exactly the type of thing that causes all the "dumbed down for console" arguments and claims that have been going on for about a decade now, and by just giving in like this you've only gone and exacerbated the issue. Again, don't deny it BioWare... you pretty much said so yourselves, if not directly. DAO had the concept correct: a full, proper game for the PC and the tweaked, slightly lesser game for the consoles. As a PC gamer DA2 feels like a knife in the back from you now. Now before I get labelled a "PC elitist" or something, don't get me wrong... consoles aren't bad, and have their place. They're greater for beat-em ups, driving games, platform games, etc. But Dragon Age started as a proper PC RPG and as the "spirtual successor to Baldur's Gate" and as BioWare returning to it's roots. It was made for PC's and PC gamers first and foremost, and you guys said this directly yourselves. And now, just because the money train is a little heavier on the console side of things lately (especially since they cover two major platforms) you've suddenly decided to just abandon that vision, flip the middle-finger to the PC gamer after hauling them in with the original game and say "hard cheese!" with this sequel. Forgive me for being critical and even insulting here, but how am I supposed to not see this as anything other than how I do? For a game company that prides itself on making stories based on moral decisions and integrity vs. corruption I can't help but see this as incredibly ironic.
And the repetitive areas too. Even worse than the combat encounters. I'm supposed to be going into different caves and ruins, etc. but can't help but notice each one is exactly the same. Anybody who complained about Oblivion's recycled dungeons or Mass Effect's UNC worlds should zip their mouth permanently after playing DA2. Equipment is a bit of a joke for the most part too. The silly star system that needs to baby me into realising what item is better than what is just one aspect that fails here. Then there's the runes, which would be a nice touch if they weren't so simplified and if it wasn't for the fact they feel completely pointless when you slot one only to find yourself replacing the item you put it in 20-30 minutes later, which feels like a complete waste when you can't take them out again or upgrade them (like you could in DAO). The reduced skills feel shallow too, since you just need any rogue of any build to be able to lockpick or get rid of traps without them even needing to be versed in these areas at all. Junk items that now pretty much take care of themselves, so why even have them at all? They're just useless and a complete waste of time when you already know they're junk without having to pay attention at all and when they never ever serve another purpose. Then there's the fact that I've got all this armour, but my companions can't even use it; only I can, and thus anything that's not suited to my class is a complete waste of time. I get that BioWare wanted to make companions look unique and special and all, but what's wrong with actually giving them proper attire like Hawke and having the option there to toggle between "classic look" and "actual look" just like with the helmet toggle option. The entire interfaces don't feel unique and fantasy anymore either; they're so damn plain and you could just slot them into any game.
Okay, I suppose I'd better bring up some good points rather than just dig into the game. I do like the skill trees over the skill lines DAO had, and it provides some good variation. I wish my companions also got the bonus, prestige specialty classes like they did in DAO, but that's doesn't take away the fact that the trees here are better than DAO's more linear equivalent. The character animations and facial expressions are really good here, and there are a good amount of facial options to design a character how you like. While I prefer a list of text to a dialogue wheel, I do like the icons that reflect your tone and style of conversation. The characters are for the most part good and interesting, and I like how involved they are in the story and how much variation you can have with them. I like how much they weigh-in on situations and how in certain cases you can even defer to them directly if they're particularly versed in a subject and/or situation. The banter and interactions are pretty damn good, but that's somewhat to be expected. There's a good amount of sidequests and interesting situations and NPCs, even if some of them are somewhat repetitive combat-wise, and it can be surprising how even seemingly small choices can have somewhat more important consequences later on down the line, and how they can even have mixed cause-and-effect domino style variations which is actually something I wanted to see in a BioWare game for a while and this has done it probably for the first time really well (usually matters were more isolated in previous games). When it comes to choices and consequences and companions I actually hope the Mass Effect developers pay attention to DA2 for this, if only in this one aspect. I also liked seeing my decisions have an affect on Kirkwall throughout the game and seeing it slowly change over the years.
The writing I'm leaving until last because it's a mixed bag. It's mostly good I have to say, and this was the one aspect I was sure DA2 probably wouldn't disappoint in, but it tends to lack a bit of focus I feel. Without delving too much into details for spoiler reasons, the first half seems like a bunch of mostly unrelated sidequests that get to the point where you actually just want them to stop so you can move onto the next part. The next part gains a little more focus, but you're still not entirely sure as to what the point of it all is, and it still lacks direction and seems like a bunch of stuff that happens with you somewhat in the middle of it (yet not quite). It's not until the last section that things start to come together, and then things start to feel a tad rushed and the major moral choices you have to struggle with seem to be a little suddely manufactured in order to make you consider your options and which path (or paths) to choose. It's not that the conflict is bad per se, but it feels like it pretty much goes from there being "one clear, right choice" to "let's suddenly twist one side to the extreme negative to manufacture conflict" right towards the end. Without going into details, one of the most reasonable characters up to that point suddenly goes cuckoo bananas out of seemingly nowhere and it just feels rushed. I like hard moral choices and being conflicted, and I like things where there's no clear right or wrong and where there's also no way to outright win, but the final parts of DA2 just seem to turn things on their head too fast and too late. Let's just say that "blood magic" just comes into the fray too often and often in a rather forced manner, which is particularly odd given how it's supposed to come about and how uncommon it previously was. Yes, I get that there's more oppression here than in most other places in Thedas, but still.
I suppose I should wrap this up, since I need sleep and have work tomorrow. There's probably some stuff I've missed, but it's likely not too important. The main issue I feel is that DA2 was mostly a disappointment for me as a hardcore, longtime BioWare fan and as a PC gamer who loves traditional RPGs. Again, this review may seem a little cruel and perhaps could have pulled a few more punches in BioWare's opinion, but it's just how I feel about things, and it's hard to be lenient and kind to those you feel have betrayed you somewhat. It's hard to commend changes that for the most part I don't like and when I feel overall this game has been made far more for those who didn't really like the original all that much than it is for those who did. It feels like a bit of a bait and switch after the first game and I've pretty much lost confidence in this series now. Dragon Age as an IP is pretty much dead to me now thanks to DA2, and unless BioWare to a big 360 and turn it back to where it began it'll remain that way. I've lost a lot of respect for the Dragon Age team, and that even goes for those who weren't directly responsible for the problems. I certaintly won't be interested in any Dragon Age games with Mike Laidlaw at the head of them given his comments about DA2 leading up to its release. That may seem a little personal, but when you go around basically saying without apology that you dumbed the game down for consoles because more copies sold there of the original and that you're basically putting Origins behind you now and moving on and changing Dragon Age to something else entirely you're clearly not the person I want in charge of this IP. As far as I'm concerned you seem chiefly responsible for the main issues I have with this game given your comments on it.
Finally I'd just like to bring this back to how this review started. When I was wrong about Dragon Age Origins and it turned out to be a fantastic, deep PC-centric RPG that truly was a spritual successor to Baldur's Gate made for RPG fans I came here and apologised. I said I was sorry for misjudging your game and that you guys did a great job on it. So, I feel at the very least what you could do in kind after Dragon Age 2 pretty much being everything I feared Dragon Age Origins was perhaps going to be that you should apologise to me. I don't want my money back and I don't want you to change DA2 to suit me more, but as a PC player who feels greatly let down and even betrayed by you I think at the very least I'm owed that. I think all PC RPG fans who are disappointed with DA2 are owed that.
Retour en haut
