I've wrote an extensive review of the game, which can be found here.
http://social.biowar...659/blog/48928/
I'll repost it here for reader convenience:
A too long review of Dragon Age 2
After completing and mulling over about the game’s flaws and hits, I’ve decided to write up a review of the same, highlighting some of the more contentious points in the game. I will visit in no particular order several points of contention that need to be adressed to improve the quality of future titles.
Warning, there will be a few spoilers, in “The family angle” section and “Story and Gameplay segregation”, due to the nature of the topic they cover.
Combat gameplay.
The force/fortitude concept is an intriguing one. It could use some tweaking, but it adds a very interesting effect to the combat dynamic. The Cross class Combo is a nice feature that reinforces the theme of a well balanced and coordinated party; it's a pity it came at the cost of intra-class combos, though, as it means at least two party members can’t cooperate between themselves, as there will always be at least a doubled class in the group.
The combat style is unexpected, at first. The way it mixes deliberate, pause and play style with a more active dodging (due to the way collision detection works in bosses) will probably confuse players who favor either, until they realize the need to hybridize their play style. This combined with damage and casting moved from the conclusion of the animation to the start of it may, at first, give the illusion of a more responsive, faster gameplay. However, when coupled with the active dodging it actually becomes the opposite: The animation must run to conclusion once an action is started, so snap reaction time is much worse. You can’t interrupt yourself once an action is started, which hurts the intended faster combat pacing. It is made worse by the fact that even autoattacks are affected by this rule, which runs counter to the faster paced combat: you cannot snap-react to the battlefield, destroying the illusion of action-based gameplay, and due to the need of active dodging you cannot fight in the deliberate, detached manner that party-based pause and play game style allows.
The wave reinforce mechanic, despite being a good idea, is poorly executed in game by sheer amount of repetition and haphazard position. When practically every fight consists of at the very least three waves of enemies, instead of being used judiciously to challenge the player at specific points, they get old fast. The fact that there are points at which the waves simply spawn out of thin air, rather than being at least handwaved as dropping from the ceilings / balconies, hurts the credibility of the system. Taking a look at how Drakensang (for example) handles reinforcement waves, they’re better integrated there: walls collapse and locked doors open to let the wave come in. They’re not used in every combat, but only when it would make sense and make the fight more challenging.
I should probably mention the recycled fight scenarios, but since it has been covered by practically every review, I think that point can be skipped.
Non-combat gameplay.
It would be nice to have some.
DA 2 quickly enters a “Fight. Talk. Fight. Talk” dynamic and never really abandons it. Relying on a single gameplay element to pull the player across the whole game is a mistake, as doing basically the same motions over and over builds fatigue upon the player. The game is in dire need of some breath room to break its cyclic pace and give the player a refreshing new challenge. Varric's act 2 mission does this to a point, and it is a much needed relief. As a whole, however, the lack of a good puzzle level – or other similar pace breaker – hurts the progression and enjoyment of the game. Fatigue builds upon the player with no real breather level to break the monotony of fight after fight, and the player is never challenged in a new, different, engaging way through the game.
Main Character Building and Customization
The removal of off-combat skills (Coercion, Herbalism, Survival, etc) while at first seems to reduce the clog in the leveling system, it also has an unintended malign effect: It further destroys the illusion that there's more to the game than fighting. Not that there actually is more to the game than fighting (as the previous section noted) but giving the player absolutely no way to influence the world in a way other than by hitting people with sharp sticks makes it painfully clear: we’re not creating a character, we’re building a lawnmower.
It is a very fun lawnmower to build, don’t get me wrong, and the skill webs are leaps and bounds above the linear talents/spells in Origins. But still, it feels as if half the character sheet is missing.
Itemization in the game could be better. Yes, the star code allows for at-a-glance evaluations, which will be needed, as it is the only way to tell items from the same type apart, and even then. What happened to the ambient text? Where are the short writings about the story of the weapon, armor, or complement and the crafter behind it? Where is the flavor? Equipment is just a bunch of raw statistics, nothing to make them stand out. Again, they serve their purpose, and there is enough loot lying around to never need to visit a shop – and still get some very good equipment from those. Overall, while the character building is functional and the combat skills are well designed, the inventory lack of flavor and the non-existent non-combat skills make the character feel less like a character and more like a set of skill combos.
Companion Characterization and Customization
It is done the wrong way. In order to give each companion an unique feel, the player's options to tinker with them have been cut with no compensation for these changes. Characterization has to come from additions and trade-offs, not from restrictions. To show an example of characterization done well, allow me to go down the nostalgia road and bring up one of the most beloved Bioware companions: Minsc. Minsc is a man of the wilds, a barbarian. However, when Baldur's Gate came out, there was no such class in the D&D rulebook. So they took the next best thing (a Ranger), and gave to him an additional Berserk skill. In addition, to further cement his quirky nature, they traded the regular animal companion of a Ranger for Boo, a quick slot item that increased Minsc's damage output. By a single addition and a trade-off, Minsc became this unique, beloved character. This is the proper way to characterize companions: Additions and trade-offs. This way, the companions are given their own flair, their own personality, without getting in the way of gameplay. It allows the player to build the party based not on class-skill combinations, but rather, by choice of companions. It allows a greater enjoyment of the game.
Redundancy and overlapping within companions is a good thing, as it allows a higher party composition variety. Specially considering the emphasis on teamwork, having the team variety in options limited hurts party building possibilities. You're pretty much forced to pick an specific companion or do it yourself if you want a certain role in the party covered. Not that there shouldn't be specialists, but rather than a specialist shouldn't be the only one to perform his specialization task: being the best at something shouldn't mean being the only option to do said thing.
However, neither of those things are present in DA 2 companions: Their character sheet is even more restricted than Hawke’s, with less personalization options, and they have random skill trees missing. Even if it could be justified for the mundane characters (as weapon specialists), Magi characters being barred a spell school for no good reason simply does not make sense.
The limitations in customization and specialization placed around the characters are arbitrary restrictions that serve no true gameplay purpose, and limit the player’s creativity for no apparent reason. You might say it’s to properly characterize the companions, but as I explained earlier, I do not consider it a valid reason, when said characterization can be done in a much more engaging and creative way.
“The family angle”
*SPOILERS*
Apparently, in creator lingo, “exploring the family angle” equals “setting up a source of cheap, easy emotional punches for the player”. And the worst part is that it fails at it. The first family member we mmet that will be killed is killed in the prologue, before the player has had a chance to actually connect with the characters. And the way the characters act reinforces the feeling that the death was superficial and meaningless, there only for a perceived shock value: even the gameplay bit immediately after the scene destroys any semblance of impact the death could have (more on that later). There’s a similar scene at the act 1 finale, that only triggers if certain conditions are met, that has a much more meaningful impact in the player. By that point, the player has had time to become familiar with said character: we’re not being asked to care five minutes into the game, but after six hours of meeting and interacting with the character: the scene actually has weight because the player has been allowed to build a connection.
Then there comes another act 2 quest that tries to capitalize on this but fails. Mostly because at its resolution, the player is struck with the following thought “I’m talking to the magically animated disembodied head of my mother grafted to a rag built body”; which completely destroys any meaningful impact the scene might have had.
*END SPOILERS*
Gameplay and Storyline segregation
This is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most glaring, crippling, off-putting, recurring failure in the game. At every turn, the story the dialogue and codex tells, and the story the world and gameplay tells, are completely unrelated.
The dialogue tells that Kirkwall is overcrowded with refugees, and even before, it was already a bustling community. What we travel around is an almost deserted city with a scarce population that look more like cardboard cuts than actual people.
The dialogues with Bethany and the codex reflect a heavy Templar presence, and her fear that using her powers would result in her capture. The gameplay has us casting spells openly all around Kirkwall, several times in front of Templars, and they wouldn’t bat an eyelash.
The codex and dialogues reveal that Blood Magic is a risky affair, and that the power it grants ends corrupting the user beyond redemption; it also tells us that said forbidden lore can only be learnt by dealing with demons or cooperating with other corrupted mages. Gameplay has us spend a talent point and never throws the consequences at the player.
The slides and dialogue tell years pass between acts, yet no character changes looks, no merchants open new business, every city NPC (all three of them) remain exactly at the same place, leaving the whole city in stasis for the duration of the game.
I could go on, but I think I made this point clear: the lore and the gameplay tell two different, completely unrelated, and usually conflicting stories, and the player is at a loss of which one he’s supposed to follow, destroying any attempt at immersion.
The Story
I salute the effort in trying to show a different plot than “Hero saves the day”. I really enjoyed the fact that Hawke is not a hero, but a war profiteer that uses every chance he/she gets to turn the situation to his/her advantage. However, the former point –gameplay and story segregation – dilutes a lot of the impact the story would have, as the two conflicting stories we’re being told muddy the three vignettes about Hawke’s life changing events (his reclaim of his noblehood, his ascension to champion, and his involvement in the first battle of the mage revolution). The conflicting lore and gameplay do a disservice to the events in Hawke’s life we’re supposed to be caring about.
The Paraphrase Wheel
First things first, the way the paraphrase wheel mechanic works in Dragon Age 2 is an improvement over former Bioware examples (read: Mass Effect) and less of a headache. Then again, bashing your head against a wall until you hear a wet snap is also less of a headache than Mass Effect wheel; but you take your victories where you can.
The inclusion of the tone icons is there to help the character understand better the meaning of the paraphrases. However, they only clarify intent, not content. We’re still doing guesswork rather than choices, as we still don’t know what will be said, only how. This difference between intent and content needs to be pointed out: Choosing a dialogue option should be based on content, not intent, as choices are only meaningful when we know WHAT our character will say, rather than HOW. Being surprised by our own character is the fastest way to destroy the enjoyment of the game.
As a matter of fact, when we need the clarification the icons should bring the most is when they fail: choices. When we’re asked to take a position, the icons do absolutely nothing to help us know what each choice will actually mean: we’re left again at the mercy of incomplete paraphrases that do not carry enough information for us to know if the paraphrase we’re choosing is actually the stance our character would take. Simply put, paraphrases fail as a method of conveying information to the player, and due to their strict character limitations they can never convey enough information to allow the player to make informed choices; the best thing they can offer is educated guesses. And that is simply not good enough.
This huge, glaring defect is apparently offset by the voice over benefits. Due to my specific situation (I play the game in Spanish, an idiom the game is subbed but not dubbed to), I must endure all the drawbacks a voiced character comes with without enjoying any of the alleged benefits. I’m sure those benefits are there: I’m having a hard time figuring out how they can offset the glaring drawback of removing character control from the player in a RPG.
Now, I understand the reason behind the paraphrases: apparently subvocalization was a big enough problem in the focus test groups that there was the need to *force* the players to listen to the voice over by removing the subtitles and putting paraphrases instead of full lines. After several conversations with a fellow forumite (Upsettingshorts), and excellent fellow who actually experiences the subvocalization issue, we came up with a solution of compromise that would allow the paraphrases to remain while allowing people who want to know the exact content of the line to do so as well: Holdover over a paraphrase option for a few seconds would cause the subtitle associated with the full line to show up in the subtitle section. This allows both parties to be satisfied, as those with subvocalization problems can consider the paraphrase alone while those who want to know the full content of the line can simply wait a bit to learn its content.
Overall conclusion
It’s a pity. A better execution of the game, a better intertwining of gameplay and story, a more polished character and companion development, a more worked out combat system and encounter design would have made the game much better than the product we have in our hands, which feels unfinished. We can glimpse the game it wanted to be, it was supposed to be, around the cracks, and it is a much more engaging experience than the game that came out. The flashes of brilliance, specially the new story angle, are muted by all the gaping flaws in the product.
And I can’t even play as a Dorf.
Modifié par Xewaka, 25 mai 2011 - 09:03 .
Retour en haut
.
