297 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

Narreneth wrote...

fchopin wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

I disagree with your point about not being able to consider both parties wrong at the end of DA2.  Just because you are forced to pick a side, doesn't mean that you don't think they're both being fanatics.  You can get stuck in a position where you're forced to pick between two options you don't like in the real world too.

There was no choice, they should have just had only one dialogue choice as it makes no difference.
 
Choice means a different outcome.

If that's your only criteria for what makes a choice in a game a choice, then you didn't have many choices in Origins, either.  Regardless you kill the Archdemon, Duncan dies, etc. etc.  Yes, the method that the Archdemon is killed with changes, but the outcome does not.  Just because the final battle has to happen to move things along in the story, doesn't mean you don't have any choices along the way.

Killing the Archdemon was the story in DAO so no second option was needed but there were many choices in the game.
 
In DA2 there is no plot as it's all meaningless in the end.
 
If you could pick sides it would have made sense but there was no option to pick a side as it made no difference.

[Twulfster]

 @Tommy6860
I agree with what you're saying, and particularly;
"Maybe it should have been called Dragon Age: Hawke's Story, or something along that line."I can relate to your thought process there because I see this game as a 'side-story' much more than a continuation or sequel in the broad sense.
And when I praise the game, I of course don't mean to disregard the flaws because it is flawed but I would just protest  that it isn't flawed to the degree the hatred towards it would suggest.

However, I also agree the selection of problems you've highlighted are indeed big problems, they are the ugliest parts of what the game offer- for me they simply didn't outweigh the overall experience.

And I can easily see, moreso now that I've posted this thread, that I'm in a minority on that. I've played a few RPGs where I've not been given varied locations, where I've had to endure recycled maps and enemies and had a sense of Deja vu and while it feels more out of place here than in those games- it still wasn't an Issue for me. 

I was revisiting the same warehouse but never for the same purpose, I was either going there to search for something, to kill someone, to get answers from somebody else and so on. It even got to a point towards the latter sections of the game where Varric would even joke about the lack of variety in locations.

Part of me really doesn't think this was a decision done entirely through lazyness(although a big part of me does as little to no effort was made to 'Age' Kirkwall between the time jumps)and that's because there's an evident attempt to try to vary the quests as much as is possible when you've got such a limited set of locales, and I appreciated that. The fact that the cave I was in this quest wasn't unique from the last cave didn't bother me because I was there for a different reason.

I understand that these kinds of problems(and they are problems!)really distract and almost destroy what one could argue is the essence of RPGs (Adventuring and exploring)but I'm not a harsh critic when there's clearly merit in what I'm experiencing.

That's why I made this topic, to say I think this game needs alittle less flak because it's not all bad. But I certainly not going to say you're wrong to call out the many flaws it has and I whole heartdly expect Bioware to address them should we see a sequel. 

[cactusberry]

This one also thought of the hanar people through the topic of that one's post. This one is pleased and wishes that one light from the enkindlers.

~Kehehehe.

Modifié par TheDarkRats, 07 avril 2011 - 01:13 .

[Narreneth]

Otterwarden wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Again, this still isn't an accurate depiction of what the "majority" of players are thinking.  People are too quick to give weight to "polls" given on the internet but are unwilling to take into consideration information such as the userbase of the site the reviews/polls are coming from.  In this case, the e-cool thing to do concerning DA2 is to drag it over some jagged rocks.  Many people have perfectly valid reasons for complaint and have voiced them in a mature and clear manner.  It is undeniable, however, that this game has sparked something akin to the console wars between 360 and PS3. 

Both sides have spawned some fanatics, but the overwhelming majority of the caps lock posts and reviews are from the negative side.  If you take some time to browse through the individual reviews on the game, the reason the score is 43 is because of a problem with user reviews for virtually every single product on the market:  the people who dislike the game give it a 0.  People who like it give it a 10.  There are even people who have rated it a 0 who don't have the game, have only played the demo, or are rating based completely on hearsay.  While everyone is entitled to their opinion, to say that DA2 is deserving of a 0 seems to be well in the realm of unfair.  Do I think it's a 10?  No, probably not.  Personally I'd rate it as a 9 or thereabouts, though that is irrelevant.

If people took the time to honestly weigh what they do and don't like about the game, their reasons for it, and gave an honest review, the feedback would be much different.  This is true for every game, not just DA2.

I have taken some time to read through the individual reviews.  And, while we can't use this source as an indication of the reception as a whole, it does appear to suggest that there was something in this game that brought many RPG gamers out of their complacency to the barricades.  Personally, since I did read the reviews, I'm not buying the fanatics representation on either side of the debate, and zero or ten can simply be seen as a "thumbs up" /"thumbs down" vote.

No, it cannot.  Not when you're referencing the actual score the game is getting.  If you go through and count each individual vote above 5 as a thumbs up and every single one below 5 as thumbs down, granting the 5's a "meh" then you can do that.  Because then you're getting a score that is indicative of what people thought on a thumbs up or down scale.  When referencing the 43, it's very misleading.  Seven people voting 4 is not the same reception as 3 people voting 1 or 0 and 3 people voting 9 or 10.  DA2 is getting a very polarized response, and it seems (note: seems.  I'm not stating a fact) that the people who are willing to be more reasonable in their reviews for this particular game are the ones who do like it.  You see a lot more of a spread in the 7-9 range than you do in say the 1-4. 

I've read through many of the reviews myself, I'm not just talking out of my ass.  I question what you're trying to prove by reading a few.  Furthermore, your "RPG fans came out of complacency" argument makes no sense.  I've been an RPG fan for a very long time and I liked DA2.  To simply say "well, it's the RPG fans that don't like it" is just as bad a generalization as any other.

[Lord_Valandil]

Otterwarden wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

axl99 wrote...

The more I see users object to the overall direction that DA2 is going, the more I want the devs to do as they please just to spite the forum trolls. Because it's totally in their power to do so.

Not speaking in name of the trolls, just in case.
But what's your point? We didn't like the game, and we certainly don't like the new direction.
So...should we just shut up and watch? No.

Well to be fair they can do as they please. Makes our decisions as consumers much easier.

Really, why would I care if they want to go around without a nose

Indeed. I guess.

[slimgrin]

This one must be stoned.

[Otterwarden]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

I pay attention to what the developers are telling us, and take everything said by everyone with a healthy grain of salt. When I am interested, I buy the game and when I play a game, I develop my own opinions based on my perceptions of what the Developers were attempting to create when developing the game, judging each game on its own merit, as opposed to directly comparing every little detail to its predecessor, especially when the developer has already stated that the game will be different in some manner.

This paragraph takes the cake IMO, the last line is the
pinnacle of that thinking. It is different in just "some manner",
please!? It is diametrically opposed to anything that functions or plays out
like Origins did, therefore, it is truly not the same kind of game. Seriously,
if you think bunny-hopping rogue kills and backstabs (as just a few examples)
is realistic RPG gaming, then so be it. I doubt any serious RPGer would agree
with you outside of the Final Fantasy diehards. Take this how you please, but
the game was not advertised nor promoted to be a near totally different game
than Origins, nor has it panned out to be anything close to an RPG.

Not only that, Laidlaw is on record as calling it a 180 degree shift.  You simply can't get more different than diametrically opposed.

Edit:  Post launch he stated that in one of the follow up interviews.

Modifié par Otterwarden, 07 avril 2011 - 01:17 .

[Narreneth]

fchopin wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

fchopin wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

I disagree with your point about not being able to consider both parties wrong at the end of DA2.  Just because you are forced to pick a side, doesn't mean that you don't think they're both being fanatics.  You can get stuck in a position where you're forced to pick between two options you don't like in the real world too.

There was no choice, they should have just had only one dialogue choice as it makes no difference.
 
Choice means a different outcome.

If that's your only criteria for what makes a choice in a game a choice, then you didn't have many choices in Origins, either.  Regardless you kill the Archdemon, Duncan dies, etc. etc.  Yes, the method that the Archdemon is killed with changes, but the outcome does not.  Just because the final battle has to happen to move things along in the story, doesn't mean you don't have any choices along the way.

Killing the Archdemon was the story in DAO so no second option was needed but there were many choices in the game.
 
In DA2 there is no plot as it's all meaningless in the end.
 
If you could pick sides it would have made sense but there was no option to pick a side as it made no difference.

I don't understand how people can honestly believe that there is no central plot in DA2.  The story is about the conflict between the mages and the chantry finally coming to a head.  The events in Kirkwall spark uprisings across Thedas. 

You picking sides is still important from a roleplaying perspective (and may affect DLC, we can't be sure of that right now though).  The reason you end up seeing the ending turning out the way it does is because ultimately everyone involved is corrupt.  Not because your personal choices don't matter to the story.

[Tommy6860]

Twulfster wrote...

 @Tommy6860
I agree with what you're saying, and particularly;
"Maybe it should have been called Dragon Age: Hawke's Story, or something along that line."I can relate to your thought process there because I see this game as a 'side-story' much more than a continuation or sequel in the broad sense.
And when I praise the game, I of course don't mean to disregard the flaws because it is flawed but I would just protest  that it isn't flawed to the degree the hatred towards it would suggest.

However, I also agree the selection of problems you've highlighted are indeed big problems, they are the ugliest parts of what the game offer- for me they simply didn't outweigh the overall experience.

And I can easily see, moreso now that I've posted this thread, that I'm in a minority on that. I've played a few RPGs where I've not been given varied locations, where I've had to endure recycled maps and enemies and had a sense of Deja vu and while it feels more out of place here than in those games- it still wasn't an Issue for me. 

I was revisiting the same warehouse but never for the same purpose, I was either going there to search for something, to kill someone, to get answers from somebody else and so on. It even got to a point towards the latter sections of the game where Varric would even joke about the lack of variety in locations.

Part of me really doesn't think this was a decision done entirely through lazyness(although a big part of me does as little to no effort was made to 'Age' Kirkwall between the time jumps)and that's because there's an evident attempt to try to vary the quests as much as is possible when you've got such a limited set of locales, and I appreciated that. The fact that the cave I was in this quest wasn't unique from the last cave didn't bother me because I was there for a different reason.

I understand that these kinds of problems(and they are problems!)really distract and almost destroy what one could argue is the essence of RPGs (Adventuring and exploring)but I'm not a harsh critic when there's clearly merit in what I'm experiencing.

That's why I made this topic, to say I think this game needs alittle less flak because it's not all bad. But I certainly not going to say you're wrong to call out the many flaws it has and I whole heartdly expect Bioware to address them should we see a sequel. 

Again, if the game made you happy, that's fine, but I just don't see how you don't find laziness in recycling maps. It also has to do with making a game with a quick turnaround by saving money of development costs. Com'on, no matter how many different quests you do and what they represent, doing those quest through the same venues is a deal breaker and takes away the immersion and fantasy of the game.

[Narreneth]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

I pay attention to what the developers are telling us, and take everything said by everyone with a healthy grain of salt. When I am interested, I buy the game and when I play a game, I develop my own opinions based on my perceptions of what the Developers were attempting to create when developing the game, judging each game on its own merit, as opposed to directly comparing every little detail to its predecessor, especially when the developer has already stated that the game will be different in some manner.

This paragraph takes the cake IMO, the last line is the
pinnacle of that thinking. It is different in just "some manner",
please!? It is diametrically opposed to anything that functions or plays out
like Origins did, therefore, it is truly not the same kind of game. Seriously,
if you think bunny-hopping rogue kills and backstabs (as just a few examples)
is realistic RPG gaming, then so be it. I doubt any serious RPGer would agree
with you outside of the Final Fantasy diehards. Take this how you please, but
the game was not advertised nor promoted to be a near totally different game
than Origins, nor has it panned out to be anything close to an RPG.

Hang on a second.  Did you just make the claim that because rogues can hop behind their target to backstab, this isn't an RPG?  That has literally nothing to do with what makes DA2 (or any game for that matter) an RPG or not an RPG.

[Twulfster]

@Tommy6860

No, you're completely right. It's one point, where I to argue a case for DA2, that I simply couldn't get by.

It's just a personal thing, I'm a veteran of recycled areas I suppose you could say! I've played games where it happens and played them a lot so I've just built up a bit of an immunity to it impacting my experience.

You are completely right with your points about it breaking immersion and being lazy. I can't and wouldn't disagree.

[Narreneth]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Twulfster wrote...

 @Tommy6860
I agree with what you're saying, and particularly;
"Maybe it should have been called Dragon Age: Hawke's Story, or something along that line."I can relate to your thought process there because I see this game as a 'side-story' much more than a continuation or sequel in the broad sense.
And when I praise the game, I of course don't mean to disregard the flaws because it is flawed but I would just protest  that it isn't flawed to the degree the hatred towards it would suggest.

However, I also agree the selection of problems you've highlighted are indeed big problems, they are the ugliest parts of what the game offer- for me they simply didn't outweigh the overall experience.

And I can easily see, moreso now that I've posted this thread, that I'm in a minority on that. I've played a few RPGs where I've not been given varied locations, where I've had to endure recycled maps and enemies and had a sense of Deja vu and while it feels more out of place here than in those games- it still wasn't an Issue for me. 

I was revisiting the same warehouse but never for the same purpose, I was either going there to search for something, to kill someone, to get answers from somebody else and so on. It even got to a point towards the latter sections of the game where Varric would even joke about the lack of variety in locations.

Part of me really doesn't think this was a decision done entirely through lazyness(although a big part of me does as little to no effort was made to 'Age' Kirkwall between the time jumps)and that's because there's an evident attempt to try to vary the quests as much as is possible when you've got such a limited set of locales, and I appreciated that. The fact that the cave I was in this quest wasn't unique from the last cave didn't bother me because I was there for a different reason.

I understand that these kinds of problems(and they are problems!)really distract and almost destroy what one could argue is the essence of RPGs (Adventuring and exploring)but I'm not a harsh critic when there's clearly merit in what I'm experiencing.

That's why I made this topic, to say I think this game needs alittle less flak because it's not all bad. But I certainly not going to say you're wrong to call out the many flaws it has and I whole heartdly expect Bioware to address them should we see a sequel. 

Again, if the game made you happy, that's fine, but I just don't see how you don't find laziness in recycling maps. It also has to do with making a game with a quick turnaround by saving money of development costs. Com'on, no matter how many different quests you do and what they represent, doing those quest through the same venues is a deal breaker and takes away the immersion and fantasy of the game.

I agree that the recycled maps felt lazy.  It's one of my issues with the game.  I don't consider it to be a deal breaker.  Overall I still really liked the game.

[LeBurns]

This one likes talking this way ... like a certain character in a DLC from a much better game. This one must not approve of your discription of the game.

[Tommy6860]

Narreneth wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

I pay attention to what the developers are telling us, and take everything said by everyone with a healthy grain of salt. When I am interested, I buy the game and when I play a game, I develop my own opinions based on my perceptions of what the Developers were attempting to create when developing the game, judging each game on its own merit, as opposed to directly comparing every little detail to its predecessor, especially when the developer has already stated that the game will be different in some manner.

This paragraph takes the cake IMO, the last line is the
pinnacle of that thinking. It is different in just "some manner",
please!? It is diametrically opposed to anything that functions or plays out
like Origins did, therefore, it is truly not the same kind of game. Seriously,
if you think bunny-hopping rogue kills and backstabs (as just a few examples)
is realistic RPG gaming, then so be it. I doubt any serious RPGer would agree
with you outside of the Final Fantasy diehards. Take this how you please, but
the game was not advertised nor promoted to be a near totally different game
than Origins, nor has it panned out to be anything close to an RPG.

Hang on a second.  Did you just make the claim that because rogues can hop behind their target to backstab, this isn't an RPG?  That has literally nothing to do with what makes DA2 (or any game for that matter) an RPG or not an RPG.

Did I say that was the only aspect of the game that doesn't make it an RPG? I wasn't writing a thesis on the game, just giving a few examples, of which I could list near endlessly.

[Otterwarden]

Narreneth wrote...

I've read through many of the reviews myself, I'm not just talking out of my ass.  I question what you're trying to prove by reading a few.  Furthermore, your "RPG fans came out of complacency" argument makes no sense.  I've been an RPG fan for a very long time and I liked DA2.  To simply say "well, it's the RPG fans that don't like it" is just as bad a generalization as any other.

I've read well over half, probably closer to two thirds, and will stand behind the statement that they primarily represent individuals who have experience playing RPG games and were very disappointed with this as a sequel to DA:O.

[Narreneth]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

I pay attention to what the developers are telling us, and take everything said by everyone with a healthy grain of salt. When I am interested, I buy the game and when I play a game, I develop my own opinions based on my perceptions of what the Developers were attempting to create when developing the game, judging each game on its own merit, as opposed to directly comparing every little detail to its predecessor, especially when the developer has already stated that the game will be different in some manner.

This paragraph takes the cake IMO, the last line is the
pinnacle of that thinking. It is different in just "some manner",
please!? It is diametrically opposed to anything that functions or plays out
like Origins did, therefore, it is truly not the same kind of game. Seriously,
if you think bunny-hopping rogue kills and backstabs (as just a few examples)
is realistic RPG gaming, then so be it. I doubt any serious RPGer would agree
with you outside of the Final Fantasy diehards. Take this how you please, but
the game was not advertised nor promoted to be a near totally different game
than Origins, nor has it panned out to be anything close to an RPG.

Hang on a second.  Did you just make the claim that because rogues can hop behind their target to backstab, this isn't an RPG?  That has literally nothing to do with what makes DA2 (or any game for that matter) an RPG or not an RPG.

Did I say that was the only aspect of the game that doesn't make it an RPG? I wasn't writing a thesis on the game, just giving a few examples, of which I could list near endlessly.

Regardless of whether it's the only thing on your list or not, it still has nothing to do with what makes a game an RPG.  And since we're on the subject, give a good list then.  Why isn't DA2 an RPG?  I can give you plenty of reasons why it is.  

In fact, rather than telling me what makes DA2 "not an RPG," why don't you go ahead and make a list of criteria for a video game to be an RPG, then give a good solid example of multiple games that meet said criteria.  In order for something to be genre-defining it's got to be in the vast majority of games that fall into that category, and since you clearly know so much more than everyone else, enlighten me.  

[fchopin]

Narreneth wrote...

I don't understand how people can honestly believe that there is no central plot in DA2.  The story is about the conflict between the mages and the chantry finally coming to a head.  The events in Kirkwall spark uprisings across Thedas. 

You picking sides is still important from a roleplaying perspective (and may affect DLC, we can't be sure of that right now though).  The reason you end up seeing the ending turning out the way it does is because ultimately everyone involved is corrupt.  Not because your personal choices don't matter to the story.

I know the plot is about the conflict but it was so badly implemented that none of the PC's decisions in the quests made any difference in the end as there was no choice.
 
If there was no choice why was my character even involved.
 
I would love a patch from Bioware to correct this problem as i believe the game will be greatly improved.

[Narreneth]

Otterwarden wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

I've read through many of the reviews myself, I'm not just talking out of my ass.  I question what you're trying to prove by reading a few.  Furthermore, your "RPG fans came out of complacency" argument makes no sense.  I've been an RPG fan for a very long time and I liked DA2.  To simply say "well, it's the RPG fans that don't like it" is just as bad a generalization as any other.

I've read well over half, probably closer to two thirds, and will stand behind the statement that they primarily represent individuals who have experience playing RPG games and were very disappointed with this as a sequel to DA:O.

You read 1800 reviews?  My bull**** alarm is positively blaring.

Anyway, it's still an invalid generalization to make.  There are plenty of RPG fans who are happy with DA2 as a sequel as well.  A person's taste for RPGs doesn't have anything to do with what they thought about DA2 so much as a persons taste in RPGs.

[Narreneth]

fchopin wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

I don't understand how people can honestly believe that there is no central plot in DA2.  The story is about the conflict between the mages and the chantry finally coming to a head.  The events in Kirkwall spark uprisings across Thedas. 

You picking sides is still important from a roleplaying perspective (and may affect DLC, we can't be sure of that right now though).  The reason you end up seeing the ending turning out the way it does is because ultimately everyone involved is corrupt.  Not because your personal choices don't matter to the story.

I know the plot is about the conflict but it was so badly implemented that none of the PC's decisions in the quests made any difference in the end as there was no choice.
 
If there was no choice why was my character even involved.
 
I would love a patch from Bioware to correct this problem as i believe the game will be greatly improved.

I think much of the plot implementation was found in hindsight.  Many of the sidequests ended up being lead-ins to larger parts of the story.  I liked that method as it gave incentive to do side quests other than just for experience or gear.

Modifié par Narreneth, 07 avril 2011 - 01:36 .

[fchopin]

slimgrin wrote...

This one must be stoned.

This one stones slimgrin

[Otterwarden]

Narreneth wrote...

You read 1800 reviews?  My bull**** alarm is positively blaring.

Anyway, it's still an invalid generalization to make.  There are plenty of RPG fans who are happy with DA2 as a sequel as well.  A person's taste for RPGs doesn't have anything to do with what they thought about DA2 so much as a persons taste in RPGs.

This one has been on record stating that they have followed this closely from the launch...rubbernecking if you will.  It has been a truly fascinating marketing case study.  Critically reading feedback is not hard if you have the training, and it can be done rather quickly.  You can probably access my only diary post through my profile where I mentioned it.

Never have stated that there are no RPG players who like the game, clearly there are.  Simply pointed out that the metacritic user feedback suggests that other dynamics are at play, including a bit of an RPG gamers revolt to what they perceive as a selling out of the genre for the sake of the almighty buck.

[Blackshayde]

I love how the DA2 haters rant and rave about recycled areas in this game, but they conveniently forget
about the fact that Mass Effect 1 had lots of recycled areas (and I'm sure everyone would agree that ME1
deserved universal praise, being, realistically,  the greatest non-traditional RPG ever), that's just part of
Bioware's design philosophy, and there are probably practical considerations for using recycled areas; 
do you really want a game on four discs????

Modifié par Blackshayde, 07 avril 2011 - 01:48 .

[Narreneth]

Otterwarden wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

You read 1800 reviews?  My bull**** alarm is positively blaring.

Anyway, it's still an invalid generalization to make.  There are plenty of RPG fans who are happy with DA2 as a sequel as well.  A person's taste for RPGs doesn't have anything to do with what they thought about DA2 so much as a persons taste in RPGs.

This one has been on record stating that they have followed this closely from the launch...rubbernecking if you will.  It has been a truly fascinating marketing case study.  Critically reading feedback is not hard if you have the training, and it can be done rather quickly.  You can probably access my only diary post through my profile where I mentioned it.

Never have stated that there are no RPG players who like the game, clearly there are.  Simply pointed out that the metacritic user feedback suggests that other dynamics are at play, including a bit of an RPG gamers revolt to what they perceive as a selling out of the genre for the sake of the almighty buck.

I'd be fairly outraged myself if I perceived DA2 as selling out.  Fortunately for me, I don't.  Interesting thought, though.  My personal opinion on the matter is that people tend to use it as a fallback reason to add weight to their argument. 

[Tommy6860]

Otterwarden wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

I've read through many of the reviews myself, I'm not just talking out of my ass.  I question what you're trying to prove by reading a few.  Furthermore, your "RPG fans came out of complacency" argument makes no sense.  I've been an RPG fan for a very long time and I liked DA2.  To simply say "well, it's the RPG fans that don't like it" is just as bad a generalization as any other.

I've read well over half, probably closer to two thirds, and will stand behind the statement that they primarily represent individuals who have experience playing RPG games and were very disappointed with this as a sequel to DA:O.

Count me as one of those RPG players who found deep disappointment with DA2. In fact, it is more the reasoned responses from thsoe who fit your description that have been the most vocal critics. Yes, there are the flame-throwers, and I readily dismiss most of that dreck posting anyway. But, OTOH, the ones who come to the defense of DA2, typically do this with ad hominem and flames more than give a good retort to the more reasoned opposition to this game. The OP of this thread is a rare one who actually found the game to his/her liking and I dare say even was a blessing to read.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 07 avril 2011 - 01:51 .

[Narreneth]

Blackshayde wrote...

I love how the DA2 haters rant and rave about recycled areas in this game, but they conveniently forget
about the fact that Mass Effect 1 had lots of recycled areas (and I'm sure everyone would agree that ME1
deserved universal praise, being, realistically,  the greatest non-traditional RPG ever), that's just part of
Bioware's design philosophy, and there are probably practical considerations for using recycled areas; 
do you really want a game on four discs????

BioWare made the claim that they couldn't get as much done if they had taken the time to design tons of new levels.  I don't know enough about how they function to say whether they are just blowing smoke or not, though.  Personally, I didn't like the recycled areas (in DA2 or in ME1) but to me they aren't game breaking.  I hope DA3 takes it a bit easier on the area recycling, but I'm okay with some.