29 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadedclan]

is it the gameplay? the repetetive dungeons? the story? or something else? can someone please explain?  

[lx_theo]

Its the culmination of various parts, while some questionable in design, not meeting their greatest potential. It was evident more so in stuff like repetitive dungeons and the ending, where it felt rushed and lacking the polished it needs to be great.

its not bad perse, only below the expectation set by many other games. Some people will call it bad, but thats because of the general entitlement of PC elitists and other like them to the game they wanted exactly. I mean look at ME3. The game was great. One part, the ending, didn't live up to their standards and the whole game becomes trash to them. Its just silly.

[BubbleDncr]

It's not bad. It's not what a lot of fans wanted, but by itself, its not a bad game.

If you've played it, you know why you don't like it. If you haven't played it, you shouldn't let others create opinions for you.

And if you liked the game and are curious as to why other people don't, do other people really matter? All it'll accomplish is getting you frustrated or end up convincing you that you don't like something you previously liked.

[Jademoon121]

On it's own, it's not the worst game in the world by far.

[Cultist]

the sum of all factors. An most of all - "Call of Duty crowd" - arcade combat, dumbed down quests, story, dialogues, maps. All this to appeal to CoD crowd.

[Bebuse]

As others have said, a sum of bad things, none of which would be a deal-breaker on its own but together really affect the experience.

Personally, I like DA2, but feel it needed at least another 6 months of finishing by the team to become a truly great game like DA:O was.

The combat was much improved, but they did not think friendly fire and wave mechanics through enough. The maps were nicely designed, but there were not enough to fill the number of quests. I loved Kirkwall, but feel it would have been better as an open world in the style of Dark Souls. The story had some interesting elements and was a welcome step away from the expected "save the world game #37312", but did not flow very well, especially Act 1. The ending... yeah the ending. Can't make excuses for that. At least it was better than ME3's!

I don't think it was a bad game. Most publishers would be ecstatic to have made a game such as this. But there were some very obvious flaws, and we are all hoping Bioware have learned from them and Dragon Age the Third (whatever it may be, stupid lack of PAX feed...) will be a combination of the best parts of both games!

[Luzeka]

For me:

Reskined dungeons
The quests
The story
Combat system
The Graphics

Its a decent game but not good but thats my openion they should have made DA2 with DA:O graphics and its kinda lame that you only stay in Kirkwall region

[bEVEsthda]

Childish, "Hot-rod Samurai" art direction.
Voiced PC/Dialog wheel.
Linear/movie -> fixed combat set -> linear/movie -> fixed combat set -> linear/movie, etc ad nauseum.
"Streamlining"

Disappointment.

[Tommyspa]

Repetitive dungeons is the only universal problem, everything else is utter opinion and doesn't mean "bad" just "I don't like it."

[bEVEsthda]

Tommyspa wrote...

Repetitive dungeons is the only universal problem, everything else is utter opinion and doesn't mean "bad" just "I don't like it."

But re-used dungeons wouldn't be such a big problem if people had liked the game. You could say that re-used environments is an objective problem. But that doesn't make it important.

In a similar fashion, it doesn't matter if a problem is "utter opinion". I'm certain that the biggest, deal-breaking problems which can spell disaster for DA3 and the DA franchise, can be described as "utter opinion".

[Sharn01]

Its a lot of little things, but the entire act 3 story and the inability to actually control or make any real decisions with Hawke for most of the game where the big ones. I still dont think the game was bad though, just not good, which is something no one expected. Its unfortunate, because there where a lot of things about the game that where great, but they where drowned out by the stuff that wasnt.

[Tommyspa]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

Repetitive dungeons is the only universal problem, everything else is utter opinion and doesn't mean "bad" just "I don't like it."

But re-used dungeons wouldn't be such a big problem if people had liked the game. You could say that re-used environments is an objective problem. But that doesn't make it important.

In a similar fashion, it doesn't matter if a problem is "utter opinion". I'm certain that the biggest, deal-breaking problems which can spell disaster for DA3 and the DA franchise, can be described as "utter opinion".

Reused environments didn't bother me because I liked the game, confirming that idea of yours. However I did not rank the problems, merely stated the one thing that no one really liked was that and it is the most talked about in terms of bad, everything else does not fall into that category.

Utter opinion was only meant to imply that it will not affect someone who likes those things compared to a person who does not like those things. So it is irrelevant as you should not bother trying to convince someone those things are universal problems, because they are not. In those confines of the topic.

The only thing that could spell disaster to the sales of the games will be the expected review bombing and immature reaction of people on the internet simply because it is a meme to bomb BioWare, see Metacritic. Bad endings do not justify 0s nor do multiplayer and homosexuality or being a shooter. Such as those complaints about DA2 do not justify 0s and troll 0s and 10s don't actually cancel each other out therefore it is just review bombing because there are more people who do that than actually review them. It has little enough to do with one side being right or wrong just which side is loudest and the louder in the video game community is negativity.

[Maria Caliban]

Shadedclan wrote...

is it the gameplay? the repetetive dungeons? the story? or something else? can someone please explain?  

Dragon Age II had a number of flaws, which have been gone into ad nauseum, but this is the interwebs, so let's whip out the numbered lists.

1. Repetitive locations.
2. Disjointed plot.
3. Hawke feeling more like a side character than a protagonist.
4. Kirkwall isn't lively enough for a city.

And... that's about it!

[bEVEsthda]

Tommyspa wrote...
The only thing that could spell disaster to the sales of the games will be the expected review bombing and immature reaction of people on the internet simply because it is a meme to bomb BioWare, see Metacritic. Bad endings do not justify 0s nor do multiplayer and homosexuality or being a shooter. Such as those complaints about DA2 do not justify 0s and troll 0s and 10s don't actually cancel each other out therefore it is just review bombing because there are more people who do that than actually review them. It has little enough to do with one side being right or wrong just which side is loudest and the louder in the video game community is negativity.

Convincing yourself about things which aren't true, isn't a good way to navigate in a complex world.
DA2's problems are real. DA2 was not a success. DA2, not some internet review bombing, damaged the DA franchise.

It is true that negative internet movements will be a big part of the things that will happen, when/if the tower comes tumbling down. But they are not the cause. The cause is to find in DA2, and (in that case) will be to find in DA3.

DA3 will have a terrible, initial marketing position. Retailers won't accept large stock (they don't want a DA2 ultimate, because they're still burnt on DA2). There won't be much pre-orders. So unlike DA2, which rested on DA:O, DA3 will not sell in 2 million. DA3 will have to build up sales and reputation. If it is to have any chance of doing that, it cannot be just a polished DA2. Bioware must listen past, beyond those who liked DA2. They must filter out the droning noise from DA2-fans, and tune into what were the deal-breakers for the majority (Yes! Majority. Convincing yourself about things which aren't true, isn't a good way to navigate in a complex world.)

[Dessalines]

Actually, I argued on other medium about how good this game when it came out. I forgot about doing that on the forums. It is a good game. I enjoy playing it more that Dragon Age: Origins. For the record, I have never played Call of Duty.
The plot in Dragon Age was to gathered an army to fight an ancient evil. That really is not a very complex part.
The plot in Dragon Age 2 was an everyday citizen thrusts into being at the center of age old problem: Is it just to persecute the some to ensure the safety of the many or to simplify it how far you willing to go to feel safe. All the main plots and some of the side quests reinforce the main plot,of the game, and because it is interactive medium they show you the horrors of magic left unchecked along with what happens to Templars if they are left unchecked too. The Quanari represented both parts of the plot. At times they are the some being attacked and manipulated, and at times they all the ones going too far to feel safe. Their entire culture is one where the is no free will. Both games storywise could have been better. Dragon Age 2 would have been a great tv series, but Dragon Age: Origins probably would have been an okay movie.
I think the elephant in the room is that when some people buys rpg they want to be the "Man: or the "Woman." He or she can be seen as weak for a few moments, but then his or her true potential is revealed. They don't want to be used as a "pawn" again and again like Hawke. At the end of the game, they want some super boss that somes up all that they having been fighting for, and by defeating it, the world is a better place. They want their companion's world to revolve around them, because they are the "Man" or the "Woman." This is how rpgs are always done, and there is no reason to change it. I disagree with them.
I believe that for rpg games to still be a type a game you can pick up to play by yourself and not some silly MMO, then they are going to have to be more creative. Sometimes the hero of the story is going to be Bilbo Baggins and not King Arhur. Since the artistic nature of games comes from the story, then I want Bioware to push the boundaries, but do it all at once, because people will get mad.

That being said: The repetive scenery was beyond annoying , and it way too short. It is still a good game.

[Dessalines]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...
The only thing that could spell disaster to the sales of the games will be the expected review bombing and immature reaction of people on the internet simply because it is a meme to bomb BioWare, see Metacritic. Bad endings do not justify 0s nor do multiplayer and homosexuality or being a shooter. Such as those complaints about DA2 do not justify 0s and troll 0s and 10s don't actually cancel each other out therefore it is just review bombing because there are more people who do that than actually review them. It has little enough to do with one side being right or wrong just which side is loudest and the louder in the video game community is negativity.

Convincing yourself about things which aren't true, isn't a good way to navigate in a complex world.
DA2's problems are real. DA2 was not a success. DA2, not some internet review bombing, damaged the DA franchise.

It is true that negative internet movements will be a big part of the things that will happen, when/if the tower comes tumbling down. But they are not the cause. The cause is to find in DA2, and (in that case) will be to find in DA3.

DA3 will have a terrible, initial marketing position. Retailers won't accept large stock (they don't want a DA2 ultimate, because they're still burnt on DA2). There won't be much pre-orders. So unlike DA2, which rested on DA:O, DA3 will not sell in 2 million. DA3 will have to build up sales and reputation. If it is to have any chance of doing that, it cannot be just a polished DA2. Bioware must listen past, beyond those who liked DA2. They must filter out the droning noise from DA2-fans, and tune into what were the deal-breakers for the majority (Yes! Majority. Convincing yourself about things which aren't true, isn't a good way to navigate in a complex world.)

I really do not think how much a game sell should dictate if a game is good or not. There are a multitude of movies that are bad, that had made lots of money, and very few Oscar awarding movies are blockbusters. There are a bunch of bad tv shows that are still on the air, and there are a bunch of good shows that got cancelled too soon. If we used economics and popularity to decide how great a video game is then video games will never be taking seriously  Bioware is the only games in which I actually try to see what message the creator is trying to deliver. I think that so many people are used to the hack and slash rpgs which always sell  that is their measuring stick for a game's goodness.

[bEVEsthda]

Dessalines wrote...
I really do not think how much a game sell should dictate if a game is good or not. There are a multitude of movies that are bad, that had made lots of money, and very few Oscar awarding movies are blockbusters. There are a bunch of bad tv shows that are still on the air, and there are a bunch of good shows that got cancelled too soon. If we used economics and popularity to decide how great a video game is then video games will never be taking seriously  Bioware is the only games in which I actually try to see what message the creator is trying to deliver. I think that so many people are used to the hack and slash rpgs which always sell  that is their measuring stick for a game's goodness.

Yes. But we can use economics to figure out which game franchises have a future. DA is in a vulnerable position, and needs a success from DA3.
This is not really about decidng how great a video game is. Never was. Despite the thread title.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 07 avril 2012 - 01:04 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Dessalines wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...
The only thing that could spell disaster to the sales of the games will be the expected review bombing and immature reaction of people on the internet simply because it is a meme to bomb BioWare, see Metacritic. Bad endings do not justify 0s nor do multiplayer and homosexuality or being a shooter. Such as those complaints about DA2 do not justify 0s and troll 0s and 10s don't actually cancel each other out therefore it is just review bombing because there are more people who do that than actually review them. It has little enough to do with one side being right or wrong just which side is loudest and the louder in the video game community is negativity.

Convincing yourself about things which aren't true, isn't a good way to navigate in a complex world.
DA2's problems are real. DA2 was not a success. DA2, not some internet review bombing, damaged the DA franchise.

It is true that negative internet movements will be a big part of the things that will happen, when/if the tower comes tumbling down. But they are not the cause. The cause is to find in DA2, and (in that case) will be to find in DA3.

DA3 will have a terrible, initial marketing position. Retailers won't accept large stock (they don't want a DA2 ultimate, because they're still burnt on DA2). There won't be much pre-orders. So unlike DA2, which rested on DA:O, DA3 will not sell in 2 million. DA3 will have to build up sales and reputation. If it is to have any chance of doing that, it cannot be just a polished DA2. Bioware must listen past, beyond those who liked DA2. They must filter out the droning noise from DA2-fans, and tune into what were the deal-breakers for the majority (Yes! Majority. Convincing yourself about things which aren't true, isn't a good way to navigate in a complex world.)

I really do not think how much a game sell should dictate if a game is good or not. There are a multitude of movies that are bad, that had made lots of money, and very few Oscar awarding movies are blockbusters. There are a bunch of bad tv shows that are still on the air, and there are a bunch of good shows that got cancelled too soon. If we used economics and popularity to decide how great a video game is then video games will never be taking seriously  Bioware is the only games in which I actually try to see what message the creator is trying to deliver. I think that so many people are used to the hack and slash rpgs which always sell  that is their measuring stick for a game's goodness.

Yes like Planescape Tournament. It's considered one of the best RPG of all time along with BG and Neverwinter Nights, selling less than 500K copies and not many people even aware it exist. We never get to see a sequel because it's dead. I'm not a fan of PT and I never play PT. But the point is, if the game doesn't sell, it's as good as dead game.  

[Wentletrap]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Shadedclan wrote...

is it the gameplay? the repetetive dungeons? the story? or something else? can someone please explain?  

Dragon Age II had a number of flaws, which have been gone into ad nauseum, but this is the interwebs, so let's whip out the numbered lists.

1. Repetitive locations.
2. Disjointed plot.
3. Hawke feeling more like a side character than a protagonist.
4. Kirkwall isn't lively enough for a city.

And... that's about it!

Yes, yes, yes. 

I would add:  the passage of time was not adequately portrayed in-game, for the narrative they were aiming for.  Broke immersion for me. 

[Cultist]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Yes like Planescape Tournament. It's considered one of the best RPG of all time along with BG and Neverwinter Nights, selling less than 500K copies in 1999 while released on 4 CDs and not many Call of Duty players even aware it exist. We never get to see a sequel because it's dead. I'm not a fan of PT and I never play PT. But the point is, if the game doesn't sell, it's as good as dead game. Even if in 2005 GameSpot declared it one of its greatest games of all time, In 2007, IGN named it 71st on their list of the Top 100 Games of All Time, In 2008, the UK edition of PC Gamer rated it ninth on its own Top 100 list, In 2006, Gamasutra polled video game industry
professionals with the question: "Which role playing game over the
entire history of the genre do you think has made the biggest 'quantum
leap', and why?"[/b] Planescape: Torment was ranked second overall after Fallout a earning it a "Quantum Leap Award", A 2011 update of PC Gamer magazine's top 100 PC games of all-time ranked Planescape: Torment as the 19th greatest PC game.[b]

I've fixed it for ya.

Modifié par Cultist, 07 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[duckley]

Dessalines wrote...

Actually, I argued on other medium about how good this game when it came out. I forgot about doing that on the forums. It is a good game. I enjoy playing it more that Dragon Age: Origins. For the record, I have never played Call of Duty.
The plot in Dragon Age was to gathered an army to fight an ancient evil. That really is not a very complex part.
The plot in Dragon Age 2 was an everyday citizen thrusts into being at the center of age old problem: Is it just to persecute the some to ensure the safety of the many or to simplify it how far you willing to go to feel safe. All the main plots and some of the side quests reinforce the main plot,of the game, and because it is interactive medium they show you the horrors of magic left unchecked along with what happens to Templars if they are left unchecked too. The Quanari represented both parts of the plot. At times they are the some being attacked and manipulated, and at times they all the ones going too far to feel safe. Their entire culture is one where the is no free will. Both games storywise could have been better. Dragon Age 2 would have been a great tv series, but Dragon Age: Origins probably would have been an okay movie.
I think the elephant in the room is that when some people buys rpg they want to be the "Man: or the "Woman." He or she can be seen as weak for a few moments, but then his or her true potential is revealed. They don't want to be used as a "pawn" again and again like Hawke. At the end of the game, they want some super boss that somes up all that they having been fighting for, and by defeating it, the world is a better place. They want their companion's world to revolve around them, because they are the "Man" or the "Woman." This is how rpgs are always done, and there is no reason to change it. I disagree with them.
I believe that for rpg games to still be a type a game you can pick up to play by yourself and not some silly MMO, then they are going to have to be more creative. Sometimes the hero of the story is going to be Bilbo Baggins and not King Arhur. Since the artistic nature of games comes from the story, then I want Bioware to push the boundaries, but do it all at once, because people will get mad.

That being said: The repetive scenery was beyond annoying , and it way too short. It is still a good game.

I agree - there were many excellent elements to this game and I had a blast playing it -  played at least 7 times

I think the problem that plagues BIOWARE now is that they have created such excellent and unique games that almost anything that follows  will struggle to live up to the hype and heightened exectations. They put their heart and souls into the game and so too do their fans. I think some fans personalize it too much.

As for me  I just hate all the over the top negativity that I have been reading regarding ME3 in particular. I hope BIOWARE  continues to produce great games and continues to be open to listening to constructive feedback ( which I believe they have). Can't wait for DA3!

Modifié par duckley, 07 avril 2012 - 06:21 .

[BearThug71]

I never played DA:2 but from what I hear the most are:

1. Most of the game is in the city called "Kirkwall".

2. Most quests are in the same dungeons.

3. More technical issues and mediocre graphics.

The other reasons were minor and/or petty...

I just beat DA:O Ultimate Edition (Including Awakening) for the second time yesterday, and I loved it... Will be getting DA:2 soon.

[Maria Caliban]

I think it being in Kirkwall would have worked if Kirkwall were more fleshed out and much, much larger.

[wowpwnslol]

Cultist wrote...

the sum of all factors. An most of all - "Call of Duty crowd" - arcade combat, dumbed down quests, story, dialogues, maps. All this to appeal to CoD crowd.

This. Dragon Age 2 was made for 12 year old ADD console shooter fans rather than RPG fans. Bioware should have followed the winning formula that was Origins, but sadly with EA pulling all the strings a once great company is now a shadow of what it used to be. It's all about profit now, rather than love of the art of creating amazing games.

[Maria Caliban]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Dragon Age 2 was made for 12 year old ADD console shooter fans rather than RPG fans.

I find comments like these insulting and unnecessarily divisive. I am not twelve, I do not have ADD, and I am most certainly an RPG fan. I did enjoy Dragon Age II, moreso than I did Dragon Age: Origins.

This sort of comment happens on a daily basis. If your tastes are so obviously more refined, your intelligence so obviously greater, and your preferences so obviously superior, surely you can criticize Dragon Age II without resorting to blanket attacks on those who enjoyed it?