70 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

Excluding Sonic Chronicles.

Let's forget claims that this game is bad, or even less-than-decent. Is there a Bioware game that you would say is definitively worse than this game?

[ShadowLordXII]

From a technical stand-point, The Old Republic.

It's a very fun and decently crafted game, but it's more frustrating to deal with because you could be kicked off at any time or any place due to climbing lag or a server error.

At least DA2 doesn't rely on internet speed to be playable.

Narrative-wise, Mass Effect 3

In short, we wouldn't have had the whole ending fiasco if we'd gotten the Extended Cut from the get-go and that still doesn't fix the pointlessness of war assets.

Gameplay stand point...nada...I've yet to see a bioware game that screwed up in the gameplay aspect.

[Face of Evil]

I haven't played any Bioware games except Dragon Age.

[Corto81]

In a word? Yes.

For reasons stated so many times over and over.

Bottom line is that this game feels like it was made for a quick profit and has no passion or soul behind it (unlike DA:Origins, Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dark Souls 2, etc... so many games that were made in a deep and engaging way and that treated you like an adult).
While these games tried to attract more people to the RPG genre by making better RPGs, DA2 tried to attract more people by watering out the RPG elements and going for a streamlined game that doesn't appeal to the non-RPG crowd and is rubbish as an RPG game.

[Rxdiaz]

I would have to say yes...

[Forst1999]

Hard to say without having played Shattered Steel, MDK2, Sonic Chronicles and The Old Republic. But I'd say no. I think Neverwinter Nights is extremely underwhelming: Predictable, uncreative story with characters that are either boring or whose development doesn't make much sense; utterly unchallenging combat without depth. It has a certain charm (design, some nice side quests), but in most areas NWN is very weak. I've heard that the expansions were much better, but if we're just talking about the weakest main game, I think nothing even comes close to NWN.

[Johnsen1972]

I loved NWN and I even played MDK2. But I cant say DA2 was Biowares worst game. It was a medicore game, with a lot of flaws, but compared to other RPG's coming out in the last years, I wouldnt say it was the worst game. I would rate DA2 as an 74 game, while I would rate DAO at 91.

[LTD]

Most disappointing? For sure. Worst? Ehhh..Hmm..I think so.

[Veronix]

Not even close to the worst. Except for not getting Isabella to live with me, and despising both Fenris and Anders for being so intractable, I sorta like the thing.

[ioannisdenton]

No. it is pretty awesome if you ask me. Suppose this game had more time put in development you would actually be praising it now. DLC for DA2 is superb. have you playrd it?

[batlin]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Suppose this game had more time put in development you would actually be praising it now.

And I would be praising this hamburger I'm eating right now if it were instead a filet mignon. What's your point?

[Jijan Dax]

contrary to popular opinion I love this game and absolutely ADORE the characters in it. Story-wise this is actually a very good game although I agree that if the game was worked on for much longer it would have been better relayed and portrayed to the community (right now a lot of imagination is required for backgrounds and some animations)

I also agree with ioannisdenton that the DLC is superb, which makes me doubly sad as they've stopped all production of other planned DLC.

My opinion is that haters and trolls killed this game, not the game itself. I realize very few people will share this opinion however.

[batlin]

Jijan Dax wrote...

My opinion is that haters and trolls killed this game, not the game itself. I realize very few people will share this opinion however.

It's called capitalism. If there's a product that sells well, it succeeds. If it does not sell well, it fails.

There are a multitude of amazing products that capitalism has not prevented us from getting. Why is it all of a sudden to blame for this game failing?

Bad reviews and "trolls" didn't make the Tranformers movies flop. Harsh critiques by "haters" didn't prevent Fable 3 from selling amazingly well. Why is Dragon Age 2 the singular exception?

Modifié par batlin, 26 février 2013 - 06:53 .

[Brodoteau]

batlin wrote...

Jijan Dax wrote...

My opinion is that haters and trolls killed this game, not the game itself. I realize very few people will share this opinion however.

It's called capitalism. If there's a product that sells well, it succeeds. If it does not sell well, it fails.

There are a multitude of amazing products that capitalism has not prevented us from getting. Why is it all of a sudden to blame for this game failing?

Bad reviews and "trolls" didn't make the Tranformers movies flop. Harsh critiques by "haters" didn't prevent Fable 3 from selling amazingly well. Why is Dragon Age 2 the singular exception?

While I generally liked the game, and different elements of the game, I write this not to necessarily defend it but rather to take issue with your simplistic notions of capitalism that besmirch Adam Smith's good name.

1.  Please support the assertion that DA2 did not sell well.  And please define what you mean by "sell well."  

2.  DA2, by my understanding, and what David Gaider has repeatedly said on these forusm, sold well (especially in the crucial first few months of its release).  Considering that there was less development and time put into this game than others then this game, most likely, turned a profit.  Also DA2 didn't kill the franchise, so it must have made enough money to justify another game.  

3.  Capitalism does not simply focus on selling well vs. not selling well.  The basis of capitalism is supply and demand.  If your critique is to have merit, than you must show that the demand for DA2 did not meet the supply of DA2 in terms of price and/or equilibrium.    

4.  You are denying the influence that word of mouth and marketing can have in making a product -- especially an entertainment product.  Or have you not noticed that most TV shows are interested in creating "buzz" around a product.  You are also denying that there has been no hyperbole in the criticisms of DA2.  But then again, the "cool" factor has nothing to do with selling products?  

5.  A quick history lesson:  Frank Capra's A Wonderful Life was a commercial bomb.  It was also a critical bomb.  It has since been reassessed and found to be a movie classic.  Did the content of the movie change?  No.  But the perceptions of it did change.   Sometimes its all about time and place.   

Modifié par Brodoteau, 26 février 2013 - 07:27 .

[batlin]

Brodoteau wrote...

1.  Please support the assertion that DA2 did not sell well.  And please define what you mean by "sell well."

http://greywardens.c...ly-did-it-sell/

It sold half as well as Dragon Age: Origins and its DLC did considerably worse. You didn't hear about any DA:O DLC cancellations, right?

Selling only half as well as its predecessor is a pretty good indicator of it not "selling well", would you agree?

2.  DA2, by my understanding, and what David Gaider has repeatedly said on these forusm, sold well (especially in the crucial first few months of its release).  Considering that there was less development and time put into this game than others then this game, most likely, turned a profit.  Also DA2 didn't kill the franchise, so it must have made enough money to justify another game.

Yes, the rushed development time likely did ensure it made a profit. The rushed development time is also the culprit behind what every DA2 critic complains about.

So I hope Bioware enjoys the quick buck they made, because rushing development really screwed them over in the long run.

3.  Capitalism does not simply focus on selling well vs. not selling well.  The basis of capitalism is supply and demand.  If your critique is to have merit, than you must show that the demand for DA2 did not meet the supply of DA2 in terms of price and/or equilibrium.

I'm not sure how that is an argument against anything in my post.

4.  You are denying the influence that word of mouth and marketing can have in making a product -- especially an entertainment product.  Or have you not noticed that most TV shows are interested in creating "buzz" around a product.  You are also denying that there has been no hyperbole in the criticisms of DA2.  But then again, the "cool" factor has nothing to do with selling products?

People who blame critics for poor product performance are confusing cause and effect. People harshly criticize products because they don't like them, not because they are malicious. If the game were genuinely good, there would not have been such a big negative reaction. There was no such reaction for DA:O even though it was a big departure from Baldur's Gate now, was there? No, and certainly not to the degree DA2 saw.

5.  A quick history lesson:  Frank Capra's A Wonderful Life was a commercial bomb.  It was also a critical bomb.  It has since been reassessed and found to be a movie classic.  Did the content of the movie change?  No.  But the perceptions of it did change.   Sometimes its all about time and place.   

If in 30 years people start liking DA2, you'll have a point. I however will not begin assuming that something is good because maybe a lot of people decades in the future will find value in it.

Modifié par batlin, 26 février 2013 - 08:59 .

[Lisa_H]

No, I actually love it.

[Frostmourne86]

Seconded, it's better than DA:O (and I like the DLC from that more than the vanilla game)!

[Jarlaxlecq]

Personally i really disliked Jade Empire, while DA2 didnt live up to its potential, calling it a BAD game isnt fair either. it was mediocre.

[Brodoteau]

batlin wrote...

It sold half as well as Dragon Age: Origins and its DLC did considerably worse. You didn't hear about any DA:O DLC cancellations, right?

Selling only half as well as its predecessor is a pretty good indicator of it not "selling well", would you agree?

No I disagree (despite the fact that most people think that DA2 DLC was better than DAO DLC).  Godfather 2 made half the money of Godfather.  What a failure!  No season of Survivor has gotten as many viewers as the first season. That franchise really screwed up with the second season right?  Spiderman 2, despite getting better reviews, didn't make as much money as the first Spiderman!  Another failure!   

Look, the first DA drove interest in a second one.  The second one sold well enough to drive interest in a third.  

Would EA have been happy to have sold as many copies. Undoutbly.  But we agree that they made a profit.  So why does that mean it didn't sell well? 

Read the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. In it he makes the argument that sometimes things go "viral".  That's hard to predict and control.  It's also hard to recapture.  Most sequels don't sell as well as their predecessors. 

As well, despite it was only a 2 year gap, the RPG market the DA2 entered was much different (and more crowded) than the one that DAO entered.  This is a bit like arguing that TV shows should compare themselves to ratings of TV shows in the 1970s when it was  4 channel universe.  As the market place gets more crowded, all video game titles are not going to get as many sales.  

Lastly, maybe people didn't buy the game because of the negativity of the online community?  Isn't that the original argument we were having?  Wait, so are you agreeing with me now?     

Unless you're arguing that critics didn't influence these low sales?  I'm confused. 

Yes, the rushed development time likely did ensure it made a profit. The rushed development time is also the culprit behind what every DA2 critic complains about.

So I hope Bioware enjoys the quick buck they made, because rushing development really screwed them over in the long run.

So wait, I thought you liked capitalism.  So a corporation, in a capitalist economy, that minimizes its costs and makes a profit is doing something wrong?  Isn't that what they are supposed to do?  Why is this bad business?  As for them screwing themselves in the long run, I'm glad you can predict the future.  

People who blame critics for poor product performance are confusing cause and effect. People harshly criticize products because they don't like them, not because they are malicious. If the game were genuinely good, there would not have been such a big negative reaction. There was no such reaction for DA:O even though it was a big departure from Baldur's Gate now, was there? No, and certainly not to the degree DA2 saw.

And hipsters drink Pabst Blue Ribbon because it is genuinely good and not because it is hip and ironic.
And Nickelback gets such a negative reaction, with petitions against them, because that band is just that bad and the people that listen to them are all drones and suckers.  It has nothing to do with people joining in the fun of "hating on" something.
And Claude Monet sucked!  After all, if it wasn't genuinely good, people wouldn't have reacted negatively to his work when he was pioneering Impressionism
Yup people always make rational decisions and are not influenced by culture or context at all! 

History lesson #2:  AYDS diet pills were created in the 1930s.  It was a successful company.  AIDS the disease, came into awareness in the 1980s.  Despite no connection, AYDS couldn't shake the association.  They couldn't escape people's negative perceptions.  AYDS went out of business.  Context matters. 
Lastly, as someone who was playing BG when it first came out (oh how I've wasted my life! )  go back into the DAO forums.  To many BG fans, DAO was a huge disappointment.  The only reason why there wasn't as big a backlash is because the fanbase had changed in the last 15 years.  When DA3 comes out, people will be saying how awesome a game DA2 was in comparison -- that's my future prediction. 

Look, you don't like the game.  That's fine.  I get it.  There are problems with the game.  But when you deny that the negative reaction had nothing to do with influencing people's perceptions, that's just ridiculous.  Some people don't like the game because they have been told it sucks.  Their expectations have been set before they even play.  Just like some people like the Witcher 2 because they have been told that it is awesome.

All this to point out that ultimately, there is no objective way that DA2 can be shown to be the worst game ever.  So stop trying,  

[batlin]

Brodoteau wrote...

No I disagree (despite the fact that most people think that DA2 DLC was better than DAO DLC).  Godfather 2 made half the money of Godfather.  What a failure!  No season of Survivor has gotten as many viewers as the first season. That franchise really screwed up with the second season right?  Spiderman 2, despite getting better reviews, didn't make as much money as the first Spiderman!  Another failure!

Most would say that Godfather and Spiderman 1 were better than their sequels. Critic reviews are often very different than audience reaction. Just because sequals usually sell worse than their predecessors doesn't mean they must.

Would EA have been happy to have sold as many copies. Undoutbly.  But we agree that they made a profit.  So why does that mean it didn't sell well?

compared to the first, Obviously not.

As well, despite it was only a 2 year gap, the RPG market the DA2 entered was much different (and more crowded) than the one that DAO entered. This is a bit like arguing that TV shows should compare themselves to
ratings of TV shows in the 1970s when it was  4 channel universe.  As
the market place gets more crowded, all video game titles are not going
to get as many sales. 

DA:O and DA2 were released a year and a half apart from each other. This has got to be the most bs excuse I've seen for DA2's poor performace I've seen yet.

Lastly, maybe people didn't buy the game because of the negativity of the online community?  Isn't that the original argument we were having?  Wait, so are you agreeing with me now?

The blame you're placing is entirely backwards. The game would not have gotten negativity if a great deal of people liked it. Don't blame consumers for voicing their opinion, blame the game for giving them that negative opinion in the first place.

Besides, if a negative online communiy were actually a relevant force in people's decisions, why did the Transformers movies do so well?

So wait, I thought you liked capitalism.  So a corporation, in a capitalist economy, that minimizes its costs and makes a profit is doing something wrong?  Isn't that what they are supposed to do?  Why is this bad business?  As for them screwing themselves in the long run, I'm glad you can predict the future.

I would say that sabotaging a franchise in the name of making a quick buck is bad business, yeah. Since you played the original BG 15 years ago, you probably also played the Ultima series. EA drove Origin to make games with the same kind of short-term-profit mentality that DA2 was made with. How's the Ultima series doing nowadays?

And hipsters drink Pabst Blue Ribbon because it is genuinely good and not because it is hip and ironic.
And Nickelback gets such a negative reaction, with petitions against them, because that band is just that bad and the people that listen to them are all drones and suckers.  It has nothing to do with people joining in the fun of "hating on" something.
And Claude Monet sucked!  After all, if it wasn't genuinely good, people wouldn't have reacted negatively to his work when he was pioneering Impressionism
Yup people always make rational decisions and are not influenced by culture or context at all!

It takes some balls to compare a rushed cash-grab like DA2 to the pioneer of impressionism.

History lesson #2:  AYDS diet pills were created in the 1930s.  It was a successful company.  AIDS the disease, came into awareness in the 1980s.  Despite no connection, AYDS couldn't shake the association.  They couldn't escape people's negative perceptions.  AYDS went out of business.  Context matters.

I wasn't aware that DA2 got a negative reputation thanks to the introduction of a horrible disease. I was under the impression that its negative reputation was entirely its own fault.

Lastly, as someone who was playing BG when it first came out (oh how I've wasted my life! )  go back into the DAO forums.  To many BG fans, DAO was a huge disappointment.  The only reason why there wasn't as big a backlash is because the fanbase had changed in the last 15 years.  When DA3 comes out, people will be saying how awesome a game DA2 was in comparison -- that's my future prediction.

Mind if I screencap this post for posterity?

Look, you don't like the game.  That's fine.  I get it.  There are problems with the game.  But when you deny that the negative reaction had nothing to do with influencing people's perceptions, that's just ridiculous.  Some people don't like the game because they have been told it sucks.  Their expectations have been set before they even play. Just like some people like the Witcher 2 because they have been told that it is awesome.

Or maybe people like the Witcher 2 because it's a genuinely good game.

I myself could not have had higher expectations for DA2. I bought it at midnight on its release date and played it until morning. According to you, because I had already decided the game would be good, I should now be praising the game to the same degree. I can only describe my attitude toward the game dropping in the exact same way my attitude toward Fable did when I bought PM's insistance that it's the BEST GAME EVER. People can see through bulls***, and are not as swayed by public opinion as you seem to want to believe.

Modifié par batlin, 27 février 2013 - 11:41 .

[Brodoteau]

batlin wrote...

The blame you're placing is entirely backwards. The game would not have gotten negativity if a great deal of people liked it. Don't blame consumers for voicing their opinion, blame the game for giving them that negative opinion in the first place.

Besides, if a negative online communiy were actually a relevant force in people's decisions, why did the Transformers movies do so well?

Look, I am not trying to say that there weren't people that didn't like the game because they didn't like the game.  I conceded that a long time ago.  I know the game has problems. But surely negative online community influence somewhat?  Surely the trolls and haters created a somewhat negative impression?  Surely that EA haters, who hate everything that EA produces, influenced some people's reactions?

As for Transformers, people like to watch crap?  The fact that people talk about those movies being crap without having seen them?  The expectations for people going into that movie was not that it would be a critical darling or a masterpiece.  They went with the expectations that they would get giant robot fights and things getting blown up.  Consumers of that product got what they wanted because their expectations were so low.  DA2 was a mediocre game, so it did not live up to consumer expectations of a Bioware game, so, in full video gamer entitlement mode, they went after it.  

It takes some balls to compare a rushed cash-grab like DA2 to the pioneer of impressionism.

Point = missed. Plus you cherry picked here.  Address the other two points that I raised. 

No I am not saying that DA2 is like Impressionism or even close, but merely showing that 19th century art critics had expectations of what art was supposed to be.  Critics hated Impressionism because it tried to do something new.  Just like people had expectations for what DA2 was supposed to be (i.e. DAO 2).  It didn't do this, so people were disappointed.   That's not to say they weren't right.  But to rather say that people don't always make rational judgements.    

I wasn't aware that DA2 got a negative reputation thanks to the introduction of a horrible disease. I was under the assumption that its negative reputation was entirely its own fault.

Point = missed (the sequel).   

Mind if I screencap this post for posterity?

That seems petty.  And considering that you are still complaining about a game that came out 2 years ago... no you don't have my permission.  I might end up being wrong.  I actually hope I am wrong because that would be better for everyone.  But I do look at how many people complained about ME2 after ME1.  And now ME2 is seen as a great game instead of ME3.  

Or maybe people like the Witcher 2 because it's a genuinely good game.

I myself could not have had higher expectations for DA2. I bought it at midnight on its release date and played it until morning. According to you, because I had already decided the game would be good, I should now be praising the game to the same degree. I can only describe my attitude toward the game dropping in the exact same way my attitude toward Fable did when I bought PM's insistance that it's the BEST GAME EVER. People can see through bulls***, and are not as swayed by public opinion as you seem to want to believe.

And maybe some people, again not all people, have an overinflated opinion of the Witcher 2 because they want to like CDRedProjeckt as a sort of anti-EA.  
And maybe people liked DA2 because it was a genuinely good game... not great... but solid and good.  Like most of the mainstream media reviews actually have said.  And sorry people are SWAYED by public opinion, that's the whole point of marketing and advertising -- especially in an era of social media.

 Again, I never said that some people didn't hate DA2 legimtimately.  But I am going to stop arguing after this post because: 1. You cannot objectively prove that something is the worst.  Stop trying.  Which is why this whole thread is just an excuse for you to gripe about what you personally did not like TWO years after the fact. TWO years after the faults of DA2 have been fleshed out.  I understand your still hurt and disappointed but let it go. Just let it go. 
2.  You are denying that some people were influenced by others to hate or not buy the game.  And I've tried to show you how, sometimes, people come to a consensus about what is good or bad outside of any rational evaluation. You don't want to concede the point... so... 

A good argument.  Thank you.  We agree to disagree.

[batlin]

Brodoteau wrote...

Look, I am not trying to say that there weren't people that didn't like the game because they didn't like the game.  I conceded that a long time ago.  I know the game has problems. But surely negative online community influence somewhat?  Surely the trolls and haters created a somewhat negative impression?  Surely that EA haters, who hate everything that EA produces, influenced some people's reactions?

Possible, but I cannot fathom how anyone would think that would represent a big amount of lost sales. Can you prove in any way that that was actually the reason DA2 sold poorly compared to DA:O? Occam's razor states that the game did not sell well because people did not like the game. Now tell me why Dragon Age 2 did not sell well because a lot of people want to spite EA, while DA:O sold better even though it too was published by EA.

As for Transformers, people like to watch crap?  The fact that people talk about those movies being crap without having seen them?  The expectations for people going into that movie was not that it would be a critical darling or a masterpiece.  They went with the expectations that they would get giant robot fights and things getting blown up.  Consumers of that product got what they wanted because their expectations were so low.  DA2 was a mediocre game, so it did not live up to consumer expectations of a Bioware game, so, in full video gamer entitlement mode, they went after it.

Which brings us back to the topic. I personally have never played a mediocre Bioware game (again, excluding Sonic Chronicles) before playing Dragon Age 2. That's why I ask the question of whether DA2 is the worst game Bioware ever made.

Point = missed. Plus you cherry picked here.  Address the other two points that I raised.

PBR tastes like ****** water and Nickelback is the most generic and bland "hard rock" group in existence, supplemented by Chad Kroeger's obnoxious voice. That's why people hate them.

No I am not saying that DA2 is like Impressionism or even close, but merely showing that 19th century art critics had expectations of what art was supposed to be.  Critics hated Impressionism because it tried to do something new.  Just like people had expectations for what DA2 was supposed to be (i.e. DAO 2).  It didn't do this, so people were disappointed.   That's not to say they weren't right.  But to rather say that people don't always make rational judgements.

Dragon Age 2 did nothing new.

I'm going to repeat that.

Dragon Age 2 did nothing new, and the insistence that it did is a paper-thin defense against the 100% valid criticisms people have with the game. Dragon Age 2 did not pioneer the "personal story", even if you would call DA2 that. It did not pioneer the episodic story. It did not pioneer the rags to riches story. It did not pioneer fleshed-out NPCs. It did not pioneer the corrupt government angle. It CERTAINLY did not pioneer button  = awesome; Dynasty Warriors beat them by about 7 years.

There is not a single element of Dragon Age 2 that has not been done ad nauseum before it, and the claim that the reason people didn't like it because it "wasn't Dragon Age: Origins 2" is utter bulls***.

That seems petty.  And considering that you are still complaining about a game that came out 2 years ago... no you don't have my permission.  I might end up being wrong.  I actually hope I am wrong because that would be better for everyone.  But I do look at how many people complained about ME2 after ME1.  And now ME2 is seen as a great game instead of ME3.

Not that sure of your prediction, I guess.

Also, people who dislike ME3 didn't somehow forget that they disliked ME2. Say what you will about ME2, it didn't deliver such a big slap in the face to the fanbase that ME3 did, but ME3 being more harshly criticized does not somehow make ME2 a better game.

And maybe some people, again not all people, have an overinflated opinion of the Witcher 2 because they want to like CDRedProjeckt as a sort of anti-EA.  
And maybe people liked DA2 because it was a genuinely good game... not great... but solid and good.  Like most of the mainstream media reviews actually have said.  And sorry people are SWAYED by public opinion, that's the whole point of marketing and advertising -- especially in an era of social media.

I need to make you realize how naive that point of view is. Remember Fable? Remember how everyone was convinced that it was going to be the best game ever?

Remember Duke Nukem Forever? Remember how psyched everyone was that we were finally going to get the badass Duke back? Remember how awesome Deus Ex was? Remember how hyped everyone got for Invisible War? Spore? Daikatana?

Each of the games I mentioned were hyped to the nth degree and subsequently were critical failures. According to you, these games should not have bombed because people's opinions of games are swayed by public opinion. Oh, and none were published by EA.

Clearly, we are NOT slaves to public perception and even though all the games I named are mediocre (except Daikatana, which just plain sucked), they rest in our minds as some of the biggest disappointments in history. Yet here you are, insisting that Dragon Age 2's sales suffered a significant amount because of people who rail against DA2 because they're just plain malicious.

It's not true. Public perception is directly related to the quality of a game. If Dragon Age 2 had better quality, it would not have been critiqued as harshly as it is. It certainly has nothing to do with some sinister plan to overthrow EA.

2.  You are denying that some people were influenced by others to hate or not buy the game.  And I've tried to show you how, sometimes, people come to a consensus about what is good or bad outside of any rational evaluation

Yes, it sometimes happens. Now show me a way DA2 is panned because of reasons outside of rational evaluation.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Personally, I'd rank it above Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale and Mass Effect 3.

It certainly shows it's rushed nature in the corners it cuts, but I find that it still has better replay value than either NWN or ME3. And Icewind Dale was too combat-focused for me; too little story.

To specify; with regard to NWN, I'm talking about the single player campaign. As I understand it, the game has a great modding community, and it's modder-friendly nature is the key to it's success.

ME3, I simply lost interest before completing my second playthorugh, and haven't, at least yet, felt any desire to play it again. I think I only completed the NWN single player campaign once.

Also, with NWN, I think the disappointment at the time was heightened by the fact that it came relatively soon after BG2, which had really set the bar high, and people were looking for Bioware to hit it out of the park again.

[Goneaviking]

DA2 touched on a lot of interesting issues like the way we treat refugees and the otherwise downtrodden; the ways families mess each other up (and hold each other together); the corrosive impact of ongoing persecution on both parties (persecuted and persecutor) and that sometimes stuff just happens and you've got to do something about it whether you want to or not.

For all it's many flaws DA2 holds more interest for me than any of the old D&D games that Bioware worked on, or the franchised Star Wars games that they've produced. So no, not their worst game in a rather subjective thread.

[Degs29]

I've liked all Bioware games I've played: Jade Empire, DA:O, DA2, and ME 1 - 3.  I'm obviously not in the majority, but I'd rank DA2 level with DA:O.  What it lacks in certain elements, I think it makes up for in others.  As much as I liked Jade Empire, of those six games I'd rank it as the "worst", followed closely by ME1.

Modifié par Degs29, 04 mars 2013 - 08:17 .