8 réponses à ce sujet

[geth47]

My favorite part/aspect of Dragon Age 2 is that it tried to be an unusual and accessible rpg. Instead of re-using the same formula they used in 1, they actually took risks.It backfired in many points, but I still believe it to be a valid effort and with a good result.



Many people call it a bad game when its biggest fail is that DA2 is not your typical pc rpg like Baldur´s Gate, Neverwinter or Dragon Age 1. True, it does not feel like a true and faithful sequel to DAO, but when examined by its own merits and demerits, there are certainly elements deserving praise. It was not something so drastic as Resident Evil complete change of genre. Nor something like the Playstation´s Baldur´s Gate follow-ups (Dark Alliance, BG in name only).



They tried to be inclusive. Not only with women and homosexuals (DA1 already had been) but also to console gamers and people who are not into rpgs.



Were mistakes made? Sure.



In all honesty, even in regards to some of its good parts, mistakes were made. and I´m the first one to point at them



Was there an excessive repetition of the same dungeons and structures? You bet! And it does get tiresome after a while.



But still, it was good to see a rpg that challenged the established model. To me, DA2 is to DAO what DS9 is to Star Trek the Next Generation. Instead of jumping between places on a weekly basis never to return again (or to rarely return), you are, for the most part, fixed in a single location. Instead of dealing with changes coming through space dislocation, it does happen with the passage of time.



Since the budget and the time allowed for development were probably very inferior to the first game, it was a very efficient solution. And one that justified re-using the same locations to an exhaustion.



I also welcome the idea of the dialogues having states of mind associated to them, and with the protagonist speaking all of his/her lines. Yes, concessions had to be made in order to make this possible, with a much shorter story than what you would see in a BG2. But the dialogues in DAO always sounded artificial to me, since they were always one-sided. Games simply HAVE to be voiced nowadays if they want to remain relevant to the majority of the audience. In this regard, DA1 is silly, when Mass Efffect 1 already had speaking protagonists. With polygons and cinematic helping tell the story, it can be concise and at the same time rich. Body language and tone of voice help tell the story.



I did like the fact that Aveline can reject you. She´s the forbidden fruit you will never be allowed to eat. Very much like Samara in ME2. The gay character trying to make a pass on the protagonist was shocking at first, but... It could happen.



I did not like, however, the fact that everyone appears to be bisexual. They are really forcing the issue here. It sounds artificial.



I also think their priorities were wrong. While it was ok to reach a wider audience, they should not had their faithful audience feeling as if stabbed in the back. I also don´t think their hearts and minds are at the right place when instead of focusing more in making a good rpg first, they placed more efforts in things like romance (like a dating sim). Much more important than being able to choose between 3 women, or even engaging in gay romance has to be the races you can control, the classes you can use. The fact that DA1 was so detailed in this regard certainly does not help.



No offense to the women, but if I could have any saying in deciding if, in a rpg, the protagonist could be male of female, or human or elf, have no doubt: I would prefer to be able to chose between elf and human, and possibly dwarf as well. That´s what bioware rpgs are about, being able to customize your character. True diversity on a rpg comes first from races and classes, and only then by aesthetics, genre and sexual orientation.



If DA2 was a game by Square/Enix, it would probably be considered very good. But from bioware, I would expect better in areas of customization.



Please, this has nothing to do with gay-bashing , being anti-romance in games or wanting to exclude women. If this was a war game, I would very much prefer to being able to pick a snipper or a machine-gun specialist than being able to use a woman. If it was a fighting game, I would prefer being able to chose between different characters with different play-styles, rather than having feminine versions of available characters. First we worry about the essential, then we concentrate on the details.



So the only way for me to like DA2 is to think of it as an atypical western rpg from bioware. If we try to look at it with the standards one would expect from a bioware game, then it´s certainly deficient. But as a different approach, it´s ok.



But still, while the game is flawed, it´s nowhere near the catastrophe some people will lead you to believe. It certainly has its good moments. While it was interesting as an experiment, I still prefer that they make typical rpgs. Typical rpgs that will try to be accessible for a bigger audience (maybe with an easy mode a la me3), but while retaining some of the things that DA2 did right, like the voiced protagonist and not alienating nor enraging their old public.



I can only hope they will avoid the same mistakes in Inquisition. There are some criticisms in my post, but it´s not what I would consider negativity. It´s constructive criticism. DA2 is mostly criticized by people who were expecting something very much in line with DA1. There was an effort in 2 to be different from 1, and that is not something good or bad in itself. The choices made were entirely valid even if they proved to be unpopular and can not be considered defective in themselves.

 

 

 

Just to summarize my thought:



Many of the so-called defects people attribute to DA2 are merely disagreements over some creative decisions and directions the game took in regards to its predecessor.



From a creative stand-point, these decisions are valid, even if proved unsuccessful with the core audience or their loyal fans.



To me at least, when an enterprise goes at this direction (like Sega did with Phantasy Star and Shining Force, changing the genres) I merely understand that the newer games are not to my taste. Not that they´re bad in themselves. Tekken was taken in a bad direction when they did death by degrees, a bad game in itself. Mortal Kombat also failed with Sub-Zero mithologies (with horrible controls, like having to press a button to turn to the opposite side), but they did a superb job in shaolin monks.



Directors like Spielberg can produce movies that I greatly enjoy, but sometimes they make movies that while not being bad according to their own proposals, are simply not for me. Same thing goes for authors like Agatha Christie. While I did like some of her novels dealing with mistery, her works in other genres are simply not to my liking. While I certainly would have prefer that she had devoted more of her time to write the kind of thing that I like, that´s not reason enough in itself to say that her other efforts are mistakes os simply awful.



Some people would love that Bioware could do Baldur´s Gate like games forever, and that each and every game they release was just like that. For me, it´s ok for Bioware to experiment and venture into other areas. If they want to release action games like MDK2, go for it. If they think the portable/tablet, cellphone marketing is strong, try a new sonic rpg game. I may not like it, not feel particularly attracted to it, but it´s not a mistake, nor invalid, nor a betrayal. I could not care less about MMOs, but I don´t hate bioware for trying their luck with TOR. And if someday they ever try to built a new MMO, I can only give them my best wishes.



In the same way, I did not feel betrayed when Nintendo released Mario 64 with polygons in a 3d environment, nor when try put Mario in a fighting game, a racing game, sports games, tennis, as a doctor in a puzzle...

[geth47]

This was done on another topic that wanted to focus solely on the positive aspects of dragon age 2.

 

There was a follow-up:

 

 

Ok, so let me repost it here while trying to focus only on the positive aspects.





My favorite part/aspect of Dragon Age 2 is that it tried to be an unusual and accessible rpg. Instead of re-using the same formula they used in 1, they actually took risks. It may have backfired in many points, but I still believe it to be a valid effort and with a good result. All in all, I had fun with it. While I can understand and sympathize with a lot of people´s complains, the vast majority of them are not regarding factual defects, but merely creative decisions. It´s a matter of difference of opinions, and not facts.



It´s somewhat similar to the people angry at the starchild from ME3 because they think his/its reason was flawed. Well, the villain´s motives don´t need to make sense to the player, to the audience. They only need to make sense to the villain. I could point out several people and groups whose logic is faulty and whose tactics seems ineffective and even detrimental to their cause. And yet they are real people. So why could not a literal machine act like the star child?



Many people complain not about what Dragon Age 2 is, but what if failed to do/decided not to do. Very protective fans usually have this behavior. Unless the creators take the game in the exact direction the fan wants, he will take issue. Not surprisingly they wanted to take back ME3 and re-write the ending. I´m actually glad that Dragon Age´s elves are somewhat different, and that they placed a young shaved dwarf in DA2 who quickly became one of my favorite NPCs. When you deal with Tolkien-inspired mythology there´s always the risk of becoming stale, and DA2 avoided it.



So, what I liked most about DA2 is that it tried to cover new ground, invest in new formulas (for better or worse), reach towards new audiences (it´s a good gift for a friend who´s curious about rpgs but afraid to try them given their complexity) with no shame about being different. DA2 dared to challenge the formula. To deviate from the stereotype and be something truly unique. And given the limited time and budget that the creators had (specially when contrasted to the looong time it took to develop DA1) they made very smart decisions like exploring the same space, but over a long length of time. Dragon Age 1 is a superb example of a good and typical Bioware game. Dragon Age 2 works with a different premise, and therefore, should be judged according to its proposal. DA2, in its own way, is a quite enjoyable experience, and a welcoming start to newcomers. A good rpg, in an atypical way.



DA2 is to me the halloween 3 equivalent. It´s the different one from the rest of the series of Bioware rpgs. Halloween 3 is actually a very enjoyable film, a fine example of classic horror. However, people complain that it´s not a michael myers movie. Guess what? It´s still a very good film.



I don´t see people angry at Spielberg when he is not making very serious films and decides to do something lighter, softer, for kids. The same kids could be the ones that quite soon will check and be in love with his more serious works. Same thing goes with attempts like DA2. It can be the threshold for people who will backtrack Dragon Age 1, Neverwinter, Baldur´s Gate, Icewind, Planescape, Fallout... Not being Dragon Age 1 is not, in itself, a fault. It´s a decision that I respect and that actually rendered some good fruits, making Dragon Age 2 a unique game. In all honesty, a good game. A very atypical game, but nevertheless, a good game, and easily much much better than 99% of what´s on the market.

[geth47]

This was originated in response to this topic  http://forum.bioware...te-part-of-da2/ but I decied to move to a separate part at request of the topic creator so we could talk also about some criticism towards the game.

[King Mark XNIRX]

The game sucked pure and simple. It was a complete money grab, squeezed out on a smaller budget and dumbed-down to try and attract the COD audience. The story acts are loosely and poorly connected and some of the character dialogue is downright awful, some of the romance dialogue is painful to listen to. 

 

There is literally nothing good I can say about DA2. The only worthwhile thing that can come from it, is that it's a perfect example of what not to do and hopefully Bioware has learned from it.

[Cat Lance]

I have to ask how you define RPG?

That is, to me, a Role Play Game allows me to carve out and play out a role, or a character. For me this goes beyond race and class and stats, alone; to include sex, personality, and expressing that through my character's dialogue, actions, and choices.

So for me, the choices for what sex my character is, whom they love (or if they love at all,) and such are just as important as race and class. And as a female it is much easier for me to slip into the role of a female character. So, for me that distinction is more important than race. If DA2 had cut gender choice instead of race, I'd not have purchased it.

I don't claim to speak for any other females in that regard. I honestly don't know how individual a proclivity that is.

Personally, I don't mind the LIs all being player sexual, as that is how I think of it given gat it is a design decision based off of maximising pay off on work done, as opposed to writing characters that are actually bisexual. I don't mind this so much. For me it allows me to divorce myself from seeing them as a commentary on people like me. Of which Jade Empire had me gnashing my teeth and ranting on the boards.

I think it would be a nice touch to see two LI(one of each gender,) aggressive if you are playing as a female and you garner enough influence, but as a male you would have to initiate the romance. And vice versa with he other two. (Assuming a total of four LI with 2 female and 2 male.) In order to add to replayability. That way you don't always have all four hitting on you and such.

I think I covered where or views differ... the rest I'm pretty much in agreement. Oh! And I loved the star trek analogy!! Chi!

[geth47]

"I have to ask how you define RPG?"

Well, I don´t really define rpg. Not even in the sense that I choose a personal definition. The reality of what constitutes a rpg is something set. It´s a game in which you fulfill a role.The role in one particular rpg could be fixed and totally set in stone with no chance for customization, somewhat flexible, or largely flexible (down to name, species, race, class, age, sexual orientation, religion, skills, profession, political view, size, color and thickness of nose hair).


"That is, to me, a Role Play Game allows me to carve out and play out a role, or a character. For me this goes beyond race and class and stats, alone; to include sex, personality, and expressing that through my character's dialogue, actions, and choices."

I´ll have to disagree with you on that. While SOME rpgs CAN allow you to customize all the aspects you listed, a videogame rpg is not really defined by this flexibility, nor is it in any way essential for a game to be a rpg. The Sonic rpg from Bioware, Phantasy Star 4, Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy X and Super Mario RPG are all clear examples of rpgs in which the customization is minimal or nonexistent.

While a rpg can offer you the chance to fully customize your character (down to the color of the nails), they don´t necessarily have to do it in order to be rpgs. I must presume that you do live in North America. Am I right? Because you´re using a common characteristic of American rpgs as if it was a mark of the whole genre. This is like equating Hollywood with movies.

This is a trend among rpgs, specially in the West, but it´s in no way mandatory for them. A game can offer you a totally defined character, and still menage to be a rpg, even an fantastic, incredibly good rpg. PS4 is a fine example.

There are pros and cons with each philosophy behind rpgs. Do you remember that option in DA1 when the king congratulates your character (please note, I´m not referring to you, but your character) and one of the responses can be that it does not feel so special? Well, I struggle with this when it comes to games like mass effect. How can I believe that my character is special and that only him or her could accomplish such a feat that is leading to so much praise, when I know for a fact that a totally different soldier, from a different gender, different personality, different history service, different specializations, different upbring, would be in the exact same place, experiencing the same scene, with slight or perhaps even no variations? Anyone could have done it! Well, maybe not everyone, but just about everyone among the hundreds of sheppard variants available for download on the mesaves site.

One really good Superman story has to be one that could only be about Superman. Same goes for Batman. Having a bland and undefined character opens possibilities, but also a can of worms in terms of problems.

Sure, customizations increase the replay value of a title. But offering more not always equates to offering better. A fixed story has its advantages too. The writing staff can concentrate in providing a solid and interesting story, while in a more open environment they have to take carefully into account all the possible variations and try to make them all interesting and legitimate. Sometimes, more effort is made in make it work in terms of structure, than in offering interesting dialogue. Many of such diverse choices are bugged to this day in Baldur´s Gate, Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Sometimes it´s better to try something of smaller scope and menage to deliver it perfectly than trying something megalomaniac and fail to deliver it, or provide a broken experience. Better to have a small success than a big failure.

Also, games with fixed stories and characters tend to offer more coherent plots and interesting main-quests. Bioware games have interesting characters and lore, but I find their main-quests to be unimpressive. Non-customizable rpgs are hit or miss opportunities, so the creators have to give their best shot, since it´s their only shot. In customizable games, the beauty is on the attention to detail and all the possible variables. So they tend to overlook the main story and offer a lukewarm experience.

Now, it may sound like I´m a hater of customizable rpgs, but this is in no way the case. Far from it. In fact, DA and ME are among my all time favorite games. I´m merely addressing the differences, pros and cons of each style. I can appreciate examples of both experiences (and I do). I don´t desire that any of them be abandoned. There´s plenty of room for both. The gaming world would suffer loss should any of the 2 styles died.

I think that if a game will offer you choices, the choices must matter. One of the things I liked more about DA1 (since you already know what I enjoyed in 2) is the fact that your origins and what you decide to do in your origin story (and in all subsequent chapters) do matter. Characters react differently to you. It felt like my character was really making alliances, having an impact whenever he or she went, creating a massive army to oppose the menace and shaping History in his or her own way. It was a fine example of customizable rpg done right. It was bioware showing why they´re so respected and loved.

I think the biggest problem with DA2 is the name. People expect it to be a sequel not only to DAO, but to everything the game was. In itself, DA2 is very good. It´s a much better title than the majority of rpgs out there, whether customizable or not, from Japan, Europe, North America...

If only it was released as a side-story, as something that was inside Thedas, and influent inside the DA universe, something faster, cheaper and clearly made only to keep the seat warm for a few years until the true DA2 becomes ready, I think the reaction would have been much more positive. "Dragon Age Hawke´s tale". A mere semantical element, a name, could have made all the difference in the world.

Since it is a side-story, they could actually test the waters to see if any differences introduced are well-accepted and if they should migrate to the main series. Some tv-series and motion pictures do have comic books spin-offs or mini web-series among seasons or between2 movies in order to keep interest high in the public. Why could not DA2 be something like that, of smaller scope and budget, in mid-development of DA3?

I would have no problem with DA2 even if it was less customizable than it is in regards to the protagonist, if it was side-story. ME galaxy and infiltrator are side-stories with fixed protagonists.

DA2 tried to distance itself from DA1 in exactly what I think was more successful in 1. It changed not only something that was not broken, but what was the most recognizable element of the original game. A bad call, that makes the game seem rushed and cheap (probably because that´s what it was), but it´s far cry from being a disaster. DA2 style is nice as an experiment, an exception, but I think bioware should stick with the rule, with the trend that made them famous, of highly customizable rpgs.

While not being DA1 is not a sin, one can see and understand people´s frustration over the drastic change. If only they had released it under a different name or subtitle than number 2.

"So for me, the choices for what sex my character is, whom they love (or if they love at all,) and such are just as important as race and class. And as a female it is much easier for me to slip into the role of a female character. So, for me that distinction is more important than race. If DA2 had cut gender choice instead of race, I'd not have purchased it."

I´m afraid I need to differ from you again. While I certainly have no business regarding your own preferences and priorities I think it´s a matter of common sense that in a rpg that is customizable, and a sequel to one so famous for the different origins, that class and race are more important than romance. You need to be from a assigned class, from a certain race. That´s mandatory. But you don´t have to pursuit romance at all. Nor is required from any game to have romance (even though on bioware rpgs that´s a given, an unwritten rule of sorts).

The color of the skin and the style and color of the hair would be much more relevant customizations than, let´s say, armpit hair color and size, of size and color of nails. I can share the frustration of so many, in seeing a game that clains to be the sequel to DAO, with so many customizations in terms of gender, feminine visual and romance, but that forces you to use a human, and with a fixed origin. I would gladly exchange all the visual customizations and gender options as well as romances if I could play as dwarf or elf. I would rather never have to make this call, being forced to choose, but if I had to, gender and multi-romances would be discarded, in favor of races.

DA1 was remarkable in its origins system. The feature was so great that even ended up in the final name for the game. It is understandably a letdown having to always be a human from the same family in da2. While many games can let you choose females, rpgs are some of the best when it comes to race. I would very much rather have a barbarian male, an old dwarf and a female mage (ok, it´s the golden axe cast) if possible a female elf, than having only a choice between male and female human. Gender becomes even less of a issue of relevance when both genders have the exact same romance options. This is actually backwards diversity.

By the way, I don´t like in general how romances are portrayed in rpgs. There´s so much room for improvement. Why not have a character that is already married and is expected to return home? For him, for months without news of his wife, there could be a possibility of her having died, or that he would never die, never to return to her again. Why not offer a romance for a character like this as betrayal? With some characters being repulsed by him having a wife while others would be more open. Or one character whose social group allowed polygamy?

True diversity is having people behaving differently. Some characters could require more effort and talks in order to be seduced. Some could demand marriage, or that you meet her parents. Or convert to his or her religion. Others could only want casual sex, or a more open relationship. That would require more effort (from the creators as well as the player), but it would sound so much more realistic and challenging, mature, and less like automatic events. If they have to do romance, let them do it right.

Also,potential romance prospectives could have points of advantages or disadvantages. If you made a play thinking of romancing character X, you could built your protagonist in a way that he or she would have less obstacles to overcome. Let´s say, you can have up to 3 red flags, which would make that character totally unavailable for romance. 2 yellow flags would equate one red flag. Red flags would be major turn offs, while yellow flags would be smaller easily addressable things that in excess would ruin the chance for romance. Each kind of flag would require you to address the issue, either by a side-quest, a gift, a promise while talking about the subject, trying to convince the other part.

Some of the characters could consider same-sex as a "no way route". Some could have different levels of reluctance (needing some work done in order to change position) , some being 75% opposed, some with it being a yellow flag, or red flag. What was a minor turn-off for one could be a major turn-off for another, and no issue to a third character. Romance should be about overcoming obstacles. Since our own characters can express sympathy, disdain, opposition to people, why not the opposite in romance prospects? People should be able to feel attracted or repulsed by different aspects, with different degrees of tolerance, and willingness to go in different directions, with different speeds, different styles. Depending on what constituted your character, some NPCs would be more than willing to romance you, less than willing, in severe need of convincing or totally against the idea. This would be a way to make romance that would actually impress me. It would be true to life and a real display of maturity in games.

Instead, what we are getting is a sickening caricature of reality that can only exist in the most extreme surreal dream of the gay agenda, where having a character that is available as hetero-only romance is an aggression against sick sensibilities incapable of dealing with even the slightest notion of rejection, disapproval or anything less than claps. (strangely, having ******-exclusive romances in me3 was no issue at all for them). DA2 did not become more mature, but actually more childish in this aspect. No one can reject anyone in terms of gender. Otherwise, it´s "spreading hate, bigotry and intolerance" and more of the same blablabla from the agenda. If they have a problem with not having access to a certain situation or scene with a certain character configuration they have chosen, then the last thing they should be doing is playing a rpg from bioware. If you like to cast spells, don´t choose among the dwarfs. But some people like to create dream worlds where there´s no chance of rejection, disagreement, criticism. It´s the same mentality that fuels the crybabies who can´t accept that some characters in ME have to die, and that it´s Bioware who dictates the ending and not them.

"I don't claim to speak for any other females in that regard. I honestly don't know how individual a proclivity that is."

As a man, I can say that as a boy I had no problems in playing with Chun-Li, Mai Shiranui, Charlotte, Nakoruru, Lara Croft, Allys. If you happened to discover me playing with them I would not feel like you just saw me dressed in my sister´s underwear in a guilty or dirty pleasure. I have no problem in controlling a female character. No more than moving a queen piece at chess. I don´t demand it, but I take no issues. In ME, I prefer to use female. If I have to spend hours watching a character in front of me, I rather have a very attractive woman.

Some rpgs allow you to attempt to create a virtual you, of sorts. But that´s not a requirement either. At most, I can create a character that resembles me, who would behave in what I see as the closer to ideal given the options.

I don´t think I could run as Sheppard does. I´m also not his size, I don´t have his voice. I don´t think I could use that body armor, nor manipulate biotic powers or take the top spot at Pinnacle Station. And none of his possible origin stories bear similarities to my upbringing. And constantly, when faced with a dilemma for him, I think "you know, if I was under his skin, or if this was really over my shoulders, I would have tried something different, not listed/covered here".

I feed no illusions that the character I control is me. And I do feel a bit sorry for those who do it. They must be REALLy limited people, since their behavior, creativity and morals are easily covered in anticipation inside the limited possibilities of a pre-programed game mechanic.

I can see with his eyes, have some (relative and limited) control over his decisions, but even a Shepard with my face would not really be me. Never! I could try to do a fair approximation about what my decisions would be and the ones available, but I would still not have sufficient control over him, and he would still not be me inside a game. No game has managed to sell me this idea, and it would take nothing less than a holodeck to do it. I care more about essence than appearance.

Rpgs allow us to play a role, control a character, but we are not that character, even if they let us tailor the visual and make a lot of moral choices. I´m not really a friend of Garrus. I´ve never met Liara. Thane never died nor could he since he never really lived. One of my sheps once saw Tali´s face (at least twice, actually), but I never saw it. My shepard embraced eternity (whatever this is) with Asari (at least 2) and received a Prothean Cypher. I never experienced such things. Nor did I have contact with alien beacons from a long-lost civilization. My Shep was able to seduce women like Ashley and Miranda. As for me.. (ok, now I feel sorry for myself).

RPGs can try to offer the chance to customize visuals and even give some freedom regarding decisions. That´s a big difference between programed in advance videogame rpgs and the true rpgs in the classic sense, with a master coordinating the live narrative, in which you can really play yourself should you desire. As for me, I find greater appeal in remotely doing in games by means of a character (that can look very different from me) the things I could never allow myself to do in real life, like stealing cars, murdering prostitutes, attacking the police, driving over a cliff, traveling to new worlds, having mental sex with blue mono-gender aliens, committing genocide, murdering political leaders, robbing banks. Trying to emulate yourself in a very open and customizable game is ONE way of playing, but not THE (only) WAY and perhaps (it´s open to personal choice) not even the best way. That´s why so many of us miss being able to use elves and dwarfs. Being human can be a little too close to home, even inside a medieval-style fantasy lore, when so many of us want from games something drastically different from our day-by-day reality .
 

[ShadowLordXII]

From it's release up to even now, I'd consider DA2 a good game despite clearly being inferior to Origins.

 

For me, half of the game's flaws come from being rushed (don't try to deny it) out the door in order to cash in on the lingering popularity of Origins and it shows in the streamlined equipment system that excludes party customization and having a lot of reused environments throughout the entire game.

 

The other half come with bad execution of several inherently good ideas.

 

For instance, being railroaded into always losing a sibling in the prologue would be an effective and dramatic punch to the player. But this effect is mitigated by how the player was thrown into the situation without any context to know or connect to any of the characters involved. Watching your mother mourn the loss of a family member would be more poignant if we actually knew who they were. Instead, it just comes off as a forced attempt at drama.

 

Then having the other sibling always either die or be forced to join the mage/templars or the wardens just makes them into less of a character and more of a tool for the narrative's wishes. Ask yourself a question along this thread of thought, why would Hawke just let a few templars take away his sister without a fight? Considering that Hawke could have potentially slaughtered a whole platoon to protect the escape of mages that he didn't know, it's ridiculous that an older sibling will just let their little sister be taken against her will into an oppressive environment. The sibling is also the only person to get sick when traveling in the deep roads, even though everyone else was bathing in just as much darkspawn blood as he/she was. It's an interesting idea tying into how powerless Hawke really is despite rising as a Champion, but it's flawed implementation takes away a lot of it's intended punch.

 

But a few cases where DA2 pulls off it's intended punches is with the qunari arc and with your relationship with your companions whether they're lovers, friends or rivals. The ability to gradually define your Hawke's personality quirks is also a good mechanic. They also kind of display how the mage/templar conflict is not a black and white situation, but several missteps now make the situation appear to be Black/Black rather then the intended Grey/Grey.

 

That said, I've still played through the game several times with all of the expansion dlcs and I still like it. I was also disappointed that the planned "Exalted Marches" expansion dlc was cancelled, because DA2's story still lacks a good amount of much needed closure.

[Lucy Glitter]

Many people call it a bad game when its biggest fail is that DA2 is not your typical pc rpg like Baldur´s Gate, Neverwinter or Dragon Age 1. True, it does not feel like a true and faithful sequel to DAO, but when examined by its own merits and demerits, there are certainly elements deserving praise. It was not something so drastic as Resident Evil complete change of genre. Nor something like the Playstation´s Baldur´s Gate follow-ups (Dark Alliance, BG in name only).

 

I think this is a very valid point. I agree entirely with this. Despite my gripes that I have stated on here, it is still a very enjoyable game with strong elements that I specifically look for in a good game.

 

... We don't talk about Dark Alliance.

 

From it's release up to even now, I'd consider DA2 a good game despite clearly being inferior to Origins.

 

For me, half of the game's flaws come from being rushed (don't try to deny it) out the door in order to cash in on the lingering popularity of Origins and it shows in the streamlined equipment system that excludes party customization and having a lot of reused environments throughout the entire game.

 

The other half come with bad execution of several inherently good ideas.

 

For instance, being railroaded into always losing a sibling in the prologue would be an effective and dramatic punch to the player. But this effect is mitigated by how the player was thrown into the situation without any context to know or connect to any of the characters involved. Watching your mother mourn the loss of a family member would be more poignant if we actually knew who they were. Instead, it just comes off as a forced attempt at drama.

 

Then having the other sibling always either die or be forced to join the mage/templars or the wardens just makes them into less of a character and more of a tool for the narrative's wishes. Ask yourself a question along this thread of thought, why would Hawke just let a few templars take away his sister without a fight? Considering that Hawke could have potentially slaughtered a whole platoon to protect the escape of mages that he didn't know, it's ridiculous that an older sibling will just let their little sister be taken against her will into an oppressive environment. The sibling is also the only person to get sick when traveling in the deep roads, even though everyone else was bathing in just as much darkspawn blood as he/she was. It's an interesting idea tying into how powerless Hawke really is despite rising as a Champion, but it's flawed implementation takes away a lot of it's intended punch.

 

But a few cases where DA2 pulls off it's intended punches is with the qunari arc and with your relationship with your companions whether they're lovers, friends or rivals. The ability to gradually define your Hawke's personality quirks is also a good mechanic. They also kind of display how the mage/templar conflict is not a black and white situation, but several missteps now make the situation appear to be Black/Black rather then the intended Grey/Grey.

 

That said, I've still played through the game several times with all of the expansion dlcs and I still like it. I was also disappointed that the planned "Exalted Marches" expansion dlc was cancelled, because DA2's story still lacks a good amount of much needed closure.

 

The bolded bits are things I very much agree with. My other massive gripe was the lack of a silent protagonist. I LOVE both the VOs for Hawke, but the paraphrasing can be very pot-luck and having my own idea of voice and intonations and delivery gave so much more choice. It annoys a lot of gamers who don't focus as much on RPGs but is is a classic RPG stamp and I miss it dearly. I think it was just adding a connection to Mass Effect to draw people to the fantasy RPG genre.

 

I'm totally okay with the expansion being cancelled. They got more time to work on Inquisition. 

[Pateu]

My greatest bone with DA2 was that it reused the same environments and tried to be a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins.

 

When taken as a STANDALONE, DA2 is a decent game.

 

It's just that putting it next to origins emphasises everything it did wrong: the zones were the same and you never left the village.

 

Also elves look like absolute trash.

 

Moving onto combat, I absolutely hated the reinforcement system and I hope it burns in hell. It's the most annoying thing ever.

 

I also disliked that companions were stuck with a preset of weapons, i.e. Fenris can't wield a shield.

 

I don't like being forced to have Avelin in my party, just so I have a tank.