I liked DA2. True it's not anywhere near as grand as DA;O, but that is a hard bar to meet. I enjoyed the story and the relationships. There were several annoying factors, but on the whole, a good game IMO.
DA:O introduces you to the DA world. DA2 sets the stage for DA:I. It's a good trilogy set up.
Currently playing DA2 for the first time. It got so much hate that I didn't bother playing it until a week or two ago.
It's ok I guess. I do see all the complains and share them. Mainly:
- Enemies popping out of nowhere... ok? I'm at a mountain road, are they coming from under rocks? Totally hate this. (Level of hatred 10/10).
- Reuse locations... This wouldn't be too bad, except for the fact that I'm supposed to fully explore each location on each chapter, and most even twice per chapter (day/night). Seriously? (Level of hatred 10/10)
- Simplified companion equipment... I like full control of my companions equipment, to juggle things between them, it's part of the fun. (Level of hatred 5/10)
Those are my main issues with the game. Story, characters, combat, abilities, everything else is ok.
I've only done one playthrough so far, and I would say that for the most part, it's an interesting and entertaining game. I certainly don't "hate" it, and I welcomed the decision to focus on a smaller-scale conflict and the relationships between Hawke and his/her companions. If nothing else, the diversions and sidequests felt a little more natural in that you don't have the "why are we spending time on this when the world's ending" problem that can pop up in DAO and parts of the Mass Effect trilogy. As for the limited environments, I honestly barely noticed the much-criticized recycling until fairly far along, and even then it didn't really bother me too much.
The main objection I had was that the story seemed to "end" when Cassandra tells Varric, "OK, you can stop now," rather than at anything resembling a natural end-point. I played a pro-mage Hawke, and I felt like the three characters who deserted me - Isabela (absconded with the relic at the end of Act 2), Anders (expelled him but let him live), and Sebastian (angry that I didn't kill Anders) - had more complete character arcs than those who stayed to the end, because it made sense for them to exit the story when they did. For the rest, we just got a vague allusion to the group leaving Kirkwall and templar reinforcements arriving afterwards. So what happened in Kirkwall after that? What happened to the mages who didn't turn to blood magic? Varric says that the group went their separate ways, but where, and why?
Well, DA2 was supposed to have an Expansion but some concepts of that seem to have been absorbed into DA:I hence why Hawke may play more than a minor part in that story.
Okay, yes, the story and romances were weaker, and yes, it sucks that the only explorable area is kirkwall, mountain, dlc, and one time deep road.
I think the real reason why people hate this game is be cause it didn't live up to the success of the first game
Well speaking for myself, I never "hated" the game. But when the story, romance aspect, and explorable areas are weaker.... then well.... can you really blame those that complain?
I seriously think a couple of shiny pieces of gear, and "cleaner" game play hardly goes the distance with living up to expectations. So no, I think the majority of bashing, or hate this game gets is pretty justified. But hey, that's just me.
Eh, Hawke's story felt much more personal in my opinion and Companions got more focus in DA2 than DA:O other than Alistair and maybe Morrigan. Exploration was pretty bad though due to reused stuff and Act 3 ended waaaay too quickly.
It really isn't, DA2 wasn't "Great" but it was far from as bad as the bashers implied. There's also a reason why Hawke, and their lines, are more memorable than the Warden.
The story of DA2 is far better than DA:O.
DA:O had a very cookie-cutter army-of-darkness plotline that had very little depth beyond the Grey Wardens as an institute. The game itself was like a massive exposition into the Dragon Age world, which made sense since it was the first game. It touched on a bunch of topics (Dalish, Alienages, Mage/Templar conflict, Andraste, politics...) but it only explored them like a tourist in Europe. I honestly cared very little to unite the people of Ferelden against the Darkspawn as I found them all incredibly boring. The Dwarves are a notable exception as their particular quest-line was far more fleshed out and layered than the others.
Combat was an even greater chore. Slow, clumsy to the point of feeling buggy.. out of anything in the game this was the greatest offender.
This is not to say that DA2 does not merit criticism (it was restrictive, repetitive and obviously unpolished) but I sincerely think people elevate DA: O in much higher regards than it is due. I find DA: O to be - at best - an average game that didn't nearly have the cinematic values of the Mass Effect franchise nor DA2.
I started da2 again yesterday in preparation for Inquisition. I lasted about 3 hours. I can't really think of anything to redeem it tbh. I even downloaded a mod that makes combat incredibly easy so I could basically skip it it is so bad.
I guess with a mod like that anyone can pass the entire "game" in les than half an hour...
In my opinion, hating on DA2 is like book readers of the A Song of Ice and Fire series hating on A Feast for Crows. It seems there is a larger world story being told to simply focus on 1 main character. Also, too many epic events happened in the course of DAO and there needed to be an aftermath to the recent blight, Ferelden crowning, etc in addition to more event setups. Mass Effect 2 took a story slow down as well. Just try and see the Dragon Age games being told like the tv show Game of Thrones. There is a bigger world story being told in an unconventional way. A Feast For Crows was still a good stand alone fantasy book, just as DA2 is a good RPG. The overall story and events in DA2 aren't as huge and epic as DAO, but for the reason I mentioned, or at least I hope so. Bioware stated somewhere they have a plan for how many games they're making, so I trust they know how to breakdown the overall story in the Dragon Age series.
DA2 generally fails on the story front especially considering that this is a Bioware game. The story is split up into three acts, each with their own generally self-contained conflict. This seems like a cool concept, but in the end, it weakens the experience as a whole because there is no unifying theme or purpose. However, it seems fairly obvious where the overarching focus should be: The Mage/Templar conflict. That is what we are building to, what Cassandra's questing ends at. And yet, it is probably the most poorly set up part of the game.
Looking at the Qunari arc in Act 2, you can see why it's probably the strongest part of the game. The Arishok is introduced back in the first act, his motivations are clear, as is the growing tension between the Qunari and the Kirkwall populace. I understood the stakes where everyone stood and the choices that were placed in front of me seemed reasonable.
The Mage/Templar arc of Act 3, however is a bit more muddled. The major players (Meredith and Orsino) are not properly introduced until the very end of the second act. Meredith's backstory and motivations are not made clear unless Hawke sides with the Templars and Orsino's are just never elaborated on.
The Mage/Templar conflict also fails to set up strong dynamics that would make the choice of either Templars or Mages come across as more even. Meredith, as an example of an uncompromising templar who will do anything to stop the mages, lacks a proper counterpoint in Orsino, who comes across a somewhat spineless guy who did some very questionable things under the table, but would never actually fight for the mages. The better counterpoint actually lies with Anders, who will stop at nothing to free the mages from the templars (and, just like Meredith, has some sort of outside force affecting his mental state).
In an even more annoying turn, we end up having to fight both Meredith and Orsino regardless of what choices you make (with Orsino's sudden turn to blood magic making little to no sense) making the whole thing feel pointless.
The whole thing would have benefited from a few rewrites, to ensure a more cohesive story and experience.
DA2 generally fails on the story front especially considering that this is a Bioware game. The story is split up into three acts, each with their own generally self-contained conflict. This seems like a cool concept, but in the end, it weakens the experience as a whole because there is no unifying theme or purpose. However, it seems fairly obvious where the overarching focus should be: The Mage/Templar conflict. That is what we are building to, what Cassandra's questing ends at. And yet, it is probably the most poorly set up part of the game.
Looking at the Qunari arc in Act 2, you can see why it's probably the strongest part of the game. The Arishok is introduced back in the first act, his motivations are clear, as is the growing tension between the Qunari and the Kirkwall populace. I understood the stakes where everyone stood and the choices thsat were placed in front of me seemed reasonable.
The Mage/Templar arc of Act 3, however is a bit more muddled. The major players (Meredith and Orsino) are not properly introduced until the very end of the second act. Meredith's backstory and motivations are not made clear unless Hawke sides with the Templars and Orsino's are just never elaborated on.
The Mage/Templar conflict also fails to set up strong dynamics that would make the choice of either Templars or Mages come across as more even. Meredith, as an example of an uncompromising templar who will do anything to stop the mages, lacks a proper counterpoint in Orsino, who comes across a somewhat spineless guy who did some very questionable things under the table, but would never actually fight for the mages. The better counterpoint actually lies with Anders, who will stop at nothing to free the mages from the templars (and, just like Meredith, has some sort of outside force affecting his mental state).
In an even more annoying turn, we end up having to fight both Meredith and Orsino regardless of what choices you make (with Orsino's sudden turn to blood magic making little to no sense) making the whole thing feel pointless.
The whole thing would have benefited from a few rewrites, to ensure a more cohesive story and experience.
This. So much
Also I really hated the new combat style which cried JRPG and clashed with classic "realistic" approach to designs. Every member of the party jumped like it was some freakshow circus. No tactical camera, no proper strategy - just kill all those mobs before the battle kills you with boredom. DAI combats looks better but still to damn fast and flashy and way too unrealistic. Still better than DA2's
@Catche Jagger
...Beautiful post.... I'm getting teary. lol
But seriously, the mage/templar war (which apparently has a big impact on DA:I), and the game in general, was rushed. Kirkwall's circle fell apart thanks to Meredith's craziness... great. But then Varric's like "BTW, all the circles throughout Thedas have risen up in response."
....
Just like that? Considering such a huge deal that is and how Cassandra's very premise of being in the game is based on this the player deserved more. And in perhaps a final reminder to how our choices didn't really matter, siding with the mages or templars results in the exact same scenario.
If you can scrunch your eyes and gloss over that you are walking through the same cave,
then the characters and story (admittedly a smaller story) make this worthwhile.
I tend to play on easy so that I can enjoy that story without getting otherwise frustrated.
A Feast For Crows was still a good stand alone fantasy book, just as DA2 is a good RPG...
DA2 is a good RPG? Do you like Final Fantasy XIII too? or you just missed the snes era?
RPG's must put you into a role, sadly hawke fails at that badly: you have no world exploration (just run in circles in three acts) yes no dialogue style with maybe option ala Golden Sun but with less charismatic companions and lame writting don't make RPG's it may work for a fighting game with no story but not for an RPG
In my opinion, hating on DA2 is like book readers of the A Song of Ice and Fire series hating on A Feast for Crows. It seems there is a larger world story being told to simply focus on 1 main character. Also, too many epic events happened in the course of DAO and there needed to be an aftermath to the recent blight, Ferelden crowning, etc in addition to more event setups. Mass Effect 2 took a story slow down as well. Just try and see the Dragon Age games being told like the tv show Game of Thrones. There is a bigger world story being told in an unconventional way. A Feast For Crows was still a good stand alone fantasy book, just as DA2 is a good RPG. The overall story and events in DA2 aren't as huge and epic as DAO, but for the reason I mentioned, or at least I hope so. Bioware stated somewhere they have a plan for how many games they're making, so I trust they know how to breakdown the overall story in the Dragon Age series.
A Feast for Crows felt like a fragment of a very, very long story where very little happens. A Dance with Dragons felt like the other part of the same very, very long story where very little happens. That's why many people felt the first 3 books were better. More happened, they seemed to flow better, and GRRM managed to release the first three in a 4 year time frame while the next two took 11 years. It showed GRRM didn't know exactly where to go with it; evident by him initially trying a 5 year time skip in AFFC then voiding it. Him also splitting the POVs into separate books upon a friend's suggestion also diverted from the norm negatively IMO. While GRRM managed to make the POVs interesting enough that you'd care about most of their stories, AFFC lacked memorable moments that allows me to pinpoint with ease what happens in specific chapters. They all blend into one because of their comparably slothful progress.
...That being said... I don't think AFFC can be compared with DA2. For one, DA2 is a completely different story from DA:O with different characters.
But i think there are still couple of good things about this game.
I think the real reason why people hate this game is be cause it didn't live up to the success of the first game
Yeah, I think that too sometimes, and then I actually go back and replay it. When I replay DAO, I'm happy. It puts me in a good mood. I rediscover lines or little things in the story or codex. If I'm playing a different character & class, I'm forced to come up with new strategies. I regularly play on hard or nightmare to challenge myself and I always go for the 'I'm kind of a big deal achievement.' No dying/injuries. Sometimes I even read every codex entry.
Replaying DA2, however, makes me angry. Seriously, by the end of act 2 I'm in a bad mood. A perpetual "I'm pissed off" mood (kinda why the aggressive Hawke has come to be my favorite). And don't even get me started on act 3. Even on my first playthrough, by the end I was gritting my teeth, just trying to get through it and finish the game. Let's just get this over with/finish this game became my mantra. Fyi, I have played DA2 several times, at least 3 to try all the classes and story endings, etc. But everytime I try to pick it up since that first year I played, I can't finish it. I just get too pissed.
Now, you're right, there are good things about the game. I do like the combat, at least *melee* combat. Being a mage kinda felt lacking to me in DA2, but nothing's as fun as a good twin fangs on an assassin or running around and competing with Fenris to see who can kill more stuff with a huge sword. DA2 made me like warriors, tbh. And I *love* the characters. I don't have any qualms about any of the companions, if I had a complaint it would be that Sebastian's romance is so hard to get (Because who's gonna go through an entire game and not flirt with Fenris, Anders, or even Izzy for kicks?) and that I didn't get more time with them. Being able to trigger a conversation only once or twice an act made me feel more distant (And seriously who does not talk to Fenris for THREE YEARS after hooking up?!). And I did like that companions have their own armor, although I did wish I had something to do with all the useless dlc armor I'm not using.
But sadly, these do not make up for the rage inducing faults of the game. I honestly don't think I hate this game and I like to think that my dislike for it has abated somewhat over the years, but everytime I play, I am forced back to square one in my hate cycle. Why:
4. reused environments. I don't mind staying in kirkwall, but I DO mind that every single interior building and cave looks exactly the same. This is one of the reasons I began to hate kirkwall. Why does the inside of each mansion and house look EXACTLY the same, down to the paintings? Why doesn't Fenris ever clean up the freakin' cobwebs in that place, after all those years? You tell me the game is set in one city, fine. But that city better be detailed. Each house should have different layouts and different decor. The deep roads (the side quest with the brothers) shouldn't look like random caves in the mountains and every gang should not have the same looking hideout. That's just lazy programming.
3. The difficulty. I don't know it is about this game. Maybe I'm just a crappy player, but think something's wrong when I can go through DAO on nightmare but can't beat the gang quests on hard in DA2 (as an archer anyway). Hard mode in DA2 doesn't feel like strategizing, it feels like a beatdown. A beatdown without very many potions. Every single fight feels like a mob swarm. Again, I may just be a crappy player, but that Anders' first quest as an example. That chantry templar fight is frustrating on *normal* and its one of the first fights in the game. Something's wrong with that.
2. mage vs. templar --idk what to call it. Debate? Saga? Never-ending whing? Some people apparently really enjoyed this part of the game, but Idk, by act 2 I was tired of it. I felt like I was being beaten over the head with the pick a side nonsense. Maybe it's cuz I did pick a side and that side continued to attack me and turn to blood magic even though I told them I was helping them and all my prior actions in the game proved I would help them. Maybe because I disliked forced story gaps that made me wait years to track down a killer or settle the whole orsino vs. meredith thing. I really don't know what it is, but by act 3 I am sick of it and I don't want to talk about it anymore, at least not with npcs because the whole conversation turns into a retarded mess.
And the bonus for this is of course, Orsino. Talk about contrived plot devices. He helped my mother's murderer? Wth did that come from, anyway? And why is he bringing it up now, while we're trying to fight off templars (and winning no less). And then he turns on you. That moment is probably the biggest WTF gaming moment of my entire life.
1.Forced storylines. I admit, that opening scene with Varric was cool. But it did not belong in this game. That scene sets up the theme for the entire game: this story already happened; you have no choices here. I would have been fine with this (probably) if bioware owned that route, but they didn't make a linear game. They gave us choices. They gave us a dialogue wheel. And I hate that wheel. If there is one reason to hate this game, for me, that would be it. I do not know why whoever wrote the dialogue for that thing found it so hard say the same thing using different words, but I would like to tell them to go back to high school and take an english class. So many times I have sat in front of my screen watching my aggressive Hawke turn a stern no into a death threat, watching my agreeable Hawke turn a noncommittal answer into acceptance or approval and my sarcastic Hawke--well, let's just say that she had a mind of her own and was in her own little world and that's probably why none of the npcs ever acknowledged her jokes. But that's just the dialogue.
When it comes down to the actual choices... Again, I get angry. And over little side quests, no less. I will never forget when, on my second playthrough Hubert asked me to take partial ownership of the mine. I decided no. He laughed at me. And then there was perhaps the biggest offender: Sister Petrice. I hate this lady. I don't think I ever had so much rage for a nonfictional character before. Of course I am forced to do her quest, but the real kicker is that later, when I come back after I learn it was all a trap, I tell her "I think I'll kill you." And you know what she says to me? "No thank you." And walks out the door.
Why? Who knows. But probably because she's supposed to come back in another act and be involved in some other quest. ...A missed knife throw would have been more dignified, imo.
So yeah. I apologize if this came off as a rant. DA2 can have that effect on me. But I do think people have reasons for, if not hating, then at least strongly disliking the game. And yes, tbh, I think the real number one reason why people hate the game is wasted potential. As everyone points out, there are some good parts of the game, parts that make you think the game could be great. But poor design/programing choices and rushed production made the game--others say mediocre, but I say, just sad.
Alot of the complaints have merit mainly the enemies and getting sick of seeing everything in every chapter that you so before. Had Bioware had a extra year it would have been really good to see Kirkwall change throughout the years instead of remaining the same and every cave not looking like Betheseda designed and reused them to fill space.
Storywise the only thing I hated is that they went so grey I was left unsatisfied. I'm fine with there being no exact right of wrong but seriously did every mage have to go physco evil abomination and every Templar a power hungry killer except for like Thrask who died to a abomination
I get that so many of the mages are pushed to extremes because Kirkwall is like the worst place in the world for them but seriously 90% are evil.
To be honest Mage Hawke, Bethany, and Merril are like 3 of the 5 mages who can be trusted and Merril is on the edge. Merril's trusts a demon and uses Blood Magic but she also made it clear when talking to Anders that she knows no spirit from the Fade is good or trustworthy and that blood magic is only considerd evil if used for that purpose a means to a end that isn't necesarrily wrong and her innocence makes her believe she will not be corrupted from it which is understandable lots of mages from DAO who resorted to drastic measures remain uncorrupted. Jowan was a mixed bag but ultimately never became a abomination.
Character Wise - I have no real problem with the characters everybody that was expanded upon is exactly how they need to be the romance scenes seemed to develop better than Leliana and Zevran's romance despite them not giving much time to them in DA2. Morrigan's went really far and made alot of sense for her personality it even reminded me of Viconia's from BG2 but in Da2 most of them were just a finish line.
Alot of the complaints have merit mainly the enemies and getting sick of seeing everything in every chapter that you so before. Had Bioware had a extra year it would have been really good to see Kirkwall change throughout the years instead of remaining the same and every cave not looking like Betheseda designed and reused them to fill space.
Exactly. There are too many if onlys in this game.
Exactly. There are too many if onlys in this game.
It always come back too the fact that EA rushed them to get this game out the door when they needed a year more to work on it which has become a known fact not allowing to take full advantage of the setting they used. We were all surprised DA2 came out so quickly after DA1 whether a seperate team had worked on it or not it was way too soon and it showed. It's not a bad game at all but it could have been a great game. The fact remains it is to this day a incomplete game.
DLC like Legacy showed they could do it given the time.
What was, what could have been, and what wasn't.
Okay, yes, the story and romances were weaker, and yes, it sucks that the only explorable area is kirkwall, mountain, dlc, and one time deep road.
But i think there are still couple of good things about this game.The UI and combat seems to be bit more cleaner than DA:O, There are more weapons and armor designs. The loading screen is cool to look at instead of that spinning thing from DA:O
I think the real reason why people hate this game is be cause it didn't live up to the success of the first game
It gets unfair hate. But it also gets hated fairly.
Dragon Age II got the exact amount of hate and accolades it deserved. The story as I will admit was very good and a creative way to take on it BUT it was still lazy. The fact it went from a game with less resources with a brilliant development of character story and world evolution to a recycled environment generator with and updated UI and graphics facelift was laughable.
Dragon Age Origins was to Dragon Age II, in my book was as Mass Effect was to Mass Effect III. If just seemed as if they thought speed, nice user interface and graphics upgrade was going to be enough to distract us. The game is getting a nicer response than I even think it deserved really.
Dragon Age II got the exact amount of hate and accolades it deserved. The story as I will admit was very good and a creative way to take on it BUT it was still lazy. The fact it went from a game with less resources with a brilliant development of character story and world evolution to a recycled environment generator with and updated UI and graphics facelift was laughable.
Dragon Age Origins was to Dragon Age II, in my book was as Mass Effect was to Mass Effect III. If just seemed as if they thought speed, nice user interface and graphics upgrade was going to be enough to distract us. The game is getting a nicer response than I even think it deserved really.
It did not deserve the pure hate it recieved, it deserved some yes but not completely. Years later for DA 2 people still talk way too much, I never would argue or correct someone because it had been a long time since I played it. I went through it again recently twice right after I finished Origins and Awakening again and I see what deserves to be hated and what doesn't and honestly I despise nothing more than people who make the comment of like you did of how ME3 was bad when full knowing you loved it until the end and then Bioware gave you 4 decent endings and yet you can't move on because it wasn't there right away. If Bioware had released a complete overhaul of DA2 fixing every single thing people would still hate it because people who hate just to keep hating and can't move on is really dissapointing.
If Bioware had released a complete overhaul of DA2 fixing every single thing people would still hate it because people who hate just to keep hating and can't move on is really dissapointing.
scrapping and reconstructing it to be good would make me stop hatting it, but it will also had to involve the ET burial, hard copy burn, witch hunt, PC virus flooding, neglection and total destruction of EVERY actual copy of the original DA2... i would not hate this game if:
* Anders is real Anders instead of a whinny emo sociopath with no wilpower and bisexual trait... if he is meant to destroy the chantry in kirkwall i want him to be supported by all Fereldan Grey wardens while cynically saying "I didn't do it" instead of Twilight like tear breaking. Alas if he is meant to be romanceable that only FEMHAWKES can get him
* Less Lollipop Chainsaw or God of war animations, more tactics
* No Plant's vs Zombies like waves of enemies that was AWFULL
* Decisions that REALLY MATTERS not just "either good riddance of nefarious character number 21 or nothing happens"
* No Exhiled prince... BRING BACK LOVABLE SHALE
* no alien foreheaded Elves... let the toetsies of elven females exposed, i don't care about that
* any character in my party can equip the multi armor parts that Hawke finds
* NO JUNK! THIS IS NOT RAGNAROK
* No loopholes/reality bending, if Flemmeth is going to give useless Hawke that talisman, make it only work if warden decided to kill her
* PUT A ENDING! AND NOT ANOTHER "NO MATTER WHAT YOU CHOOSE IT WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING" DECISION IN LAST BATTLE
Dragon Age II got the exact amount of hate and accolades it deserved. The story as I will admit was very good and a creative way to take on it BUT it was still lazy. The fact it went from a game with less resources with a brilliant development of character story and world evolution to a recycled environment generator with and updated UI and graphics facelift was laughable.
Dragon Age Origins was to Dragon Age II, in my book was as Mass Effect was to Mass Effect III. If just seemed as if they thought speed, nice user interface and graphics upgrade was going to be enough to distract us. The game is getting a nicer response than I even think it deserved really.
And yet Mass Effect 3 is infinitely more engaging than the borefest of Mass Effect... Interestingly enough environments in Dragon Age 2 were also way more detailed than in Origins. The fact there was "more" in Origins doesn't make it automatically better - the Brecillian forest, Redcliffe, Deeproads and Denerim all had a ton of re-used and low-detail assets which people like to conveniently forget whenever comparisons are brought up.
I for one doesn't think DA2 deserves less hate, but I absolutely believe Origins gets way more praise than it deserves.
Retour en haut