anubite

You voluntarily avoid any statements I make about the 'logicality' of it. It makes perfect sense. I hate the game. I hate what it stands for. I never want to see something like it made again. It is so bad, that it is a blight against all video games that I like and enjoy. By showing exactly what is wrong with it, I hope to reduced the possibility that another game like it will be made in the future. "Love it or leave it." Is a false dichotomy created by people who are usually afraid to confront something they don't understand.

Well, I don't mind if he does it. No need to hassle him. I'd probably do the same if I were a former or current BioWare employee. Hell, I might even do it if I were simply a resident of Canada. I imagine the matter is about pride and association. Even if he's not directly responsible, he might feel responsible, that a crime against humanity occurred within a 2 mile radius of his person and that he did nothing to stop it.

No, I'm more and more convinced each day that I could run EA better than EA runs itself currently. And if ROI were the sole-driving focus of all businesses, we'd be living in the industrial age. News flash, business has involved. Making a profitable business is more than turning the world into paste and sucking it dry. Businesses have realized, or at least, the enlightened ones have, that capitalism is a force which is self-destructive when taken too far. Especially when it comes to a non-essential commercial product. So far, all EA has done well is churn out the same sports game every year and made enough money to keep their sports division afloat. Since the latest court ordering that basically says, "NFL ain't yours anymore." EA has Fifa and that's it. Every other franchise they've created since John Macaroni took his seat as president, has been 'disappointing' or a downright flop. No, I need to do this. Because as far as I'm concerned, there isn't a good enough video to start from. If we're going to have this argument about the 'quality of video games' and what is to be expected of their creators, we need a place of origin. If you aren't going to provide your base of origin, my base of origin is going to have to be constructed immaculately, so we can start somewhere. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, then you can take half an hour of your busy life to give a response to a stupid video I'm going to make, so that I can better articulate in a follow-up response why you're wrong and why video games need to be of... some essential composition. This isn't under the guise of changing peoples' minds - though I hope that does happen as a result, for me, it's more important that we have a point of beginning. Video games are a relatively fresh medium and I don't know of any iconic or 'bible-esque' things we can turn to, to begin the discussion. I mean, xRazorFistx, does an okay job at ripping into Dragon Age 2 and detailing what he loathes about it And smudboy does an acceptable job at analyzing Dragon Age 2's poorly implemented plot But neither go into specific detail about what's wrong with the gameplay, or how the gameplay fails to line up with the narrative, or how all these moving parts fail to come into a positive gestalt. As far as I know, no one has detailed why this game fails. And if it does fail, as I believe it does, what can we learn from it? What can BioWare learn from it? If nothing else, I will be satisfied in laying out what I think is utterly wrong with it - so I will never utilize any of the things BioWare attempted to utilize. Also, I will then be able to be better critical about Dragon Age 3, and determine why it failed as a result of a failing to learn from Dragon Age 2.

This is very narrow, short-term thinking. It's never a good idea to saturate the market with ****, even if it's profitable the first time you do it. It hurts your future sales of said product. See: Guitar Hero, the first collapse of the video game industry Dragon Age 2 sold enough to be profitable, I suppose - it's hard to say but it did have enough sales where I suppose that's possible. But it sold far less than DA:O did and it hurt the image of quality BioWare was known for. The way the video game industry works is this: initial game strengthens sales for the sequel. People may buy a bad game the first time, but they will show their support for that game when it comes to buy its sequel. Dragon Age 2 will hurt the sales of Dragon Age 3. It will be an uphill battle to convince RPG consumers that they won't be burned again by BioWare. And Mass Effect 3 did sell more poorly compared to ME2, or at least, those were the sales projections around April. Of course, EA was also recently caught fudging numbers about the sales of its games on sites like VGChartz, so it's hard to say definitively. SWTOR had the biggest budget of any video game in history, I believe. It's F2P this year. I would argue that it did not make the necessary revenue to meet its development budget. It sold under 2.1 million and maintained a subscriber base of less than half that after the first (free) month. It's a ghost town right now.

Exactly. I think the Qunari, or the Dalish, or the rabble-elves, or /anyone else/ is more fleshed out and would be infinitely more fascinating to play as. But even better, I'd like to have the choice of my race. Because they've already decided that we're forced to play human, it means they have a cinematic experience ready for us once more, instead of a narrative with multiple facets and diverging assets. BioWare is desperately afraid to make a game which can't be a spectacle, it's afraid to make a game where the general consumer won't see close to 90% of the game's content in one run. It's abandoned any attempt at making a narrative which can apply to a wide variety of races and origins. Its developers don't want to deal with the complexity of, "What if the player isn't human when he addresses this NPC?"

Volourn, EA will close BW down because DA2 sold less than DA1 ME3 sold less than ME2 SWTOR was a massive financial failure It's as simple as that. Whether you disagree with me or not, the numbers don't lie. BW has been making less and less money for EA on each iteration. SWTOR was so bad, EA can't even lie to its investors anymore. When DA3 fails to eclipse DA2's sales, they will be completely justified in tearing the studio apart. Also, Volourn, if you keep it up, I'm going to have to request proof that you don't have a previous history of working in Edmonton Canada.

They were out of them with ME3. If they **** up DA3 though (which, they already have by my estimation - it's already confirmed you're forced to play as a human, which indicates to me at least, it will have all the same problems DA2 had), EA will close the studio.

There wasn't one in DAO....... In fact, DAO actually had a good dialogue system. Gah, it didn't have the wheel? I could've sworn it was the first game that had it. But it's been a while. I guess I should consider replaying that too. But I dunno. I barely have enough time to do a proper DA2 playthrough.

I'll be sure to talk about why the dialogue wheel is even worse in DA2 than it was in DA1.

Share the link. Im serious. I just reinstalled DA2 30 minutes ago. Ran through the tutorial. Fraps'd it. It's taking up 25 GB. My second drive is almost full so I'm going to have to play the game in small spurts and convert them as I go. So there's no link yet and I doubt I'll have any substantial produced until a week from now. But I'm gonna do it. I'll assuredly post the link here when I get the first video done.

Okay. Yep. I'm doing it. This thread has convinced me. For the sake of humanity, I will play DA2 again. I will do it with fraps this time. And I'll make a horrifyingly long youtube series which 'pontificates' about every single solitary wrong thing with the game. And I will make every one of you eat your words. I will make the case that DA2 is so bad, anyone who defends it should be locked away in a dungeon forever. No need to thank me.

If you two like Dragon Age 2 so much, go play it again. I was foolish to respond to people coming to this thread to defend Dragon Age 2 - I mean this is a thread that was created for its revilement. You coming here and trying to argue otherwise just shows your trollish or stubborn nature, thinking that anyone who dislikes Dragon Age 2 is just a 'hater', 'nerd', 'somebody who doesn't read an intelligent webcomic like me' or something. And if you're not going to respond to my posts, which I did spend time on, then why post at all? Just a waste of breath to post a stupid XKCD image and expect me to be swayed by your laziness.

Obviously, Kreia is a fantastic character. Hell, a fantastic antagonist. I asked Chris how they came up with her. His response was sorely lacking - but it goes to show what the right people can do when you give them the helm.

Xcom was "profitable" - they announced that yesterday. You needn't worry. Oh hell no, but it demonstrates the potential market. Skyrim COULD have been a much better RPG and still made the sales it did. I think your opinion that money must be made off the "casual masses" is reflective of most suits, but I think it's entirely mistaken. Yes, you can develop shovelware and feed it to the masses - look at Zynga. It got where it did because of that. But I don't think such market practices have any longevity, as also shown by Zynga and other smaller studios that produce iOS titles. Diversity I think is important, firstly, but secondly, making games to appeal to the 'hardcore' market is harder - but the potential rewards are far greater. And if you throw shovelware at the market place, eventually we're going to have a crash JUST like the Atari 2600 ET crash. There is a limit on the amount of **** you can try to feed the masses with. There are plenty of hardcore games that sold well in the past. There are also plenty of hardcore games that defy "market expectations". Let's look at EVE Online - the hardcorediest of hardcore space spreadsheet sims. It has LINEAR GROWTH to this DAY and is running on an engine that is 10 years old next year and in a market where every major game released in it has been a "disappointment" or a "flop". CCP is a technology company with a brain, it has very talented developers and designers who identify what their audience wants and gives it to them. They made a game work incredibly well despite its initial small run.

No, I perfectly understand that BioWare is a business. It's why my analogy works at a basic level. I don't expect it to hold up under literal scrutiny - cars aren't video games - but no analogy really does to a certain extent. They got 80,000 English-speaking, US-residential people* with credit/debit cards to pledge >25 USD for a thing that doesn't exist yet. A product they won't receive for well over a year from now. A product they may not ever actaully get. A product, at least in my opinion, was poorly pitched until the last week or so (the details are still very vague about PE - they could have been way more concrete with the time Obsidian had from March until September). I would say that's a pretty ****ing good amount of demand to make a sufficiently cheap RPG. What other market place has such things happening? The problem with BioWare, is that while it is a business, you can't get people who buy CoD to buy an RPG, without making said RPG into a CoD game. Such audiences are mutually exclusive. Skyrim was the second most selling title this year, I believe. It has a ridiculous following. The market exists. It has exsited. BG2 was ridiculously financially successful AND COULD BE REPLICATED TODAY AT A FRACTION OF THE COST. Please - you could run a business that was entirely about making old-school isometic RPGs and you could make a killing, with the right talent. Hell, you can make a lot of money off free games these days - with the right ingenuity, I bet you could make a single player RPG under the same basic schema. But I don't think anyone at BioWare has had any vision for a long time, which is why they decided to play "follow the leader" by going after the COD market. *kickstarter has lots of restrictions The other thing I think BioWare completely never takes into account, is the ****ing fact that good games can sell for well over a decade. How many people are buying Fallout 1 off GOG? A good PC game is revenue for a very long time. In the current way DDL is being developed by Steam, GOG, etc. - you could create a massive constant revenue stream by releasing digital distribution isometric RPGs of similar quality to BG2. You could. Don't even try to imply that it's not feasible - because it would be so feasible it would probably be more economic than trying to ****out a blockbuster COD-Mt.Dew-Doritos-appealing WOW-inspired mass-marketed-up-the-ass DA3. If DA3 doesn't flop harder than DA2 I'll be a monkey's uncle! They could make so much money if they dropped the act and studied what made themselves successful back then, in stead of trying to redefine their market. The market is here. I'm their market. Listen to me. I've programmed games. I know what makes them fun. Just sit down and let's talk games. Not marketing, not call of duty, not "press a button awesome happens" - just good old fashioned stuff that worked only a few years ago. Please, I'm not crazy. Don't act like I'm speaking Mandarin here. Does everyone get what I'm saying? This kind of thing isn't rocket science - at least, it seems so obvious to me, I don't see how EA doesn't see this stuff. They launched Origin - do they not see what made people switch to Steam? Quality! It was quality! It was not "follow the leader" - it was "I am the leader. I'm unique. Look! I'm doing unique things! I'm Valve! See? We're hip! We're like Coca Cola! Or something! You pirate games? Why?! It's easier to get games on Steam than the pirate them!" And then the people came. Instead, EA thinks it can compete... by what? Making drivel? Crapping out a sequel in 11 months? No! No! Valve spends months iterating on a game. It's so logical. It's exactly how computers work. They iterate. They don't spit out the first thing they get - that never works.

Woah woah woah woah woaaaaaah nelly there parnter. *glances at your location* Yes, I believe this is the case. Someone who likes DA2 for what it is - "objectively" what it is - not the things it may or may not stand for or claim to be - has not a finer taste. I don't think you should take offense to this, but perhaps it is rude to suggest it. I mean, it's not like I've played every RPG or every game or every table top PnP game in existence - but I can name just about any other RPG and demonstrate its superiority over DA2. Can I call such demonstrations fact? Of course not. I wouldn't even try. But I'm absolutely tired of people defending the game. It leaves me no choice but to be completely and utterly negative and absolutive about it. I'm angry. Certainly, there's bias to my posts - I don't think I've ever claimed to be "objective" in any serious manner and I think a statement like "something is objectively bad" is stupid, but the game /is/ bad. And we can dance around it by saying, "Well, that's your opinion. Not everyone agrees!" That's great, and I've acknowledged that. That's my main problem with it. People wiggling their hands in their ears and refusing to discuss it. I know I can't always be right, hell, I'm usually not right about a lot of things, but I'm /tired/ of people using that argument to ignore my criticisms about the game. About my expectations about this industry. About my expectations of game designers and the suits behind them. I'm thoroughly and utterly tired of BioWare or its devoted followers trying to suggest that maybe I don't like fun, or maybe, I don't have taste - when it's pretty clear to me that many of the people who 'liked' or defend DA2 never ever even played BG2 - they didn't even have any expectations going into the DA series because they had absolutely no experience in the genre to begin with. These people encapsulate people like Hepler. They don't want a game. They want a dating simulator, or a slightly interactive story book. Or they're the Call of Duty demographic. And BioWare is catering to these people, instead of me - the customer who supported them over ten years ago. Their faithful little drone. It's baffling and confusing, and to say it's justified because it's only my opinion - it may be right, but it reeks of simplistic drivel. Like, nobody is sitting around and consciously making these decisions for any reason but whim. Or maybe they are thinking this stuff through, and just think I'll be dumb and support their awful attempt at an RPG. I could construct a better RPG even if I only got one shot at it. I mean, a computer game is best developed via iteration (you iterate on concepts and mechanics and build them up through trial, error and testing), but I could do it in one iteration better than Dragon Age 2 came out. Can I claim such a statement is "factual" or "objective"? Of course not - it's my ****ing opinion - but if you disagree with it, you'd better have a more substantive response than, "Oh well, that's your opinion." Everything is everyone's opinion when you get to the heart of the matter. Facts don't exist, because I can choose what facts I want to display, and I can make your facts seem shaky and weak. Facts are ****ing opinion. In the end, we're arguing our point of view, it's frivilous to bring this up as though it should be a rebuttal to the argument. What I've demonstrated in my previous posts is my best attempt to get to the heart of the reason why Dragon Age 2 is a horrible, bad, awful, ****ty, lame game and an equally rotten experience. Perhaps you can enlighten me why I'm wrong, but so far, all I'm getting is that you're just a little miffed that my attitude is stark. I'm sorry, but the product I got at the end of the pipeline was a /sore/ disappointment that I CALLED the moment I read that stupid headline, "BIOWARE SEEKS CALL OF DUTY AUDIENCE". It was what I was dreading. The masses - coming to tell me how I should enjoy my RPGs, after I was told how I should enjoy my FPSes. And I can hardly be blamed for feeling this way, when it's clear to me upon starting up Dragon Age: Origins that the combat system was designed to look familiar to someone who picked up ****ing World of Warcraft and not Baldur's Gate. I mean, is it my fault for getting the mental image of a suit with a focus group asking them whether they think Snooky is "in"? Or what's their favorite soft drink? And when 56% of focus grouped teenage boys say yes, they decide to spend development time in ME3 on Diana Allers and Macho McBeefArms instead of actually developing the existing core characters to the series, or some of the clear monumental choices made through the game's life cycle, like the Rachni. You can't blame me for being so thoroughly fed up that I'm no longer entertaining dissenting opinion because I know it's all a troll, or a post made by someone who can't even comprehend what I'm talking about, because they've demonstrated in the past that they haven't even played a classic like VTMB or Wasteland 1. You can't have any moral righteous fury here over some of my rough, grating comments - because I'm sick of being treated like a child. I know what makes a good game, because I've played them in the past. No, I will not buy your legless dogs. I know they're like cuddly throw pillows. But, I don't really want one. I want a dog with legs. I like them more. No, really - that's what you sound like to me BioWare - a shady legless dog salesman. It's bad because it is what it is. If you change the company that made it, it's no longer the same thing. It wasn't a pedantic response - it was a stupid question. Hypotheticals generally don't illuminate anything - because I can spit on the ground in another universe and suddenly the world's ending. Things spiral out of control so differently, in a theorhetical 'other realm where BioWare didn't develop DA2'. Dragon Age 2 was what it was because it was a sequel, if it were made by another company, it would be a totally different game with completely different expectations - so of course it would be ****ing different. Another company COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE SAME GAME. A game is the product of everyone involved. And I'm sorry if some of my statements seem like "cut off opinions dressed as fact" - obviously I haven't typed out a novel here explaining specifically what I find so atrocious about every living, breathing detail of the game. I might have to at this rate, but when I say, "the characters were ****" - don't take it as though I'm stating the color of the sky, but that I could back this statement up if I had the time to do so, but for the sake of brevity, I didn't. And without a sufficient response from you... I mean -- "Well I think Isabella is swell!" -- I'm not particuarly motivated to try and explain why I think she's completely nonsensical, backwards, shallow, poorly designed, hideous and inconsequential to the game when all you can state is an opinion of your feelings for the characters. Why are they good for the setting, the RPG? Is there some depth beneath those pixles that I'm missing? Illuminate me here, because I've done enough contemplation on this issue and I've stated I think, enough basic rudimentary statements, to solidify my stance - and why you should agree - that Dragon Age 2 is the epitome of how to not design a game. Really, what makes the game greater than the worst AAA RPG to ever live? What parts of it are good? Develop a stance for me, something for me to attack - because otherwise, you're asking me to develop a 20 page paper stating a blanket of ideas and theories you may not even agree with from the get-go, so it would probably be a waste of my effort anyway, because you won't want to discuss such theories or formulations. I mean, if you are/were a member of BioWare, you would probably be set in your ways already - you're probably at peace with Dragon Age 2, writing it off as something that's simply, 'underappreciated' - even though it got universal acclaim according to those metacritic scores, and stands as a sham of a product to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid, with the same cave repeating probably well over 6 or 7 times. You can't attack me on the expectation that I should have a well-detailed argument in <20 paragraphs over a piece of work which is well over 10 hours in length to consume - that my statements are brief enough to be labeled 'arrogant opinion'.

Well, I suppose I'm of the philosophical opinion that there is nothing "objective" - everything comes from one's perspective, even "fact" must be viewed from perspective; there isn't any truth which simply is. Or if truth does exist, we as humans will never quite grasp its "whole objectiveness" - only pieces of it. So I can understand that hangup, especially as what I'm probably implying in my earlier posts is an idea of "this game is bad so I decree it objectively" - which is me being perhaps a bit too snarky. I can acknowledge there are tastes and perspectives. My view of the world is not one I can expect everyone to subscribe to. But at the end of the day, you have to make a stand, unfortunately. Decisions come from the latin root, "cid" or 'to cut'. We need to cut things, we can't leave them as they are. I make the stance that Dragon Age 2 is utterly unmistakably bad, I can could prove it with lengthy analysis according to my three points of contention, but I know I can't expect everyone to accept my perspective on things. But you have to admit, anyone with a developed taste of RPGs will not be satisfied with Dragon Age 2 - Dragon Age 2 does not have qualities RPG afficianados are looking for: great story great characters tactical gameplay variety of character development exploration drama action romance philosophy other-worldly-ness consequences of player choice dynamic living worlds These things are all missing from DA2. As for DA2 being released by another company - well, the fact it's called DA2 impllies it's a sequel to something. We all have expectations about sequels. I don't think the company matters. Sure, if DA2 were a game in a vacuum it would be received differently, but by the nature of it being a sequel, which by the way, is a spiritual sequel to Baldur's Gate AS WELL as a sequel to DA:O - invites many, many expectations. None of which were met. So while I can agree to an extent with what you're saying - perhaps our expectations were misplaced, and we fault the game too deeply for what we dreamed it would be - it's not our fault those expectations were placed there. It's also not our fault to expect that BioWare couldn't eventually deliver on a true successor to BG1 and BG2, even if DA:O and DA:A failed to deliver what we truly wanted, either. Our expectations were not out of line and to judge the game based on those expectations, no, on those demands we have on the gaming industry as a whole, is not wrong. There hasn't been a game like BG2 or FO2 or even VTMB in years now. The companies that serviced people who liked these titles, are expected to continue producing products like their previous ones - why would you discontinue a profitable, successful, good line of product of which there is great demand for? Why would you turn your BMW luxury vehicle production line into a budget vehicle line? Wouldn't you upset those customers who want that expensive luxury vehicle? Wouldn't you expect those people to be upset when they purchase a BMW, only to find out it's a "common" vehicle? With all the features missing that were expected from that product in the past? Perhaps the "common" vehicle is suitable to others, but the original customer base is deeply dissatisfied. To add insult to this injury, DA2 isn't a suitible vehicle. It's a piece of crap. A lemon.

Stop being a troll and ****ing contribute. You can make all the opposing statements you want but you'll get nothing but swear words from me if you can't back them up in any substantial way. The issue I have with rating games based on fun, is that it's impossible, utterly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about fun. It is much easier to relate a game to its systems and explain why those systems might be fun or why they might not be. In the case of SC2, it's NOT fun because of its poor balance and overall design. In the case of MW3, it has severally flawed design... I can't remember the name of this video I watched, I have to find it, but it basically shows how infinitely-respawning enemies and corridor level design force you to run through a level. There's also multiplayer... Anyway games such a broad thing that it's hard to stay on one track if we try to discuss them in a scholarly manner. I agree you need to lay out definitions to work from because otherwise everything dissolves into a mess of opinion and tripe. What I've been trying to get at is that 1. Dragon Age 2 is not replayable 2. Dragon age 2 is not immersible 3. Dragon age 2 is not balanced Because it lacks these three qualities, it can't be a good game. OF COURSE{/b] people always want to make the argument into, "Why can't I enjoy what I enjoy? If a game is fun, let those fun games be made." Sadly, the reality, is that games are a product; an industry. I like playing games. I like playing a specific kind of game. A specific kind of game that isn't being made anymore. The reason why it's not being made anymore is because of a lack of standards and an overall failure of the industry - one that needs to be addressed by laying down the lines of what is a good game and what is not. I think a majority of people would enjoy Baldur's Gate 2 if they gave it the proper chance. Comparatively more than what we have playing Angry Birds currently - Angry Birds is shallow drivel which is fun for all of five minutes; it is not something I enjoy and negatively impacts the quantity of things I can enjoy in the future. It will also negatively impact the amount of people playing and supporting the video game industry 20 years from now. Economics is about butterflies and tornados and while it might be fine to have a leisurely opinion of this sort of thing, it's that leisurely opinion that is all too widespread; it is apparent even in the minds of game designers and CEOs, and the result is overwhelmingly negative right now. Month by month, game sales are dropping and a massive amount of money is being burned to create faulty products that cumulatively hurt the industry. I imagine we have lost at least one or two triple A potential RPGs BECAUSE of the lack of sales and utter failure that was DA2. That is a snowball effect, where RPGs are made less and less 'because they don't sell' - but they don't sell precisely because they aren't made - precisely because people refuse to make them how they're supposed to be made. Economics and industry are not a stable thing at all, the world economy is fickle and we've almost had total meltdown economic global crises far in the past before our latest economic woes; these kinds of things bubble up quickly and quietly and I don't think a lot of suits, the people who run the video game industry, realize the long-term ramifications of their designers or their bottom-lines.

A game which doesn't work (like VTMB on release day) "doesn't work" - it can't be called a horrible game because it doesn't work; it's simply not a game then. You might say it's a "horrible product" but you can't determine the worth of a game because you cannot play it due to poor programming. A game which is horrible usually meets some of the following criteria to some extent, though not always all nor can all games be expected to stand up to all the same standards, but as a general list: a) low replayability* b) low level of craftsmanship (this is very vague, of course, but refers to the technical details such as lightning effects, texturing, particle effects, etc.) c) low level of refinement (as in, balancing - a multiplayer shooter or RTS with awful balance is not a good game) d) low quantity of content (the game is very short, has few modes, options, or things to do) e) low development of narrative context (there is no narrative or explanation for what you are expected to visualize, or that narrative fails to set out to do what it is intended to do [such as in the case of DA2, when your suspension of disbelief is ruined in a /fantasy setting/; 'epic fantasy settings' need to allow for a suspension of disbelief in the audience]) f) low fidelity of game systems (this means game systems which function outside of finite parameters; the difference between Assassin's Creed and Mount and Blade is that Assassin's Creed has a linear story and scripted events that only occur within the confines of their scripting, Mount and Blade has /systems/ which are /always running/ and are designed to handle 'emergent behavior' of other systems within a game) g) low quality of peripheral content (CGI movies, music, sound-effects - things which probably aren't impacting the game itself, but impact your experience with the game) Note I'm talking specifically about video games in the modern, popular context and not necessarily just 'games' as some accepted game theory meant to envelop all kinds of games; because a game is very, very broad thing and I've little interest in attempting to tackle such a broad thing in a forum post. I also acknowledge that this list is hardly scholarly, complete or well-defined, but my hasty attempt to explain what is a 'bad game' in such a broad context. Some very brief comparison qualifiers: Games I would consider horrible: Superman 64, FF-13, Diablo 3, League of Legends, Heavy Rain, any recent Sonic Game, Fable 3 Games I would consider bad: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, Starcraft 2, Uncharted 3, The Sims 3, Tales of Symphonia 2, Battle for Wesnoth, Kingdoms of Amalur: Age of Reckoning Games I would consider mediocre/deeply flawed: FFT:A, FFX-2, Age of Empires 2, Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Portal 2 / Portal, The Witcher 1, any 'pure' Pokemon game (a non-mystery dungeon game or spin-off) Games I would consider good: Starcraft, FFT, Super Mario 64, Diablo 2, Sim City, Europa Universalis, Mount and Blade: Warband, Legend of Grimrock, VTMB Games I would consider incredible: Jagged Alliance 2, Deus Ex, Path of Exile, Unreal Tournament/Quake/Doom Now, you can have /fun/ with a horrible game. But from the technical aspects that make up that game, one can argue that game is still bad or horrible. To attempt to narrow down what I'm trying to say, I guess I rate games from 3 core elements: balance, replayability, and immersion. 1) Is a game balanced? If a game is balanced, then there are many viable purposeful actions that can be made in most instances of a game (ie, there are multiple strategies to win said game, using the systems programmed into the game) 2) Is a game replayable? Are the things that happen within the context of a game repeatable while still feeling fresh/exciting/inviting? Or are they so scripted/linear that you quickly master the game, quickly learn how to anticipate exactly what is going to happen next? Is the game something you can continue to interact with, to get different stimuli? 3) Is the game immersive? Can you "play" with it? Is there room to explore inside the game's systems? Can you "obsess" over a game? Can you be totally submerged in the experience it offers? Or are you constantly being dragged out of it? I think, when 3) arises, we're having fun. And 3) can usually only occur if 1) and 2) are present in sufficient amounts. I mean, we can design a game however we want to. And those whom don't require much mental stimulation may enjoy it - one such example in exploring a basic computer algorithim might be "Grundy's Game" (http://en.wikipedia....undy's_game). I assure you this game is not fun to play but there maybe such people who find it amazingly fun. A game being fun to some particular person does not make it a good game. For instance, I love Age of Empires 2 and still play it today, but it has many flaws with prevent it from being 'incredibly well designed'. And of course I can't pretend that my attempts at some kind of formal analysis are anything but informal. My opinion inevitably seeps into my perception of these games and my classifications of them. You can like and have fun with Dragon Age 2 but it doesn't change the fact it is a bad game.

You're going to make me, aren't you? You guys really ****ing are. The first zone of the game is the most ugliest **** I have ever seen in a recent 3d video game. It's N64 era quality black **** you're walking on. Go replay the tutorial zone for all of five minutes and wonder how the **** something like this went through a professional studio. There's where you're wrong, number one, on graphics. Number two, voice work is a major detriment to the game, because the main character is voiced, you have a severe limitation of dialogue options. This game has some of the worst script writing I've ever seen. Please, someone post the picture of the "I wish to be a dragon" / "I'm hungry" lines in action. They're sufficiently stupid enough to summarize what is otherwise a short awfully constructed narrative. The reviews are gross. Go to metacritic. So many high scores for this piece of ****. And yes, it is a bad RPG, but if this is you definition of an "average" game - like we should accept an "average" game getting a review score of 80-90 - then this certainly doesn't belong in that category of 'average'. If by average you mean it is so bland and mediocre that it is a 'passable example of the medium' then you would probably not disagree with the following statement, "Jack and Jill, a film by Adam Sandler, is an "average" film in the media of film-making. It is a passable, acceptable, 'normal', even deemable 'okay' example of a motion picture." In which case, I would vomit, because that's the level of DA2 - a recent Adam Sandler flick. Are we going to accept such insipid, shallow, empty, souless, trivial, childish, inane **** as "average"? Are we? Do you find things so bad they're not even mediocre "okay"? It's "okay" to give such a game a >75 rating on a website? I'm tired of this. I asked for in-game examples. Don't provide 2 sentence rebuttals and be like, "Oh but it's not /that/ bad! I played it not expecting it to be that horrible and I finished playing it! So it can't be that bad! Even though people have demonstrated arguments and reasons for why it's bad, I'll just say that they're a little mistake or overzealous about it! *cute face*" Don't make me go through my BioWare-hate ammunition because I have a plethora of pictures - oh wait, here's on on ME3. You say ME3 wasn't "that" bad too? I guess I can't blame you, considering how it's the shortest game in the series, with all of its quest content replaced with WOW-inspired fetch quests. But I guess it wasn't that bad, since it had at least a few more unique places to visit, compared to DA2, which had you returning to the same 3 locations over and over. I guess, if we say that DA2 is an average game, then ME3 is "above average" and we should be thanking BioWare for including 1/3 less content in their games as they did in 2007, just filling it with filler to make it seem long - we shoud be praising them for releasing such tripe in 2012, because it's "less tripe-y than Call of Duty or Angry Birds, which probably make up the "average" of games purchased per year per capita". I am not willing to accept this level of trash as "average" - when BioWare set the standards in November of 1998 with Baldur's Gate. I know that was a long time ago, but if they can't live up to the standards they created back then, we shouldn't suddenly lower the standards because we're desperate. If BioWare doesn't want to create products that are good, if other companies in their wake don't want to, we shouldn't support them. Or does it sound appealing to you, to spend a premium on expensive entertainment products (video games require an expensive computer, maintenance and skill to run said computer, as well as a high purchase cost of $50 or more USD plus DLC plus nickle and diming), and get a ****ty product in return? If you want to defend BioWare, take it to their forums. I've heard enough of their apologetic fans and I've heard enough of BioWare's excuses from its own mis-guided staff. Dragon Age 2 is a bad game and Project Eternity better be nothing like it. There is nothing remotely good or acceptable about the game in its current form. It may have had "potential" in the pre-natal stages of development but what you can play today is what we're talking about and it's a piece of bloody ****.

If someone wants to imply that DA2 is "objectively" anything other than bad, they're going to have to qualify that statement with examples from the game that demonstrates its worth. Because more than enough people have laid out long-winded arguments about how it's a piece of **** and why even if your standards are below average, it doesn't change the fact it is a horrible game that should be taken has a hard lesson about designing such games in the future. KOTOR1 is a fun romp, but yes, it's not very "original". But despite that, I could actually load it up and play this very minute and still find tons of fun going through it a fifth (sixth?) time. I never even finished NWN's original campaign and you couldn't make me play through DA2 if you paid me 10 bux.

People saying romances are "easy to ignore": This has not been the case as of late, notably, with Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect. In DAO, the ****ing climax of the script is "Shalt thou **** thy wretched lady so she may bore thy god-childe?" Yes, the climax is a decision whether to impregnate some selfish hag or leave it to some other oaf. In Mass Effect, everything is so hypersexualized or hyper-cute-ti-tized (as in the case of Tali), you simply cannot ignore the sexual hyperbole. The camera zooms in on Miranda's ass whenever she's in frame. Mass Effect one even has this stupid romancy-climax thing shoved in your face, when you're asked to 'join with Liara' or whatever, and that such a ritual is considered practically to be sex with the Asari.

Maybe I've modded the game too much in the past. Even so, BG2 does a great job of giving you the illusion of choice with its 10+ options at times. And granted, it's possible to have more than one outcome for certain dialogue.

I think the main difference between KOTOR2 and DA2, while both being 'let's make a game in under a year and reap massive profits on the name of franchise alone', is that Obsidian is competent has workers who like making fun games and that BioWare is full of people who don't want to play a fun game (like Hepler) or don't know how to make one. We need a "dislike this" button. Bioware are competent and have made some of the better RPGs of the past two decades. They also made the game engines that Obsidian used for kotor 2 and nwn2. I prefer Obsidian games because I prefer Obsidian's style but lets not forget that one of the reasons Obsidian put so much work into kotor 2 was because it was Obsidian''s first title and that they needed to make an impact with it. I'm sure the DA2 team worked hard but I doubt they had as much riding on it. You can voice your discontent without a stupid button. I roll my eyes at the 'like' button as it is. BioWare has made two great games and one good game in their entire career. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were both 'great games' for their time and still stand up to this day. KOTOR1 is a 'good' game but it doesn't shine quite as bright as it probably could. Every other BioWare game, which I have all played, have been a slow descent into mediocrity, or were already mediocre upon release. NWN1 (this was terrible and only playable for its multiplayer). Jade Empire (some of the worst combat system design I've ever had the misfortune to suffer through; the story is also insipid and grossly predictable, it has "BioWare's first xbox port" written all over it) DA:O (mediocrity defined, a plodding shallow combat system, hypersexuality [the ****ing climax is a decision over whether you should **** Morrigan]) DA:A (failed to address what made DA:O a step back from BG2) ME1 (bad gunplay, small interior spaces to explore, the first major oversimplification of dialogue branching) ME2 (instead of improving the game, they just made it into a TPS and slapped as much **** and ass as they could everywhere) BioWare hasn't made a solid title since KOTOR1 and their latest attempts (DA and ME) at recapturing what they them good failed miserably. We don't owe them anything. They don't understand what made their initial games so successful and fun and see themselves fit to tell us that it's our fault their games are bad now. We don't owe them any respect or privilege - they think they can continue to pass off the same story to us in slightly different format, with a half-baked combat system, and we'll just look past it because they made sure to make the camera zoom in on somebody's ass. DA2 and ME3 should have solidified in your mind that they are irredeemable. The quality of a bioware product now is that of a call of duty clone.

This is an issue where I think BG/BG2 shine the brightest. I loathe the [bluff] [intimidate] [Wisdom] stuff in NWN2, FO:NV, etc. - it oversimplifies 'the battle of words.' In BG2, conversation is more like a puzzle, with 10-20 options at times to choose from. All responses should be aided by your skills, but they shouldn't be completely restricted or unlocked by your skills. 1. [Reason with this character logically] as a response has an implicit effect of 0, because the character you're talking to is irrational, but if you have a high intelligence, it gets +1, if you have a diplomacy skill that's high, it gets +2, if you have some high charisma, it gets +1, and since it all adds up to +4, this option works for your character If your intelligence is 6 (dumb as a sack of bricks) and you pick 4. [state the facts are they are] - you have -3 to this choice because your character can't remember the facts and sounds like an idiot trying to explain them to somebody