Dragon Age 2

[Gorth]

Start of old thread

End of old thread

 

Still waiting for Grom's review

[Meshugger]

Finished the game yesterday. I'll post a longer review later, but my god, that game is filled with wasted opportunities. Some things were interesting, but the execution was such a shoddy job that it isn't even funny.

[Monte Carlo]

To be fair, I'm sure Mass Effect 3 will be a full game with content and everything and not a SLaM DuNK!

 

Will there be a DA3, d'you think? Or will they go back to making RPGs?

[Junai]

Tried DA2 for PC the other day.

Killed a huge demonic balrog of sorts after 2 minutes. Was hard, had to click on it with my mouse at least 3 or 4 times.

 

Then I quit the game.

 

I think I'll quit gaming.

 

 

Actually.. I quit gaming.

 

 

 

N'joy.

 

J.

[MrBrown]

Will there be a DA3, d'you think?

 

Probably. I'd say it depends on the sales more than people on the internet say.

 

Or will they go back to making RPGs?

 

 

 

 

Tried DA2 for PC the other day.

Killed a huge demonic balrog of sorts after 2 minutes. Was hard, had to click on it with my mouse at least 3 or 4 times.

 

Then I quit the game.

 

I think I'll quit gaming.

 

 

I knew that framed-narrative thing would bite them in the behind the moment I heard of it.

[Azure79]

To be fair, I'm sure Mass Effect 3 will be a full game with content and everything and not a SLaM DuNK!

 

Will there be a DA3, d'you think? Or will they go back to making RPGs?

 

I hope there is. A good mix of what worked in DAO and DA2 would make a fun game. I guess it depends on how successful EA thinks DA2 was.

[Volourn]

"Will there be a DA3, d'you think? Or will they go back to making RPGs?"

 

Whether one likes DA2 or hates it, DA2 is still a RPG. Quality or lack thereof has nothing to do with a game's genre.

 

This is why I can loathe games like the ES series and still consider them (crappy) RPGs.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Volourn

[Slowtrain]

This is why I can loathe games like the ES series and still consider them (crappy) RPGs.

 

 

Hey, whoa there. They're not crappy, they're just...um...hmm...ok.

 

crappy.

[Humodour]

So I just noticed this game got like 82% from reviewers on Metacritic and 43% from users (over 2000 users reviewed it).

 

What the ****? I've never ever seen such a huge disparity on metacritic.

 

Is it really that bad? And if so, how did Bioware **** up so badly? Can we find some way to blame this on EA?

Edited May 2, 2011 by Krezack

[Morgoth]

It's funny that many lament that DA2 is too"action orientated" and "dumbed down" compared to DA:O when it's these same people that adore ME2, you know the dumbed down shooter RPG.

 

Instead of forming their own opinion people just jump on the hate bandwagon like some collective Borg. DA2 did imo many things right, which ultimately resulted into a more interesting game. Some more development time couldn't have hurt though.

[meomao]

So I just noticed this game got like 82% from reviewers on Metacritic and 43% from users (over 2000 users reviewed it).

 

What the ****? I've never ever seen such a huge disparity on metacritic.

 

Is it really that bad? And if so, how did Bioware **** up so badly? Can we find some way to blame this on EA?

 

It's not THAT bad but it's a very divisive game and a very strange gaming experience. The dev did some things really right and other things really badly... but mostly what hurts the game are the things that were not developed/refined because the lack of time and resources. Or because they have not gave the right interpretation to the metrics of DA:O when they choose how to allocate resources: for example, I assume that 90% of the players of DA:O has made the same choices in the game. So, boom, the devs removed all the choices that could influence the politics of Kirkwall because they looked like a waste. But the point is not what choice you make but the fact that you can make those choices. So, I would not give all the faults to EA: it's too easy. Bioware have its fault for the flaws of the game.

 

About the metacritic user scores... sorry but it's not reliable. Half of those review were written in the first days since the publication of the game and I do not believe that all those people actually played the game. Look, even Portal 2 had a very low metacritic score at release because of fans having issues with DLCs and the such. And it's the best game of the year so far.

 

In general, if you want to make an opinion of the game without paying for it, try the demo. It has its fault too but it's a good rapresentation of what the game has to offer. The good and the bad.

Edited May 2, 2011 by meomao

[HoonDing]

In general, if you want to make an opinion of the game without paying for it, try the demo. It has its fault too but it's a good rapresentation of what the game has to offer. The good and the bad.

I really can't think of anything good about the demo.

[Nepenthe]

It's funny that many lament that DA2 is too"action orientated" and "dumbed down" compared to DA:O when it's these same people that adore ME2, you know the dumbed down shooter RPG.

 

Instead of forming their own opinion people just jump on the hate bandwagon like some collective Borg. DA2 did imo many things right, which ultimately resulted into a more interesting game. Some more development time couldn't have hurt though.

Yarp. It's kind of the rubberband snapping back from the fawning over-praise ME2 got (and hell, it's if not my favourite game of all time, certainly in the top 5, and even I think it's kind of overrated) and DA2 getting, perhaps even more unfairly, a ton of bad reviews. I'd say 82 % is about on par for the shipped product, which some (until now) way better than average bugfixing might boost to the higher 80s.

 

Also agree with Virumor, the demo is anything but an accurate representation of the game, and the 2-3 people I persuaded to try the game, after being turned off by the demo, have been thanking me.

 

Or, at least I think I'm agreeing with Virumor.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Nepenthe

[meomao]

The demo: it's something I continue to hear and I don't understand. Maybe for me it's just the fact that I had allready played it in a fair, followed the development of the game very closesly and know what to expect.

 

What's so wrong with the demo? You know it's a demo and should be taken as such.

 

You got the basic of the combat, low levels and high levels (wawe mechanic, importance of movement, responsivity and quickness). You get a feel of the dialogue wheel/voice over. You get the very narrow scope of roleplaying and the general style in term of cinematic storytelling and framed narrative.

 

Yep, the setting is not that good, the npcs (except Aveline) are mostly lame and the new darkspawn are really ugly. But, still, it's a demo and a person should judge it as such.

 

If a person does not like the chore of the game in the demo (combat, dialogue wheel, lack of proper roleplaying and storydriven/cinematic narrative) I really cannot understand how could he enjoy the finished product. I do not believe that cross class combos can change the feel of the game so much. The only real difference are the party members and the theme of the story but honestly you cannot expect to find such things in a demo.

 

I would say that as a demo, it's not that bad. Instead is really_really_really bad as a game introduction.

Edited May 2, 2011 by meomao

[GreasyDogMeat]

It's funny that many lament that DA2 is too"action orientated" and "dumbed down" compared to DA:O when it's these same people that adore ME2, you know the dumbed down shooter RPG.

 

Instead of forming their own opinion people just jump on the hate bandwagon like some collective Borg. DA2 did imo many things right, which ultimately resulted into a more interesting game. Some more development time couldn't have hurt though.

Well, ME 2 wasn't so much dumbed down as had a shift in gameplay style to something that is still very fun. At least if you enjoy cover shooting mechanics, which I luckily do. DA 2 on the other hand keeps the core gameplay of the original and simply dumbs it down to a button masher.

[meomao]

Well, ME 2 wasn't so much dumbed down as had a shift in gameplay style to something that is still very fun. At least if you enjoy cover shooting mechanics, which I luckily do. DA 2 on the other hand keeps the core gameplay of the original and simply dumbs it down to a button masher.

 

I do not agree. I suppose we played two different games. I've played DA2 on PC and it's nothing like a button musher. It's mostly DA:O on steroid with more responsivity, more singergies between classes and more stretegic elements (since the wave mechanich, while abused and not refined, introduces a strategic element that DA:O completely missed). I assume that you have played it on consolle and I think that the consolle version of the game suffered badly because of the lack of autoattack.

Edited May 2, 2011 by meomao

[GreasyDogMeat]

I do not agree. I suppose we played two different games. I've played DA2 on PC and it's nothing like a button musher. It's mostly DA:O on steroid with more responsivity, more singergies between classes and more stretegic elements (since the wave mechanich, while abused and not refined, introduces a strategic element that DA:O completely missed). I assume that you have played it on consolle and I think that the consolle version of the game suffered badly because of the lack of autoattack.

True. I loathed the combat as the game went on. Even taking combat out of the equation, the game's scope and reuse of assets was horrible. I don't mind the idea of a more personal story, but it really would have improved if the family moved from city to city, or if the city's size had been doubled. I realized at some point in chapter two that I had seen everything there was to see as far as environments went in the fist chapter.

 

It really disgusts me that Alpha Protocol was so lambasted by critics, while DA 2, a rushed game with more dire flaws, IMHO, was given ratings in the 8 range.

[meomao]

True. I loathed the combat as the game went on.

 

I really don't get the decision they make about autoattack on consolle. I mean... I know that it was not intentional to exclude it from the game at release (but still, what an error!) and I've read that the inclusion of it with the first consolle patch really improved the experience. But the fact that they could consider the game playable with autoattack as a simple option leave me really perplexed. I would had understand more the opposit approach (autoattack as a rule and an "awesome button" option for the players who do not like party based/pause and play gameplay). I mean, the structure of the gameplay and the sheer amount of rules and mechanics hidden behind jumps and animations (cross class combos, different kind of powers and so on, general sinergies between charachters, different patterns in enemy behaviour and tactics to avoid the most serious threats) has really nothing to do with a button musher.

 

Even taking combat out of the equation, the game's scope and reuse of assets was horrible. I don't mind the idea of a more personal story, but it really would have improved if the family moved from city to city, or if the city's size had been doubled. I realized at some point in chapter two that I had seen everything there was to see as far as environments went in the fist chapter.

 

For me the combat system (with most NPCs and the quality of the writing/voice acting) was the redeeming factor of the experience... but at the long run I was tired of it too because the game has little else to offer than combat. And it was really hard to pass from endless fights with silly animations and body exploding to supposed serious and personal dialogues while your face was painted in fake blood like a black metal fan . The scene of the death of your mother was really akward. DA:O has similar issues, but at least the more epic theme and the slower pace of the game, allowed more space for immersion and suspension of incredulity.

 

The lack of variety in the environments was an objective problem too. I read an interview of the lead level designer of DA2. He said something like "we wanted DA2 to be a city adventure like the AC/GTA IV games". I really cannot believe that a lead level designer can make such a comparison. It's not even worth to discuss: I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Moreover, the amount of combat you have to face in such a small setting, result in an oppressive and claustrophobic game experience that completely ruined the pace of the narrative.

 

But I could have lived with the (lack of) environment issue and the recycle if Bioware would have not "forget" to develop some sort of roleplaying/interaction between your Hawke, the story and the city. The premise are all there (from the framed narrative to the various storylines and the NPCs). But there's mostly nothing (at least, nothing really interactive and significant) and that was the biggest disappointment for me. The rushed and driven nature of act 3 was the result of such bad design decisions.

 

It really disgusts me that Alpha Protocol was so lambasted by critics, while DA 2, a rushed game with more dire flaws, IMHO, was given ratings in the 8 range.

 

Honestly, while I had fun with AP (maybe because I payed it the right price), I do not believe that they are really comparable in terms of quality. AP was buddged to death and "balanced like a dog with 3 legs" (to quote Yathzee). DA2 has many flaws but at least its gameplay was balanced, the enemy AI was developed decently and the bugs on PC were very light (if not for the slo-mo one that I solved with the editor).

Edited May 2, 2011 by meomao

[Volourn]

"So I just noticed this game got like 82% from reviewers on Metacritic and 43% from users (over 2000 users reviewed it).

 

What the ****? I've never ever seen such a huge disparity on metacritic.

 

Is it really that bad? And if so, how did Bioware **** up so badly? Can we find some way to blame this on EA? "

 

You base your opinion on what others think? If I did that, I'd loathe a game like ARC. Thankfully, I can make up my own mind.

 

 

P.S. AP sucks the big one. It is way overrated.

[Nepenthe]

DA 2 on the other hand keeps the core gameplay of the original and simply dumbs it down to a button masher.

 

No.

[GreasyDogMeat]

DA 2 on the other hand keeps the core gameplay of the original and simply dumbs it down to a button masher.

 

No.

Yes.

 

In Mass Effect 2 if you removed all the RPG dialogue and turned it into a Gears of War cover shooter, it would still be a decent experience. Remove the dialogue and RPG elements of DA 2 and turn it into a God of War action game, which seems to be the route they were taking, and you have gaming hell.

[Labadal]

"So I just noticed this game got like 82% from reviewers on Metacritic and 43% from users (over 2000 users reviewed it).

 

What the ****? I've never ever seen such a huge disparity on metacritic.

 

Is it really that bad? And if so, how did Bioware **** up so badly? Can we find some way to blame this on EA? "

 

You base your opinion on what others think? If I did that, I'd loathe a game like ARC. Thankfully, I can make up my own mind.

 

 

P.S. AP sucks the big one. It is way overrated.

 

Overrated? You've got to be kidding me. (I know you're not.) If any game is overrated, it would be DA2.

[Volourn]

DA2 is underrated. It's equal to DA1.

 

AP, on the other hand, is just crap, nd is easily Obsidian's worst non expansion game. NWN2 and KOTOR2 are - despite any flaws - are at least playable and fun.

[Nepenthe]

DA 2 on the other hand keeps the core gameplay of the original and simply dumbs it down to a button masher.

 

No.

Yes.

 

In Mass Effect 2 if you removed all the RPG dialogue and turned it into a Gears of War cover shooter, it would still be a decent experience. Remove the dialogue and RPG elements of DA 2 and turn it into a God of War action game, which seems to be the route they were taking, and you have gaming hell.

Still doesn't compute. I, of course, played the PC version, which played just as well as DAO apart from the retarded camera. Dumbed down just seems to be a general term for whatever the person using it doesn't like. Hell, a 1:1 comparison of friendly fireless DAO and DA2 tells me that simply the lack of an instawin button (*cough* storm of the century *cough*) makes DA2 miles "smarter"

 

Sure, the lack of auto attack in the original console release sucked, but I don't see too many games judged simply based on their initial release, certainly not when the bug has been patched within a month, and certainly not on this forum.

[Tale]

How can anyone compare it to God of War and be serious? That's simply detached from reality.