SHP Forums

OK, no worries. I see what happened from DA1 to DA2 - apparently rogues can only advance from picking easy locks to harder ones every time they get another 10 points in Cunning. Who came up with THAT brilliant idea, I'd like to know...

*gasp* Oh no. I've just got up to the part in Act 2 of DA2 where some complete asshole kills Hawke's mom, just for her head. That part was pretty shocking.

Hmm. No comments, eh?

Rath Darkblade wrote:*gasp* Oh no. I've just got up to the part in Act 2 of DA2 where some complete asshole kills Hawke's mom, just for her head. That part was pretty shocking.

Hmm. No comments, eh?

Oh yes. We discussed when that happened (since several of us got it on release)... And we all agreed with what you said...

OK, I have now finished DA2 for the first time.

My thoughts..? Well, for a start... I sided with Anders all the way because:

a) I agreed with his philosophy, at least to start with (i.e. that the Templars were being complete assholes and repressing mages just for the hell of it; and
b) He was only only "healer" mage (sort of like Wynne in DA1, except obviously a LOT more intense), and you don't want to piss off your healer to the point that they leave.

A lot of what I think of the game has already been said, e.g. Quentin being an utter bastard, Orsino stabbing you in the back by using blood magic, Meredith being a zealot etc. To be honest, the number of duplicitous characters in this game first irritated and then bored me. I kept thinking, "OK, so most of the mages here have turned out to be blood mages, but so what - the next one might turn out to be a decent person". And guess what? He's again a blood mage, or if not, he turns out to be a lying, deceitful bastard that I have to kill. Whoopee.

I also thought there was far too much random combat in this game, particularly after dark and especially when opponents materialise out of nowhere. WTF is up with that? It makes NO SENSE! The air shifts and suddenly 50,000,000,000 Followers of She or whatever appear out of thin air, and you're thinking "Er, what? Didn't I already slaughter about a gazillion of these guys? When's it going to end?"

Speaking of boring things - the maps. After going down a cave for the 5th or 6th time, I started thinking "Hmm, this looks familiar. Hey, this IS familiar. All the cave maps are so similar they may as well have the same LAYOUT!" Sheesh.

I got the feeling, too, that DA2 was a much more rushed game than DA1, pacing-wise. In DA1, you could always go back to your camp and talk to people, stop for a rest, talk to Bodahn etc. or go to Denerim and just look around the stalls, admire the art or listen to the music. It never felt rushed (until, of course, the battle scenes). DA2 felt a lot more claustrophobic and rushed, pacing-wise. You finish a quest? Go on to the next one, and the next, and the next, etc. etc. until you get tired and think "Enough! I need a rest!" There's never time to kick back and relax like in the original - it's always far too much dramatic.

One other thing I'd like to mention is the shops in Kirkwall. There are far too many shops in every district and they change every time you go from Act to Act. WTF? I felt that the number of shops in DA1 was just right - a few here, a few there, and all feeling very special because you could talk to most stallkeepers about something other than their wares, so it was more fun. In DA2, all you can do is listen to the stall-keeper spout something before you click on the chest to buy. It's not as friendly or fun as DA1.

Final criticism about DA2: too many crises and far too much tension. Qunari sit around for 2 acts and get on everyone's nerves. Arishok burns city down. Templars and mages go to war. And you in the middle, trying to mediate between a bunch of heavily armed idiots. Everyone calls you Champion of Kirkwall, but betray you anyway. And at the end of the game, you get screwed no matter who you side with. So is this like some sort of Dragon Age: Noir or something? You continually get the feeling that there has to be a happy ending somewhere, or even a silver lining anywhere, but you never get it.

Now this is not to say I didn't have fun in DA2, because I did - but I still felt that DA1 was a much better game.

Comments?

Rath Darkblade wrote:OK, I have now finished DA2 for the first time.

My thoughts..? Well, for a start... I sided with Anders all the way because:
a) I agreed with his philosophy, at least to start with (i.e. that the Templars were being complete assholes and repressing mages just for the hell of it; and
b) He was only only "healer" mage (sort of like Wynne in DA1, except obviously a LOT more intense), and you don't want to piss off your healer to the point that they leave.

Well, when Andrea comes back he will be happy to hear you agreed with Ander's methods...

Rath Darkblade wrote:A lot of what I think of the game has already been said, e.g. Quentin being an utter bastard, Orsino stabbing you in the back by using blood magic, Meredith being a zealot etc. To be honest, the number of duplicitous characters in this game first irritated and then bored me. I kept thinking, "OK, so most of the mages here have turned out to be blood mages, but so what - the next one might turn out to be a decent person". And guess what? He's again a blood mage, or if not, he turns out to be a lying, deceitful bastard that I have to kill. Whoopee.

I agree. Part of the problem with Dragon Age II was that there seemed to be NO GOOD people in the game, other than most of your companions...

Rath Darkblade wrote:I also thought there was far too much random combat in this game, particularly after dark and especially when opponents materialise out of nowhere. WTF is up with that? It makes NO SENSE! The air shifts and suddenly 50,000,000,000 Followers of She or whatever appear out of thin air, and you're thinking "Er, what? Didn't I already slaughter about a gazillion of these guys? When's it going to end?"

Well, they seemed to "jump down" from the roofs, or, they would come from doors, when I played... (the doors never "opened" they just materialized in streams of people in front of specific doorways)...

Rath Darkblade wrote:Now this is not to say I didn't have fun in DA2, because I did - but I still felt that DA1 was a much better game.
Comments?

I whole heartedly agree.

Tawmis wrote: Well, when Andrea comes back he will be happy to hear you agreed with Ander's methods...

Yes! I'm happy! Go Rath!

Jokes aside, I too agree with your overall assessment of the game. Fun, entertaining, but in the end DA1 is the better game.

Tawmis wrote:Well, when Andrea comes back he will be happy to hear you agreed with Ander's methods...

Hmm. Maybe I phrased it badly when I said I sided with Anders all the way because:
a) I agreed with his philosophy, at least to start with (i.e. that the Templars were being complete assholes and repressing mages just for the hell of it.

To be honest, Anders was one of my favourite characters in DA1: Awakenings because he was witty and kind to animals (especially cats). His conversations with his cat, and with Oghren, cracked me up. In other words, he was dangerous but endearing. This is one of the main reasons that, when I met him in DA2, I instantly sided with him.

Unfortunately, as time went on Anders came across as increasingly maniacal and obsessed. I kept trying to mediate between the Templars and the Mages, kept hoping for a compromise solution, kept hoping that Anders would pull back from the brink, but his final act i.e. blowing up the Chantry and everyone inside is something that I thoroughly disapproved of. I know that the Templars usually have the Chantry's authority to act, but in this case the Revered Mother seemed to be one of the main voices (indeed, the ONLY voice) that favoured compromise - and everything that I thought I'd worked hard for. After that, I was so thoroughly disillusioned that the only reason I sided with Anders was because he was my party's main healer. Also, I felt that my character had supported him for too long to abandon him now. Basically, I had to see things through, just because I was wondering how much further Anders would go.

However, it's possible that maybe I'm being too harsh. The entire Dragon Age series kept putting me in mind of a fairly realistic medieval setting - one with magic and mythical monsters, sure, but a medieval setting nonetheless. The Chantry quickly reminded me of the medieval Church, the Templars of the Knights Templar - I kept thinking they might go on crusade or something. The overall events of DA1 (i.e. king betrayed, kingdom split among rival factions fighting for control etc.) are ones that I've read about many times, particularly in medieval history. With that in mind, it's not too hard to imagine a highly rigid and stratified society like Kirkwall - most people in medieval history were highly suspicious of "the other" (the person or persons that do not 'belong'), as the many crusades, witch-burning, inquisitions etc. show. If we keep that in mind, it's not too hard to understand why the Kirkwall people feel the way they do about refugees (a modern-day equivalent would be "they come over here and take our jobs"), the Qunari (e.g. "they settle here in gated communities - what do they want?"), and finally mages (e.g. "they have something that we don't understand, so they are dangerous").

So maybe we're judging Kirkwall by our own standards. If Kirkwall is an example of a quasi-medieval community, as it seems to me - and if we bear in mind that most medieval communities know nothing about multiculturalism, as we do - then the behaviour of its citizens makes more sense. I'm not saying that I approve of the way they behave, but I think I understand why.

Comments?

AndreaDraco wrote:

Tawmis wrote: Well, when Andrea comes back he will be happy to hear you agreed with Ander's methods...

Yes! I'm happy! Go Rath!

Jokes aside, I too agree with your overall assessment of the game. Fun, entertaining, but in the end DA1 is the better game.

Yay! Go me! *waves a little flag*

I think that DA1 is the better game because the values of Ferelden (i.e. independence, acceptance of "the other", even a primitive form of multiculturalism) conform more to our modern-world view of how society should be. Kirkwall, on the other hand, doesn't. As I mentioned above, it's more like what a medieval town might have been like - except that none of us play a fantasy role-playing-game in order to really faithfully recreate a medieval town, I assume? We play it to have fun. Right?

And yet, somehow, Hawke and his companions threw balls of fire in front of dozens of Templars and nobody bothered him...

AndreaDraco wrote:And yet, somehow, Hawke and his companions threw balls of fire in front of dozens of Templars and nobody bothered him...

That really annoyed me.

I realize that for the sake of game play the developers decided against limiting Hawke and his companions, but by doing so, it also broke the immersion in the game world.

Furthermore, why was Meredith (and the other Templars in general) so lax when policing Hawke? Even if you don't play a Mage, he's still got spellcasters in his party.

Dragon Age II disappears from Steam:
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2011/07/ ... ive-terms/
Early in June, a funny thing happened. "Crysis 2," published by EA, suddenly disappeared from the Steam store. There was no explanation as to why the game had mysteriously vanished, and the only explanation came from an intentionally vague comment from EA, stating that Valve had booted the game from the service. This week, if you're a "Dragon Age 2" – also published by EA – fan, there's a chance you're looking forward to the new "Legacy" downloadable-content.

Well, bad news: now "Dragon Age 2" has vanished from Steam, as well.

When "Crysis 2" disappeared, many of us assumed it had something to do with Origin. EA's very own online store and obvious Steam competitor, Origin seemed like the explanation for Valve's odd choice to pull the game from their virtual shelves. Now that "Dragon Age 2" has fallen off the marketplace, but remained on a number of other digital distribution platforms, EA has finally given some insight into exactly what's went wrong.

"Unfortunately, Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to sell downloadable content," EA senior vice-president of global e-commerce, David DeMartini told IGN. "No other download service has adopted this practice. Consequently some of our games have been removed by Steam."

EA had previously stated that one of Valve's policies had led to the dismissal of "Crysis 2," but now it seems that downloadable-content, in particular, is causing the rift. The policy doesn't seem to affect older EA titles, either. "Dragon Age 2" contains an in-game store, where Legacy can be downloaded directly, and it appears likely that this isn't sitting well with Valve.

Hopefully Steam can present their side of the argument, but at this point, they're being awfully quiet. If downloadable-content is an issue, I wouldn't expect to see "Battlefield 3" offered on Steam any time soon.

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9085093

Dragon Age II: After the Hype (and Hate)

Jul 25, 2011 9:50AM PST

* Share it:
*
*
*

Tags: Dragon Age III (PC) Dragon Age III (PS3) Dragon Age III (XBOX 360)

It seems to have become a thing for me to end up enjoying RPGs for reasons completely different from why everyone else likes (or hates) them. Dragon Age II is one of those games that I personally couldn’t have reviewed if asked. All I would really say is that I keep playing it despite the game’s many failures.

I finally started up and finished my copy of Dragon Age Origins towards the end of last year in preparation for the sequel this past March, but muddied opinions caused me to wait until it was on sale this past month. Even then opinions hadn’t really cooled down.


NeoGAF in particular seems to think that DAII is the worst Western RPG ever made – I frequently see it at the bottom of tier lists for the genre. Coming in prepared, at the beginning of Act 3 I can definitely understand why – if you tried to get into the game for traditional RPG delights. The concept of the game probably threw people off and the execution in many places was honestly undercooked.

The combat system is indeed dumbed-down from Origins. Normal mode in DAII feels about equal to easy mode in Origins, particularly on PC (what I played on). It feels more similar to a console action RPG where you can just let your buddies fire at will while you do your thing. I still choose to zoom out, pause, and strategize in every battle, and so far this has robbed the game of all difficulty. I also miss the ismoetric camera angle.

I didn’t really care for the combat much in Origins though. I mean it was great on PC – very tactical. It just wasn’t the reason I wanted to play the game, so I actually don’t care that the combat was dumbed-down in DAII. I can just get through it and get on with things.


The real meat of DAII and why a lot of people seem to hate it though is the idea of the game. Foregoing the epic adventure against evil for the social politics and intrigue of one city is pretty bold ground for a mainstream RPG, and is honestly a move that I applaud. Even if the execution is overall a failure in this case, it was still a great idea.

For this to work you would really need to sell the vision of Kirkwall as a city, and BioWare just didn’t do that. I mean sell its culture, landscape, politics, and its visual identity. The visual identity was most markedly absent with environments I can describe in one word: tan.

Even in DirectX 11 a lot of places in DAII remind me of PS2 games. The graphics engine doesn’t fail in this game, there’s just barely any art design for it to show off. Sure it looks less generic than Origins, but DAII has just traded the word “generic” for “bland”. Exploration has also never been BioWare’s strong suit, resulting in said bland environments feeling disconnected.

It just doesn’t feel like they put time into making Kirkwall. Compare it to another RPG that takes place entirely in one town with menu-based exploration: Persona 4. Each individual section of Inaba in that game looked distinct and had its own purpose: the school, residential, the market, the road by the lake etc. Inaba had that organization and use of color all inspired by the look and feel of a quiet rural Japanese town. I don’t know if Kirkwall had any real-world or artistic vision to follow, but it would have helped.

But Kirkwall isn’t a rural town – it’s supposed to be an entire city state. If this setting were handled by any RPG developer other than BioWare they may have tried to make it look vast like an RPG setting is supposed to be. There is no shortage of urban-themed open-world games for example, but Assassin’s Creed is probably the most pertinent.


The other great idea of DAII’s setting is the social upheaval within Kirkwall. What I like about the game is that it isn’t really the story of magic and monsters, but how those things affect people, bring them together, and tear them apart. It’s one of the same main reasons I enjoy The Witcher games.

Where I am of this typing, a main “antagonist” hasn’t even showed up yet. Maybe that’s confusing other people, but I never saw it as a storyline about good versus evil, just people clashing, and the player trying to take his place within all that. Even if the execution doesn’t interest you a whole lot, you have to admit that it’s something we probably need to see more of in RPGs and maybe games in general.

Like previous BioWare games, the one thing that kept me coming back to DAII however was the characters. With this game in particular though, what ultimately attracted me was the story’s focus on the main character, and the people and events in his/her immediate vicinity.

One of the first things that really got me interested in DAII was how BioWare took the time to develop the protagonist’s entire family: his/her mother, brother, sister, and uncle (and eventually cousin I hear). Sure the game started out with just a bunch of fetch quests, but I think they did well to fill out the regular life of the main character. The first entire act of the game really is just “the life of one person who happens to live in a fantasy world,” and I liked that. It’s a much more personal focus compared to most RPGs.


That extended out to the protagonist’s friends who are as well-realized as usual for BioWare games. Like Origins, I find myself more willing to complete their personal quests than I am the main quest. That’s really become the main reason I buy BioWare games anymore, and that’s one area that even a 16-month development cycle can’t seem to ruin.

So, yes, if you’re looking for all that other stuff like actual gameplay, exploration, and an epic story, Dragon Age II probably will feel like the quick cash-in that it likely is. You still have to admit that it was a cash-in with a pretty unique approach to RPG subject matter, even if it only executed that JUST well enough to make it engaging for some people.

The Witcher 2 still beats this game up and down the street though, and on probably a fifth of the budget too.

http://www.zimbio.com/Gamers+Buzz,+News ... onus+items

Legacy:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6322811/dr ... ng-july-26

Apparently someone was unhappy that homosexual romances were optional in DA2 and decided to make his opinion known.

He claims that BioWare has "neglected their main demographic." By that he means BioWare should predominately cater to straight males while providing less for homosexual males and straight/homosexual females, since they're the minority.

David Gaider responded to him and from the looks of the thread, this has been posted elsewhere and/or had multiple responses removed from it.

For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with including both heterosexual and homosexual romance options. My only complaint is that when Anders hit on my character, I had no way to turn him down without receiving rivalry points.

Perhaps the best way to handle this in the future would be to give the player the option to choose their sexual preference before starting the game. I can't imagine that'd be very difficult to implement.

That thread is ancient!

I remember reading it some months ago. I was honestly perplexed at the sheer stupidity of some posters.

DeadPoolX wrote:For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with including both heterosexual and homosexual romance options. My only complaint is that when Anders hit on my character, I had no way to turn him down without receiving rivalry points.

To be honest, you can't turn down anyone in the Dragon Age games without receiving rivalry points (or, in DA1, the "broken heart" symbol). I was re-playing DA1 today and had to turn down Zevran, because my character was romantically involved with (surprise!) Alistair. To my surprise, Zevran immediately got 36 "broken heart" points. (I say "to my surprise" because I was expecting far fewer points). On the other hand, DA1 makes it far too easy to get back in other people's good books - just buy a few "thoughtful gifts" from Bodahn, hand them over, and presto! To be honest, it breaks the 'reality' in the game (to an extent).

DeadPoolX wrote:Perhaps the best way to handle this in the future would be to give the player the option to choose their sexual preference before starting the game. I can't imagine that'd be very difficult to implement.

Hmm. While we're at it, can we please please please bring back the human/elf/dwarf choice? Maybe I'm being petty, but I thought the character "origin stories" in DA1 were fun, engaging and interesting. I was immensely disappointed when they were dropped in DA2, although (in retrospect) I can understand why. HOWEVER, when I replayed DA1, Lothering struck me as a bit of a "we accept everybody" town - they had Chasind barbarians as well as farmers and Templars (not to mention Sten, but I don't think he counts as part of the town - more like an "added extra"). So why was it, when DA2 started and you're fleeing Lothering, you're limited to "white-bread human"? I disapprove.

Comments?