In defense of Dragon Age 2

harmattan

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
5,129
I know it's been 3+ years since this pariah of a game was released, but I thought I'd give it another run-thru. The first time I played it, I agreed with most people that it paled in comparison to the sublime DA: O, but was a bit confused with the mass of vitriol thrown out by the public. People genuinely found the game offensive (in hindsight, likely because they were hoping for a true DA:O sequel). I' posit that, while not being a perfect, DA2 is enjoyable, and has some excellent qualities, some even surpassing the original.

I've now replayed Dragon Age 2 and, as the saying goes, retrospect brings clarity: I am convinced the game unfairly got a bad rap upon release. On my second play through, I remarked how well put together the story was with multiple threads coming together cohesively. I'd venture to state it's probably one of the richest and longest RPG stories I've played -- moreso than ME, Elder Scrolls, or even DA:O. The amount of quality dialogue and voice acting is superb. The game may have been rushed in terms of the environments and textures, but by no means did they scrimp on story or dialog. The scope of the story, granted, is smaller than most "save the world and other dimensions" that's pervasive in games - and this is one of the detractions people claim - but that was part of the game's charm, IMO. You're tasked with establishing your family's fortune in a city, then saving that city. There were some real cutting-edge story elements that I haven't seen done in other video games. In this way, it's a great compliment to DA:O and the larger Dragon Age universe. Additionally, your choices in the game have real impact on the denouement of the game: I've played each ending as well as most of the "romantic" choices, and they are all materially different.

The only detractions I'd give the game are 1) the gameplay was obviously dumbed down for the console crowd (although still enjoyable and, at it's core, Dragon Age), 2) the inventory and item system is overly simplified e.g., you can't equip armor on your party members 3) the environments are repetitive and too limited, obviously due to time/budget constraints. All in all, none of these negatives ruined my enjoyment of the game. I'd finally say that if you were one of the people who was put off by the (overly) negative reviews, and are looking for a quality RPG, give it a try. I can only hope that they bring some of the positive qualities of the game over to DA3, and even have some of the characters make reappearances.
 
Last edited:
harmattan said:
I know it's been 3+ years since this pariah of a game was released, but I thought I'd give it another run-thru. The first time I played it, I agreed with most people that it paled in comparison to the sublime DA: O, but was a bit confused with the mass of vitriol thrown out by the public. People genuinely found the game offensive (in hindsight, likely because they were hoping for a true DA:O sequel). I' posit that, while not being a perfect, DA2 is enjoyable, and has some excellent qualities, some even surpassing the original.

I've now replayed Dragon Age 2 and, as the saying goes, retrospect brings clarity: I am convinced the game unfairly got a bad rap upon release. On my second play through, I remarked how well put together the story was with multiple threads coming together cohesively. I'd venture to state it's probably one of the richest and longest RPG stories I've played -- moreso than ME, Elder Scrolls, or even DA:O. The amount of quality dialogue and voice acting is superb. The game may have been rushed in terms of the environments and textures, but by no means did they scrimp on story or dialog. The scope of the story, granted, is smaller than most "save the world and other dimensions" that's pervasive in games - and this is one of the detractions people claim - but that was part of the game's charm, IMO. You're tasked with establishing your family's fortune in a city, then saving that city. There were some real cutting-edge story elements that I haven't seen done in other video games. In this way, it's a great compliment to DA:O and the larger Dragon Age universe. Additionally, your choices in the game have real impact on the denouement of the game: I've played each ending as well as most of the "romantic" choices, and they are all materially different.

The only detractions I'd give the game are 1) the gameplay was obviously dumbed down for the console crowd (although still enjoyable and, at it's core, Dragon Age), 2) the inventory and item system is overly simplified e.g., you can't equip armor on your party members 3) the environments are repetitive and too limited, obviously due to time/budget constraints. All in all, none of these negatives ruined my enjoyment of the game. I'd finally say that if you were one of the people who was put off by the (overly) negative reviews, and are looking for a quality RPG, give it a try. I can only hope that they bring some of the positive qualities of the game over to DA3, and even have some of the characters make reappearances.
Click to expand...

The game is not as bad as many people do say, but its flaws are numerous and painful. One of the key ones that I feel you missed here is the lack of choices impacting the outcome of the story. This game suffered from the "middle of a trilogy" syndrome (makes sense as it is the middle). The expectations were set high because it inherited the name of a pretty good RPG, and it failed to deliver in numerous aspects.
 
The characters were also much more poorly written in DA2, they kept reusing the same environment and dungeons over and over, the boss fights in the end didn't make a lot of sense, and they screwed up a lot of lore. There's more too, but this is what comes to mind.
 
The problem is it was called Dragon Age 2, as in a sequel to Dragon Age.

What I enjoyed about Dragon Age wasn't present in Dragon Age 2, hence my dislike of it bordering on disgust. Bioware and EA sold it as a successor to DA:O and would be better in every way.

Expectations were not met, and we DA:O players were let down in a big way. It was obviously a cash-grab attempt to ride the wave of DA:O's success, so I don't see why it shouldn't have a bad rap.

From what I've seen of DA3, it might as well be called Kingdoms of Ferelden: Dragon Age, if you get my meaning. While this may appeal to more people, it doesn't appeal to me, so I'll likely be giving 3 a pass.
 
The recycled dungeons made me want to shoot myself.

Other than that, it was pretty decent. Never finished it though because of the above.
 
What it boils down to, is that it screwed up what made the original Dragon Age good, made the combat more action-y (with mixed results), and messed with the characters. It would have been a decent side game, but not as the actual sequel.
 
I don't have a problem with the type of game DA2 was, I have a problem with them using the DA name on it. It's like the trash which is now the Resident Evil franchise.
 
I'm by no means saying DA2 was anywhere near as good as the excellent DA:O for reasons already illustrated (dumbed-down gameplay, bad inventory system, repetitive envioronments). Also, I do agree the the difficulty was all over the place: most fights were a breeze with others being way too hard for your level. It is, however, still a pretty good game whose story is excellent.

I do disagree with those who say the characters weren't as well done (unless you're talking about the physical character design with which I agree). Each character's back-story was really well fleshed out, and their development arcs paced terrifically across the three acts in the game.
 
Regarded purely on it's own, which is hard with the '2' in the name but let us pretend there was no original DA, then I would without a doubt call it a good game.
Alas it's not on it's own and the benchmark for it is the original DA and the original was a superior RPG to it's sequel.

I'll admit that the game doesn't deserve the ridiculous amount of hatred it received but there is truth to the critic it received and us gamers are known to be a rather passionate bunch when it comes to our hobby.
 
ryuen said:
Regarded purely on it's own, which is hard with the '2' in the name but let us pretend there was no original DA, then I would without a doubt call it a good game.
Alas it's not on it's own and the benchmark for it is the original DA and the original was a superior RPG to it's sequel.

I'll admit that the game doesn't deserve the ridiculous amount of hatred it received but there is truth to the critic it received and us gamers are known to be a rather passionate bunch when it comes to our hobby.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much my opinion. I feel like the amount of hatred thrown at this game is more due to its divergence from its predecessor and feeling that it was rushed (although I don't consider this point too valid looking at the quality of the story, dialogue and length of the game; I do think much of the story work on DA2 was probably done in parallel with DA:O). If it had been a standalone game, or some sort of side game i.e. "Dragon Age Adventures", it would have been considered a very good title.
 
harmattan, how would you rate the main DLC individually? I'm wondering if I should buy them.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
harmattan, how would you rate the main DLC individually? I'm wondering if I should buy them.
Click to expand...

The only DLCs I've played are for DA:O (Awakening was excellent, Witch Hunt very mediocre). Haven't played the DLCs for DA2, but might pick them up at some point.
 
I thought the story and writing was awful. Two of the worst parts of the game. The characters were some Young Adult level nonsense, too. I liked none of them. I'm sad they are going to feature any of them in DA3.

It would have been awful even had it not been associated with DA at all. I would not recommend to anyone.
 
harmattan said:
This is pretty much my opinion. I feel like the amount of hatred thrown at this game is more due to its divergence from its predecessor and feeling that it was rushed (although I don't consider this point too valid looking at the quality of the story, dialogue and length of the game; I do think much of the story work on DA2 was probably done in parallel with DA:O). If it had been a standalone game, or some sort of side game i.e. "Dragon Age Adventures", it would have been considered a very good title.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It still would have gotten reamed for shitty textures, shitty environment layouts, and poor AI/gameplay. All basic things that should be gotten right. If it weren't for it being a "sequel" to DAO the title would be virtually unknown like similar shitty titles...like the Avatar video game.

I'm also completely not a fan of the writing either. But that is because I was "spoiled" by how DAO worked....where you could play the same basic story, but see it from 6 different perspectives of how the world views someone with your specific background, which added greatly to replay value. Stripping out the race options from DA2 was a huge fuckup in my eyes, making DA2 a one-play-through game.
 
Skripka said:
I disagree. It still would have gotten reamed for shitty textures, shitty environment layouts, and poor AI/gameplay. All basic things that should be gotten right. If it weren't for it being a "sequel" to DAO the title would be virtually unknown like similar shitty titles...like the Avatar video game.

I'm also completely not a fan of the writing either. But that is because I was "spoiled" by how DAO worked....where you could play the same basic story, but see it from 6 different perspectives of how the world views someone with your specific background, which added greatly to replay value. Stripping out the race options from DA2 was a huge fuckup in my eyes, making DA2 a one-play-through game.
Click to expand...

Paired with how little difference choices made in DA2. I also was depressed by the lack of spell combos ( I hate mages, but I thought this was a gem and a brilliant idea from DA:O)
 
Mungojerrie said:
Paired with how little difference choices made in DA2. I also was depressed by the lack of spell combos ( I hate mages, but I thought this was a gem and a brilliant idea from DA:O)
Click to expand...

But ZOMG dialogue wheel from ME2!!!!

Hell DAO wasn't perfect either....I have lots of mods for DAO because playing as hybrid classes like spellsword just doesn't work well. But DAO got most other things right in a manner that fit.
 
It would have been decent game if the storyline was halfway interesting. about half-2/3s of the way through i was practically bored to tears. i just wanted it to end but it kept going and going. i eventualy finished it but it felt more like working than playing.
 
As someone who is probably in the 0.001% and has played through DA2 3-4 times, I can't agree at all, especially about the story. Particularly at the end, it breaks down completely. Almost immediately after I choose to help the mages, I then go and kill a bunch of blood mages who are attacking me. After completely destroying the templars attacking the mages holed up in the Chantry, the head mage decides to turn into a crazy beast - and start attacking his own mages. It makes absolutely no sense.

But the "action" feel of the game is very good. The feel of impact of your spells and attacks are a lot of fun, in a more DB:Z style than anything else. The graphic fidelity is pretty good as well. I enjoyed all the characters being completely voiced over, and I did appreciate what they tried (but ultimately failed) to do with the chapter system trying to encompass a longer story arc.

It would have been much better received if it wasn't called Dragon Age, but a different IP entirely. I also hated them taking darkspawn from being scary/zombie-ish and turning them into ridiculously cartoony ninja looking creatures.
 
I did actually enjoy the story, and even the ending I felt wasn't too contrived. I think the theme they were trying to make was absolute power corrupts... or something like that, with the head mage, who up to that point had been the closest thing to a voice of reason, snap. Also, sets things up nicely for Insurrection :)

I'm just going to make this one last comparison: DA2 is to Dragon Age what KOTOR2 was to Knights of the Old Republic.
 
harmattan said:
I did actually enjoy the story, and even the ending I felt wasn't too contrived. I think the theme they were trying to make was absolute power corrupts... or something like that, with the head mage, who up to that point had been the closest thing to a voice of reason, snap. Also, sets things up nicely for Insurrection :)

I'm just going to make this one last comparison: DA2 is to Dragon Age what KOTOR2 was to Knights of the Old Republic.
Click to expand...

BOO. KotOR2 was a much better story than KotOR1.
 
Oh, I miss the spell combos too. Grease + fireball was AMAZING for how low a level you can be to use it, and storm of the century was incredibly powerful.

I hated how Hawk was supposed to be "the most important person in the world", but nothing you decided really mattered. You were instrumental in the story, of course, but all you were doing was reacting to what was going on around you. It was a huge step back from DA:O, and the dialogue options were a big problem.

The combat, I understand entirely where people come from when they say that the combat in DA:O had some issues. Warriors, I felt, got the short end of the stick, and mages were much more powerful. Rogues were pretty strong, and immensely useful. I just don't feel that what they came up with in DA2 for combat was better as a whole. The combat in DA:O was just what you did between decisions and conversations, and DA2 had them steal a lot of focus from what made DA:O great.

And the characters were more interesting in DA:O on average. Isabella was probably one of the best characters in DA2, and they had a few interesting scenes to play on the unreliable narrator with Varrick (Is that how you spell it? I forget), but they murdered Anders' character long before the "shocking" finale, and the rest fell into the old Archetype problem, like "brooding spiky haired guy" and whatnot. As a whole, they still had much more characterisation on average than most RPGs, but they were not as well done as in DA:O. Also, the conversations between party members was terrific in DA:O in making them more interesting.
 
1) Find a useless trinket in a dungeon and get a random popup that "hmm this may be important"
2) Stumble into an NPC back in town that exclaims "Oh you found my ring/necklace/dildo!"
3) NPC pays me 200 gold o_O

After the 5th or so time this happened I realized that this was DA2's version of "sidequests" and I shelved the game (also I hated all the usual stuff that's already been posted).

The Witcher 2 destroys this game on every level.
 
I played Dragon Age 2 on a friend's system. DA2 did not exceed or live up to DA1 in most ways. Gameplay felt cheap and was far from being even remotely polished. Quite the disappointment. Oh for the days of great games such as Dungeon Siege. Now that was a great game.
 
The problem with DA:2 was not that it was wholly and totally awful no, the problem with DA:2 was that enough of it felt like a low budget indie game that it made the 60 dollar price tag seems ridiculous. DA:2 in many ways was a call back to the days of the NES in which developers recycled and reused things to cover up the fact that they had crapped out on design. They did this in an effort to make the game seem more expansive than it actually was. I had this problem with mass effect 1 as well and had that game not been as good in other area's I would probably have hated it too.

I love side quests, I love things that bolster games beyond a simple 8 hour single player experience. I love these things if they are done well and with care that shows the game mattered as much to the developers as it does to the players. Dragon age 2 was designed with out this in mind. Not only were things reused time and time again for the side quests but, they were reused for the main story in the game as well. DA:1 was a huge success, yeah it had its problems but the game sold a lot of copies and was for the most part well received. DA:2 felt like a step backwards in the series and in gaming in general and in my mind it was simply not acceptable. How many times do I have to clear out the same space from the same bandits or thugs or pirates etc. The answer is enough times that the objectives in doing so become unclear and stop mattering in the context of the story. If I am playing a game and have to stop and say to my self "Uhg, again? WTF" something is very very wrong.

The game was far more closed off, it was smaller in terms of scope and scale and it was dumbed down compared to the first one which in a lot of minds was already more dumbed down than it should have been. The fact is bioware did not deliver a real sequel, they were not honest about the game from the get go and they were completely unapologetic about it through out the entire ordeal. DA:3 will be nothing like DA:2 and that alone is justification that the players who shared these feelings were right and that at least one person at bioware knew that the DA:2 was shite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top