Dragon Age 2 - Catch All

Tanglebones wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
trueheart78 wrote:

Ulairi, I'd consider a set of spoiler tags on that.

For all of those that didn't like it, there were a ton that did (we're just not as vocal). The characters were my favorite part.

The game is a year old, it surely should be past that point now, I assume?

Judging by the number of people posting in this conversation who haven't played it, or haven't played past Act I yet, I'd err on the side of politeness as well.

That is a perfect way to word it.

If they actually put it on sale for 5-10 bucks I'd consider it but I suspect that pricepoint is a long way off. I'm not lacking for entertainment: 2011 was the best year in PC gaming in a long time for me and I have 5-10 other games picked up via Steam sales still wanting my attention.

Jow wrote:

If they actually put it on sale for 5-10 bucks I'd consider it but I suspect that pricepoint is a long way off. I'm not lacking for entertainment: 2011 was the best year in PC gaming in a long time for me and I have 5-10 other games picked up via Steam sales still wanting my attention. :)

It's been that price at multiple points over the last year

Tanglebones wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
trueheart78 wrote:

Ulairi, I'd consider a set of spoiler tags on that.

For all of those that didn't like it, there were a ton that did (we're just not as vocal). The characters were my favorite part.

The game is a year old, it surely should be past that point now, I assume?

Judging by the number of people posting in this conversation who haven't played it, or haven't played past Act I yet, I'd err on the side of politeness as well.

Especially considering it's how I started my previous post up.

Oh wait, did I totally misunderstand fbb's post? Was he complaining that Kirkwall didn't have enough themed regions?

Yes, I was. I didn't realize how vague my post was. Designer's think that cities have to follow a theme with minor and subtle variation. I think this is a mistake. Just look at this google images link for Oakland, CA:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isc...

West Oakland, Oakland Hills, Downtown, Piedmont, Chabot Space Museum area, Jack London Square, and Lake Merrit could not be more distinct.

Tanglebones wrote:

It's been that price at multiple points over the last year :P

DA:2 for 5-10 bucks, really? Wow. I hadn't been paying attention due to apathy. I'll keep an eye out for the next sale.

ccesarano wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

So, 25+ hours weren't enough? That's what I don't get. Sure there's places where the story could be padded out, but how does adding more quests, in an area of the story that's easily covered by an elision actually *improve* the game?

They didn't have enough game for their 25 hour story, let alone adding in even more.

I can't really comment on any of this. As I said, I haven't actually beaten it. I could play through the entire game and then say "Yeah, I understand why they made the choices they had".

I think it's mostly a matter of those many origins I enjoyed in the first game. I didn't mind a lack of voice acting because the character felt like I owned him (and later her). Sure, you were rail-roaded into being a Grey Warden no matter what, but he (and she) was my Grey Warden, and I got to tell his (and her) story as I chose.

I had bad feelings about playing Hawke from the get go, but already it doesn't feel like he is my Hawke, and I am telling his story. It feels like it is Bioware's Hawke, and they are telling me his story with a couple of options available to me along the way.

This is all a result of just a few hours of presentation in the game up to this point. Maybe it's just how they chose to tell the story, or maybe Bioware isn't the right team to tell a tale that takes place in just a city rather than a sprawling epic. I don't know. Either way, it has me struggling to get back to the game and actually play it.

You're pretty much spot on. This is Bioware's character, they completely removed the idea of player agency from the game. The story isn't bad for what it is. I really like the Dragon Age world, I have read the books and I even played in a campaign for the pen and paper game. What I didn't like about DA2 was besides the fact that it's just a very bad game is that all the player choice and options doesn't change a THING.

Spoiler:

Ander's is still going to blow the world up and when you pick a side at the end that doesn't even change how the game plays.

I know that Bioware likes the fact that people love the dating sim aspect and want to dress up as their favourite character but they didn't need to throw out the game to get there.

Ulairi wrote:
trueheart78 wrote:

Ulairi, I'd consider a set of spoiler tags on that.

For all of those that didn't like it, there were a ton that did (we're just not as vocal). The characters were my favorite part.

The game is a year old, it surely should be past that point now, I assume?

I just bought it two weeks ago. NOW IT'S RUINED!

*runs off crying*

Ulairi wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

If I were to make the ultimate game from bits of DA:O and DA2, it would include many more parts of DA2 than DA. Probably to the tune of a 70/30 or 80/20 split.

Hell, I could just rip out the origin stories from DA:O and slap that onto the front of DA2. That would spice up the repitition of Kirkwall. I think one of the big pitfalls designers make is that cities have to follow a theme. Look at any city today. Do all the regions follow a theme? (china town, downtown/main street, the pricy hills burbs, waterfront areas) Hell no!

I think it depends on what we want from the game. I know that Lara is going to hit me for this but I have beat Dragon Age 2 twice and the story doesn't change and even the context, within the game doesn't have a huge shift. I think some people project or build the story to be bigger than what is actually sitting there in the game. I think DA:O combat should have been kept along with the equipment and skill system, I just have a feeling that DA3 is going to be even less of an RPG than DA2 was and more inline with "interactive fantasy fiction simulator" with a more evolved dating simulation.

You hit in on the head. And that's the thing, I think when many of us invest in a game that is supposed to adhere to a certain genre, and get what is a (In my honest opinion) watered down version of an RPG, it's just disheartening. The same can be said, to an extent, about Mass Effect 2 and it's customization choices. Now I absolutely adored Mass Effect 2, but it didn't have near the customization that it's predecessor had, that is in terms of armor, weapons and so forth. I myself, don't always like seeing old school RPG's start turning into 80% action/20% role play RPG'S. I believe there can be a happy medium when it comes to things like this.

The Conformist wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

If I were to make the ultimate game from bits of DA:O and DA2, it would include many more parts of DA2 than DA. Probably to the tune of a 70/30 or 80/20 split.

Hell, I could just rip out the origin stories from DA:O and slap that onto the front of DA2. That would spice up the repitition of Kirkwall. I think one of the big pitfalls designers make is that cities have to follow a theme. Look at any city today. Do all the regions follow a theme? (china town, downtown/main street, the pricy hills burbs, waterfront areas) Hell no!

I think it depends on what we want from the game. I know that Lara is going to hit me for this but I have beat Dragon Age 2 twice and the story doesn't change and even the context, within the game doesn't have a huge shift. I think some people project or build the story to be bigger than what is actually sitting there in the game. I think DA:O combat should have been kept along with the equipment and skill system, I just have a feeling that DA3 is going to be even less of an RPG than DA2 was and more inline with "interactive fantasy fiction simulator" with a more evolved dating simulation.

You hit in on the head. And that's the thing, I think when many of us invest in a game that is supposed to adhere to a certain genre, and get what is a (In my honest opinion) watered down version of an RPG, it's just disheartening. The same can be said, to an extent, about Mass Effect 2 and it's customization choices. Now I absolutely adored Mass Effect 2, but it didn't have near the customization that it's predecessor had, that is in terms of armor, weapons and so forth. I myself, don't always like seeing old school RPG's start turning into 80% action/20% role play RPG'S. I believe there can be a happy medium when it comes to things like this.

Which brings us right back to 'what defines a RPG' - is it the character customization in terms of skill/gear/attributes, or is it choices that you make that change outcomes in the story? I thought DA:2, while not deviating from certain hardwired main plot elements, has a great deal of variability in how you approach/react to those plot points, as well as your interactions with other characters in the game. The paper doll/dressup aspects of an RPG are also important, and were definitely less emphasized in DA:2 than DA:O.

Tanglebones wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

If I were to make the ultimate game from bits of DA:O and DA2, it would include many more parts of DA2 than DA. Probably to the tune of a 70/30 or 80/20 split.

Hell, I could just rip out the origin stories from DA:O and slap that onto the front of DA2. That would spice up the repitition of Kirkwall. I think one of the big pitfalls designers make is that cities have to follow a theme. Look at any city today. Do all the regions follow a theme? (china town, downtown/main street, the pricy hills burbs, waterfront areas) Hell no!

I think it depends on what we want from the game. I know that Lara is going to hit me for this but I have beat Dragon Age 2 twice and the story doesn't change and even the context, within the game doesn't have a huge shift. I think some people project or build the story to be bigger than what is actually sitting there in the game. I think DA:O combat should have been kept along with the equipment and skill system, I just have a feeling that DA3 is going to be even less of an RPG than DA2 was and more inline with "interactive fantasy fiction simulator" with a more evolved dating simulation.

You hit in on the head. And that's the thing, I think when many of us invest in a game that is supposed to adhere to a certain genre, and get what is a (In my honest opinion) watered down version of an RPG, it's just disheartening. The same can be said, to an extent, about Mass Effect 2 and it's customization choices. Now I absolutely adored Mass Effect 2, but it didn't have near the customization that it's predecessor had, that is in terms of armor, weapons and so forth. I myself, don't always like seeing old school RPG's start turning into 80% action/20% role play RPG'S. I believe there can be a happy medium when it comes to things like this.

Which brings us right back to 'what defines a RPG' - is it the character customization in terms of skill/gear/attributes, or is it choices that you make that change outcomes in the story? I thought DA:2, while not deviating from certain hardwired main plot elements, has a great deal of variability in how you approach/react to those plot points, as well as your interactions with other characters in the game. The paper doll/dressup aspects of an RPG are also important, and were definitely less emphasized in DA:2 than DA:O.

I don't think DA2 fits that because it's like we are moving an ocean liner left or to the right a little bit but it's still going to hit the iceberg. DA2 doesn't have the same level of actual outcome than DA:O had. In DA:O we get to decide who's king in DA2 we get to decide who's my boyfriend/girlfriend. I thought the DA2 story was best when we dealt with the two different factions but none of the choices we make actually change the story in any meaningful way. The story to me was so shallow. I don't think games excel as a narrative medium (don't hate me) but they do excel as a more emergent story experience.

DA2 is such a hard best for me because the game is such a bad game that it's hard for me to divorce the story from the game. I go back and forth on liking the story and hating it and I'm just not sure if it is because the game holding it all together is so bad. I hope DA3 builds a good game foundation before moving onto the story.

Just lurking to avoid getting flamed, and agreeing with many points.

Just wondering two things:
I wonder how many more people would be coming to DA2 if EA managed to keep it from getting delisted from steam, although it doesn't seem to have done too badly for them with other avenues to pick it up from.
and
I wonder what platform/environment people are now playing DA2 on/in. Whether there's a dominant console/couch or PC/desk (or a mix) and any mindset that comes with that.

fangblackbone wrote:
Oh wait, did I totally misunderstand fbb's post? Was he complaining that Kirkwall didn't have enough themed regions?

Yes, I was. I didn't realize how vague my post was. Designer's think that cities have to follow a theme with minor and subtle variation. I think this is a mistake.

Yep, on that I think that I agree with you and Mantid. I recognized landmarks in Kirkwall (brothel, market, elftree, docks) rather than neighborhoods. In fact, if it weren't for the loading between the different areas, you probably wouldn't have known you were in different areas.

fangblackbone wrote:

Just look at this google images link for Oakland, CA:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isc...

google wrote:

related searches: oakland ca ghetto

WTF?!?!

Scratched wrote:

I wonder what platform/environment people are now playing DA2 on/in. Whether there's a dominant console/couch or PC/desk (or a mix) and any mindset that comes with that.

Good question. Played and disliked the demo on PC. Played and enjoyed the whole game on PS3.

Tanglebones wrote:

Which brings us right back to 'what defines a RPG' - is it the character customization in terms of skill/gear/attributes, or is it choices that you make that change outcomes in the story? I thought DA:2, while not deviating from certain hardwired main plot elements, has a great deal of variability in how you approach/react to those plot points, as well as your interactions with other characters in the game. The paper doll/dressup aspects of an RPG are also important, and were definitely less emphasized in DA:2 than DA:O.

I wonder if it's not necessarily the definition of RPG that would be in question, but more what's within the constructs of that RPG. We all understand what the definition of an RPG is, a "Role Playing Game" you play a role as fictional character within the boundaries the game actually sets for you. But are the boundaries within said game too confining or just not stimulating enough? That could vary from person to person, and could possibly just be semantics and I'm just looking to far into it. But what I view as an RPG involves deep character interaction, which DA2 has, however I also what deep character customization, varied and detailed environments, a plethora of complex enemies, and an amazing and memorable soundtrack. When I see that DA2 has many recycled enemies and backgrounds it's just really difficult to immerse myself into this world, and just seems lazy. I want to sit down and play a game and forget what I currently have going on in my life, I want to forget that I'm playing just a game.

But like I said, this is just one of many opinions that people have on this game. I know there are people out there who would look at this game and say to themselves "Now this is an amazing RPG". I suppose in the end, there really would be no right and wrong, just opinion. But hey, for discussions sake, it's a fun little rant.

fangblackbone wrote:

I don't think anyone can say what makes an RPG anymore. You can combine 2 or more of the following variables in any combination you like and I'd wager there has already been a successful RPG patterned after it.

unit type - fixed, limited, open
unit abilities - fixed, limited, open
unit ability growth - progressive improvement, unlocks, variety
unit numbers - small group, fixed bankable, open bankable
unit equipment - level based, archetype based fixed, archetype based limited, open

I'm always a bit amused when people get uppity about RPGs. Especially with modern games, RPG aspects are everywhere and it's mostly a good thing. I think it's good for game designs to have more options to play with.

I guess it boils down to a few options and I can't say that I haven't been hypocritical and prefered both, depending on the game:

I'll give Mechcommander 2 as one example. Its role playing roots are derived from customization of unit type, unit numbers, and unit equipment providing dozens of approaches to a fixed set of goals. Only a certain number of these goals are required per bit of progressive story. I see a lot of DA2 in this approach.

Another example is the fixed party where the restrictions on unit number, unit type and unit equipment are much stronger but the bits of story aren't linear, and can often be done out of any perceived prefered order.

I don't think anyone can say what makes an RPG anymore. You can combine 2 or more of the following variables in any combination you like and I'd wager there has already been a successful RPG patterned after it.

unit type - fixed, limited, open
unit abilities - fixed, limited, open
unit ability growth - progressive improvement, unlocks, variety
unit numbers - single, small group, fixed bankable, open bankable
unit equipment - level based, archetype based fixed, archetype based limited, open
story - linear, branched, grouped
story goals - stepped, fixed, orderless, 3 out of 5, good/evil points

For me it's less about defining it as an RPG and more about defining its place within the Dragon Age series. I think it's hard to argue with the fact that while DA:O was in every way a love letter to Baldur's Gate (or, more generally, the PC RPG) and a hell of a precedent, what I've seen of and read about Dragon Age 2 indicates it is ultimately a console action game with RPG elements. I've been gaming a long time and I can't think of another game series that's been brave (foolish?) enough to make a sequel so different from the original.

If you've gotten the impression there's more action game than RPG in DA2, IMO, someone told you wrong.

Honestly the only difference is that the real time combat is faster and the basic attacks are no longer auto attacks.

Blind_Evil wrote:

If you've gotten the impression there's more action game than RPG in DA2, IMO, someone told you wrong.

Honestly the only difference is that the real time combat is faster and the basic attacks are no longer auto attacks.

The character customization is not really there. The player agency isn't really there An RPG isn't about being a story focused game, it's about building a character/party and the way a game plays. If it's just about having a big story and player choice, then almost any game can be an RPG. I think DA2 is more of an Action/Adventure with RPG lite elements.

DA2 is much closer to DA:O than it is to BG:Dark Alliance (which is what you seem to be characterizing it as).

fangblackbone wrote:

DA2 is much closer to DA:O than it is to BG:Dark Alliance (which is what you seem to be characterizing it as).

I don't think I'm doing that at all. I think, and Bioware's own admissions back this up that they wanted to tone down the RPG elements and bring up the action elements to try to get a larger group of people interested in playing the game. I think it's much closer to Mass Effect 2 than DA:O or anything else.

Ulairi wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

If you've gotten the impression there's more action game than RPG in DA2, IMO, someone told you wrong.

Honestly the only difference is that the real time combat is faster and the basic attacks are no longer auto attacks.

The character customization is not really there. The player agency isn't really there An RPG isn't about being a story focused game, it's about building a character/party and the way a game plays. If it's just about having a big story and player choice, then almost any game can be an RPG. I think DA2 is more of an Action/Adventure with RPG lite elements.

This is obviously opening an even bigger can of worms but JRPGs tend to not have character customization or player agency. I still consider them RPGs.

Blind_Evil is spot on.

gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

If you've gotten the impression there's more action game than RPG in DA2, IMO, someone told you wrong.

Honestly the only difference is that the real time combat is faster and the basic attacks are no longer auto attacks.

The character customization is not really there. The player agency isn't really there An RPG isn't about being a story focused game, it's about building a character/party and the way a game plays. If it's just about having a big story and player choice, then almost any game can be an RPG. I think DA2 is more of an Action/Adventure with RPG lite elements.

This is obviously opening an even bigger can of worms but JRPGs tend to not have character customization or player agency. I still consider them RPGs.

Blind_Evil is spot on.

I don't consider JRPGs really to be RPGs at all. I think the reason they got the moniker was because they all aped D&D back in the day. They are much more of an adventure game than anything else, especially the current crop of JRPGs which really don't offer much customization at all.

This is me being weird but my own rule of thumb for an RPG is that could it have the graphics of Ultima 7 and would i still enjoy it? or for consoles could it have SNES graphics could you still enjoy it? RPGs don't require bang and flash,it's the rules that make the game.

Ulairi wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

If you've gotten the impression there's more action game than RPG in DA2, IMO, someone told you wrong.

Honestly the only difference is that the real time combat is faster and the basic attacks are no longer auto attacks.

The character customization is not really there. The player agency isn't really there An RPG isn't about being a story focused game, it's about building a character/party and the way a game plays. If it's just about having a big story and player choice, then almost any game can be an RPG. I think DA2 is more of an Action/Adventure with RPG lite elements.

Not the RPGs I grew up with.

My comparison is to DA:O, though, not the ideal RPG experience, whatever that is for each person. The combat is the same, but punchier. The itemization took a hit in that you can't garbage-up your party members with generic stuff anymore (see what I did there?). The character development is about the same, unless I'm forgetting something (skill trees, sub-classes, etc.). If there are any other RPG elements in DA:O that I'm forgetting that were taken out of DA2, let me know. I played a hell of a lot of DA:O and at the end of the day the character and party building feel about the same to me.

Blind_Evil wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

If you've gotten the impression there's more action game than RPG in DA2, IMO, someone told you wrong.

Honestly the only difference is that the real time combat is faster and the basic attacks are no longer auto attacks.

The character customization is not really there. The player agency isn't really there An RPG isn't about being a story focused game, it's about building a character/party and the way a game plays. If it's just about having a big story and player choice, then almost any game can be an RPG. I think DA2 is more of an Action/Adventure with RPG lite elements.

Not the RPGs I grew up with.

My comparison is to DA:O, though, not the ideal RPG experience, whatever that is for each person. The combat is the same, but punchier. The itemization took a hit in that you can't garbage-up your party members with generic stuff anymore (see what I did there?). The character development is about the same, unless I'm forgetting something (skill trees, sub-classes, etc.). If there are any other RPG elements in DA:O that I'm forgetting that were taken out of DA2, let me know. I played a hell of a lot of DA:O and at the end of the day the character and party building feel about the same to me.

I think this is where the big gulf of opinion may come from. If someone grew up with JRPGs DA2 really fits with that model. If someone came from the PC or table top background, DA2 doesn't fit as much.

The skill system in DAO is much larger than DA2. I could create traps, potions, steal, there was a tracking skill and everything. That got removed in DA2.

That comment was for jow, ulairi.

But this:

The character customization is not really there.

I can't agree with.

The game still has the AI scripting for party member behavior. The necessity to autoquaff hp potions multiple times per fight does not make DA:O more of an rpg.
I may be wrong but there is oodles more combined spell effects in DA2. Or you can use them to greater effect in DA2. Regardless, it wasn't removed during the supposed "dumbing down" process.
I am also not sure but is wielding 2 handers having a greater aoe arc on weapon swings in DA:O? Its in DA2.
You get what amounts to a 5 person party in DA2. You could say 4 1/2 but dont be unfair to the dog. He soaks up a bit of damage.

fangblackbone wrote:

That comment was for jow, ulairi.

But this:

The character customization is not really there.

I can't agree with.

The game still has the AI scripting for party member behavior. The necessity to autoquaff hp potions multiple times per fight does not make DA:O more of an rpg.
I may be wrong but there is oodles more combined spell effects in DA2. Or you can use them to greater effect in DA2. Regardless, it wasn't removed during the supposed "dumbing down" process.
I am also not sure but is wielding 2 handers having a greater aoe arc on weapon swings in DA:O? Its in DA2.
You get what amounts to a 5 person party in DA2. You could say 4 1/2 but dont be unfair to the dog. He soaks up a bit of damage.

The queuing up of actions and controlling the whole party in DA:O made it much more tactical than DA2 and DA:O had the dog as a full party member so that's another point.

Does being more tactical make it an RPG?

gregrampage wrote:

Does being more tactical make it an RPG?

When you add up everything I think it's very fair to say that DA:O is more RPGish than DA2. I grew up playing table top and pc rpgs so tactical combat is a big part of the experience for me. If someone grew up playing console games or is more interested in story and characters then they may not care as much. I think having a big story of great characters has much to do with an RPG at all. Player agency does. Customization and tactical combat do. Taking it out of DA2 for a second, let's think of table top role-playing games. Some people really love the shared story telling experience of an RPG. They don't really like rules or combat getting in the way of telling a good story. A lot of "modern" RPG rules try to limit or remove rolling the dice, combat, complicated rules systems and character creation. It's more about sitting around a table and telling a story or being in the drama club. Some people view these as RPGS, I really don't. If the rules and the game are incidental to the experience then we've really moved far beyond on what an RPG used to be which comes from games like D&D, Tunnels and Trolls and other pen and paper games. Classic JRPGs were D&D combat, D&D type monsters but more of an adventure game story line put on top of it. No real player agency but the core rules were obviously heavily inspired by table top RPGs.

DA:O came from the Baldur's Gate/Table Top RPG school of games. Big emphasis on player agency, customization and tactical combat. Again, i want to hedge a little bit here because i found the game in DA2 to be so subpar that i don't know how much i don't enjoy the game is due to the cruddy foundation. if DA2 had better game to it i might have enjoyed it a lot more even with the changes from DAO which i loved.