Dragon Age 2 - Catch All

If include the conceptualizations phases, DAO was something like 7 years in production - the better part of a decade. That's why the graphics looked so dated - it was released two years late so the prevailing tech standard had moved on.

complexmath wrote:

Regarding the ending:

Spoiler:

Perhaps this part was broken for me, but after the initial rush of like 8 Templars, Orsino says he can't take it any more and turns himself into a Harvester. My party is locked into the area with him and maybe 2 random Templars and he attacks us. Does he just lose control because the magic has turned him into a ravening beast? And why does the game have him attack only me while a bunch of Templars look on outside the glowy barrier? It was an easy fight, but seemed kind of stupid that it happened at all.

That's the way it happens for everyone, and your reading is the correct one:

Spoiler:

it's stupid.

As written is that he does it because driven into a corner, but really, it's just so the game can have another bossfight. If TV Tropes is to be believed, the writers didn't want for it to happen, but were overruled.

Blind_Evil wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Unfortunately games can't realistically expect five years in the oven anymore like DA:O got. The market (retailers, publishers, and consumers) doesn't allow for it.

Skyrim begs to differ.

I don't really know what you mean by that. Skyrim wasn't developed over 5 years. I don't present the tight schedule as an excuse, just a reason.

I blame the market, which does include Bioware and EA. Consumers ignore too many good new games for publishers to continually develop and push new IP instead of rushing out sequels as was the case here.

A two-year cycle would have been better for DA2, but originally they'd planned on ME3 being their fall RPG hit. Not wanting to cannibalize their sales, they pushed DA2 to market early. It sucks, sure, but I stand by what I've continually said regarding the subject: I play a lot of games, and I prefer a very good Bioware game every two years to a near-perfect one every five.

That's really the problem in a nutshell. EA/Bioware made the choice to see if they could put DA on a production line and treat it like just another game, in doing so they torched their reputation.

Did they torch their reputation or is this just the internet yelling at things?

Vector wrote:

Did they torch their reputation or is this just the internet yelling at things?

Probably a bit of both. I'd say if anything it showed a chink in their armour, that they weren't above making a game with a few flaws.

... And then the fight started.

It's not like they haven't made games with flaws before, but Dragon Age 2 was the first game that was obviously rushed out the door to cash in.

DA2 was rushed, but man did I enjoy it. Will be starting my2nd run through in the next couple months.

LarryC wrote:

If include the conceptualizations phases, DAO was something like 7 years in production - the better part of a decade. That's why the graphics looked so dated - it was released two years late so the prevailing tech standard had moved on.

And yet of any complaints I do have of the first Dragon Age, graphics are not one of them.

I really need to jump back and play more of the game, but as I've said before, the huge jumps in time and everything are what really bother me. You play the opening area, you get saved by Captain Janeway, and then the game skips hours of potential gameplay to jump you into Kirkwall. That's where the short production cycle really got to me. I felt like I got an unfinished product for the sake of getting a game out there.

It doesn't help that I also loved the different character origins, either, but that's a debate that goes back and forth from player to player.

I wouldn't mind if the majority of the game took place in Kirkwall once I got there, but I'd still like to actually play the journey, or even moments within that year between my character's arrival and their next big story point. This isn't like the last disc of Xenosaga where the development team was like "f*ck, we ran out of money, now we have to summarize all this gameplay". I already had forty hours of gameplay by that point, maybe more. This is a complete disconnect between me, my characters and the world.

I'll give the game another chance and I'm bound to enjoy it, but I've just been completely soured. It's not about getting a good game or a near perfect game, it's about wanting a game that's complete and does its job. Then again, I wish the cycle were three years instead of two at a minimum and allowed for at least one year of extra time. If Dragon Age 2 hadn't come out until 2014, I would have been fine with that (Hell, I had a sense of dread the second I opened up DA:O Awakening and saw an ad teasing an announcement for 2011, and then blammo, Dragon Age 2 is coming out in less than half the time the first game was developed. So far, it feels like all my fears were proven right).

I've recently started DA2, and I'm really enjoying.. but got the enemy spawning is terrible.

El-Producto wrote:

I've recently started DA2, and I'm really enjoying.. but got the enemy spawning is terrible.

Yeah it is pretty frustrating. I feel like very fight, i'm caught in this surprise ambush. Always having to run back and protect my mage. I will say that the thief's abilities does make that quite easy, and I'm finding all of my skills much more useful than the DA:O. Could just be that they are flashier though too, because I like flashy.

ccesarano wrote:
LarryC wrote:

If include the conceptualizations phases, DAO was something like 7 years in production - the better part of a decade. That's why the graphics looked so dated - it was released two years late so the prevailing tech standard had moved on.

I really need to jump back and play more of the game, but as I've said before, the huge jumps in time and everything are what really bother me. You play the opening area, you get saved by Captain Janeway, and then the game skips hours of potential gameplay to jump you into Kirkwall. That's where the short production cycle really got to me. I felt like I got an unfinished product for the sake of getting a game out there.

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?

Scratched wrote:
Vector wrote:

Did they torch their reputation or is this just the internet yelling at things?

Probably a bit of both. I'd say if anything it showed a chink in their armour, that they weren't above making a game with a few flaws.

... And then the fight started.

If anyone thought Bioware produced any game without flaws prior to DA2, they had some kind of fanboy blinders on. ME1 is pretty junky, especially in retrospect.

Tanglebones wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
LarryC wrote:

If include the conceptualizations phases, DAO was something like 7 years in production - the better part of a decade. That's why the graphics looked so dated - it was released two years late so the prevailing tech standard had moved on.

I really need to jump back and play more of the game, but as I've said before, the huge jumps in time and everything are what really bother me. You play the opening area, you get saved by Captain Janeway, and then the game skips hours of potential gameplay to jump you into Kirkwall. That's where the short production cycle really got to me. I felt like I got an unfinished product for the sake of getting a game out there.

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?

Furthering your point, give this a thought: in what other narrative form are assumptive time lapses not acceptable? Books span decades, skipping whole years at a time when needed. George Martin's storytelling mechanics are dependent on you assuming that nothing important happens during the long stretches when you're not with a particular character, unless he tells you. I don't think anyone gets up in arms wondering what happened on the plane rides during the travel portions of Indiana Jones movies, do they?

Even in other games, this gets a pass. All but the first Assassin's Creed have long stretches either outright ignored or vaguely referenced. How the eff did Ezio get from Rome to Constantinople? Was there any fun to be had on the way? Probably, but that's not the story they are trying to tell.

Tanglebones wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
LarryC wrote:

If include the conceptualizations phases, DAO was something like 7 years in production - the better part of a decade. That's why the graphics looked so dated - it was released two years late so the prevailing tech standard had moved on.

I really need to jump back and play more of the game, but as I've said before, the huge jumps in time and everything are what really bother me. You play the opening area, you get saved by Captain Janeway, and then the game skips hours of potential gameplay to jump you into Kirkwall. That's where the short production cycle really got to me. I felt like I got an unfinished product for the sake of getting a game out there.

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.

Ulairi wrote:

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

This is the sad truth.

I dunno, I love DA2 and think it is a really fun game. I easily am enjoying it more than DA:O. I absolutely love the graphic style.

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!

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.

Blind_Evil wrote:

ME1 is pretty junky...

SO WAS THE MILLENNIUM FALCON

nel e nel wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

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!

Ehhhh...I'd say that's more true than you think. In NYC we call them 'neighborhoods', and if you spend enough time in them, you can recognize them by sight.

Kirkwall had some... but they were hardly pronounced enough though. Other than Lowtown, I'd have a hard time telling you the difference between different areas of Kirkwall. The docks had water, I think. I remember there being a tree in the elven area. I think there was suppose to be a rich area...

fangblackbone wrote:

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!

Ehhhh...I'd say that's more true than you think. In NYC we call them 'neighborhoods', and if you spend enough time in them, you can recognize them by sight.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/zv2NV.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/w8cl8.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/ot2m1.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/jAnGG.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/RS7JA.jpg)

Mantid wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

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!

Ehhhh...I'd say that's more true than you think. In NYC we call them 'neighborhoods', and if you spend enough time in them, you can recognize them by sight.

Kirkwall had some... but they were hardly pronounced enough though. Other than Lowtown, I'd have a hard time telling you the difference between different areas of Kirkwall. The docks had water, I think. I remember there being a tree in the elven area. I think there was suppose to be a rich area... :(

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

nel e nel wrote:

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

No, I think you understood it right. I'm just saying what themed regions they did bothered to put in Kirkwall were so weak they might as well have been non-existent.

I'm in the "This was not what I wanted at all" camp based on my experience with the demo and have yet to play the game. I don't expect I ever will. The little slice of gameplay exhibited in the demo was a showcase for everything I and many other naysayers were disappointed with and frankly, in terms of lost sales and word of mouth, I think Bioware would have been better off not releasing a demo at all. In all likelihood I would have otherwise bought the game sight unseen based on my experience with DA:O.

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.

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.

Jow wrote:

I'm in the "This was not what I wanted at all" camp based on my experience with the demo and have yet to play the game. I don't expect I ever will. The little slice of gameplay exhibited in the demo was a showcase for everything I and many other naysayers were disappointed with and frankly, in terms of lost sales and word of mouth, I think Bioware would have been better off not releasing a demo at all. In all likelihood I would have otherwise bought the game sight unseen based on my experience with DA:O.

A lot of the people in this thread who were turned off by the demo changed their tune once they'd spent a good chunk of time with the full game, for what it's worth. This far out it doesn't matter who plays it, but I think you're missing out.

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?

Blind_Evil wrote:
Jow wrote:

I'm in the "This was not what I wanted at all" camp based on my experience with the demo and have yet to play the game. I don't expect I ever will. The little slice of gameplay exhibited in the demo was a showcase for everything I and many other naysayers were disappointed with and frankly, in terms of lost sales and word of mouth, I think Bioware would have been better off not releasing a demo at all. In all likelihood I would have otherwise bought the game sight unseen based on my experience with DA:O.

A lot of the people in this thread who were turned off by the demo changed their tune once they'd spent a good chunk of time with the full game, for what it's worth. This far out it doesn't matter who plays it, but I think you're missing out.

Especially when the next $5-$10 sale comes around

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.