Dragon Age 2

Kiith

Well, now that i think about it, I've not found any armour to give my characters but i have given them new weapons. Maybe they do keep the same look, but you can definitely give them amulets, belts, rings etc...

I wasn't sure about the fully voiced main character either, and the first time i had a conversation, i was like 'wtf? i can talk?'. But it's decently voiced, and he sounds like he fits the type of character i play. Voice acting so far is quite good, at least Varric is done well anyway.

Anyway, i'm enjoying it, and look forward to getting in some more time later. I loved Origins, even with it's flaws, and am quite happy to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt for the sequel. They've never let me down before.

Plus, if Mass Effect 2 is what we get when Bioware 'dumb down' a game, then 'dumb down' away.

Jim

Kiith wrote: »

Well, now that i think about it, I've not found any armour to give my characters but i have given them new weapons. Maybe they do keep the same look, but you can definitely give them amulets, belts, rings etc...

I wasn't sure about the fully voiced main character either, and the first time i had a conversation, i was like 'wtf? i can talk?'. But it's decently voiced, and he sounds like he fits the type of character i play. Voice acting so far is quite good, at least Varric is done well anyway.

Anyway, i'm enjoying it, and look forward to getting in some more time later. I loved Origins, even with it's flaws, and am quite happy to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt for the sequel. They've never let me down before.

Plus, if Mass Effect 2 is what we get when Bioware 'dumb down' a game, then 'dumb down' away.

Oh......Oh I see.

Well, Bioware made the game for people like you, not people like me. Mass Effect was good because it was the more "blockbuster" action arcadey game and Dragon Age was for RPG fans. Now they're just going the same route with Dragon Age. Makes me sad.

Kiith

Jim wrote: »

Oh......Oh I see.

Well, Bioware made the game for people like you, not people like me. Mass Effect was good because it was the more "blockbuster" action arcadey game and Dragon Age was for RPG fans. Now they're just going the same route with Dragon Age. Makes me sad.

It's no more 'blockbuster' then Origins was. It's faster yes, but that's not a bad thing. The combat in Origins was too slow, especially as a melee class. Using Shield Bash, only for the enemy to run out of range while you slowly shuffled after them isnt fun or tactical, it's just annoying. Now it's more immediate. You'll still need to use your skills properly to beat the game at higher difficulty levels.

I'd still take Baldur's Gate 2 over either of them though...

mewso

I think I'll stick to using rpgcodex as a guide. If they say it's good then it's probably amazing and if they say it's just crap then it's probably worth a look.

degrassinoel

pc gamer gave it a massive score of 94/100

they must've done something right to get a score like that. I really enjoyed the demo although all the interesting parts are/were locked out, am still looking forward to playing it on friday.

Also, Flemeth is hawt!

Spunge

Its getting some terrible user reviews on metacritic, 3.3/10 average.

Magill

Spunge wrote: »

Its getting some terrible user reviews on metacritic, 3.3/10 average.

Most of which have only played the demo, just reading some of reviews.

Kiith

Magill wrote: »

Most of which have only played the demo, just reading some of reviews.

Half of them haven't even played the demo. They've read about it though, so obviously know enough to give it a 0 :rolleyes:

humanji

Popped over this morning to a mate who had a copy and gave it a go for a couple of hours and can say that it's... meh. It's not a bad game. It's ok. The voice acting is fantastic, but some of the dialogue is shockingly poor. It might pick up later in the game, but at the start it's almost painful at times. I don't actually mind that the main character has a voice. It's a little annoying though that as a result of this your choices in the game seem fairly linear. For example, you only have 3 character choices and 3 basic backgrounds to choose from. And you don't seem to be able to have good conversations with your group, like before. It makes them seem a little more one dimensional.

I hate the combat. I can see how some would love it and think it an improvement over the previous game, as it's got a faster pace. But I just don't feel as threatened by enemies as I did before. I remember having to plan out attacks in DA:O and constantly pause the game to make sure my team was ok. But so far in this, you just spam various attacks. It's just not as fun as the old combat system. But I was raised on old style RPG's, so it could just be that I'm stubburn.

Animation is a bit off at times, in that the character does silly little flourishes that don't really fit in when you're fighting. I was playing a mage and right clicking spams a standard attack, but my guy kept spinning his staff around like a twat. My family's lives were in danger and I was showing off? Didn't make much sense. But the animations are very smooth, as you'd expect. The graphics aren't up to much though (and we had DX11 with the texture pack on). Considering what they did with the character models in Mass Effect 2, it's a huge step back.

I didn't get too far into the game, but those are my impressions so far. If you buy this game you won't be disappointed, but nor will you be in orgasmic joy over it. It's just a fairly standard RPG. Some of the review scores seem a little high, almost as if they feel they have to praise it over nothing. An 8 seems fair enough, but I'd probably go a bit lower. Not 100% if I'll get this. But if I do, I'll definitely be waiting for ti to be on sale.

Blowfish

Captain Chaos wrote: »

The PS3 and 360 can handle any dedicated PC RPG without having to modify it. Of course the graphics will take a hit but the story, level design and menue systems are no issue at all.

This quite simply isn't true. Playing any game using the Infinity engine would be a ridiculously frustrating experience using a controller.

Notorioux

reviewers scores

ign - 8.5
gamespot - 8.0
gametrailers - 9.2
joystiq - 4/5
metacritic - 84/100 for the ps3/xbox360 85/100 for the pc
the escapist - 100/100
PSM3 - 90 %
gamemaster - 90%
g4tv - 3.5/5



This game is probably either like it or hate it, but i played the demo myself and i really liked it can't wait for my copy on friday.

Helix

degrassinoel wrote: »

pc gamer gave it a massive score of 94/100

they must've done something right to get a score like that

pc gamer review met the embargo breaking conditions, therefore was allowed to be published early

can you guess what the embargo breaking conditions were?

Kiith

Helix wrote: »

pc gamer review met the embargo breaking conditions, therefore was allowed to be published early

can you guess what the embargo breaking conditions were?

It's possible they also really like it.

I'm just saying :cool:

Helix

Kiith wrote: »

It's possible they also really like it.

I'm just saying :cool:

it is

but its more likely they thought it was good, and to run it early exaggerated that somewhat

Vicxas

It got some bad reviews in Gameinformer and IGN, very nervous now

Spunge

Anyone think consoles are ruining a lot of games ?

Don't rage at me

SmokeyTheBull

degrassinoel wrote: »

pc gamer gave it a massive score of 94/100

they must've done something right to get a score like that.

Ya maybe made a large deposit in their bank account? Based on everything I've seen (it looks awful, literally) and I read ( apparently they pulled an ME2 where if something was flawed they just completely did away with it rather than make it better) I'm not going to get this for a while.

Their greed is flabbergasting, I'm definitely buying this second-hand if at all, the textures and video seems to have been kept at a low standard in order to save room so they don't have to pay for another disk, highlighted by how they have already released a high-res patch, which I'm surprised they aren't charging for.

Day one dlc is a joke especially thats its more than just simple cosmetics, 2 playable characters, which makes me wonder are they integral for the story, were they planned to be included and then just removed in order to generate some more revenue.
I dont really mind dlc if its done right, aka when it was called expansions and genuinely added extra content, or look at Valve one the most successful developers/publishers primarily on a platform that is known for piracy, and yet they release free dlc for games like l4d and tf2. Nowadays it just seems content is simply cut from the final product to be released at a later time.

Its shocking that they have managed to make so much extra content supposedly after they had finished working on the main game, and yet they haven't had time to properly play test the game, I've heard reports of missing screen texture, save files getting corrupted and random crashes on the pc version. Anyone else here about how they forgot a file for the console versions:

Chris Priestly wrote...

OK: Here is the story.

Auto-attack option for consoles was added in to the games late in the development cycle after the initial certification build was sent. The auto-attack functionality was sent to be added to the game for testing and approval. This was why staff said it was in game.

Due to an error during mastering, the auto-attack file was omitted during manufacture.

We apologize for this. It was meant to be in game, but it is not currently in the console versions. We are working on how best to distribute this to console users. When we have information, we will let everyone know.

Thats just hilarious, I wonder if its possible to take the NonLinearity.file form Deus Ex and put it in as it seems to have been left out as well, likewise for GoodGraphics.file, planescape torment would be a good candidate for the InterestingDialogue.file they've seem to have lost. A look at the user reviews, from people that have played the game and aren't writing the review for money, on metacritic is very interesting, although they seem very different than this image:



The following image really drove home how ott the went with dlc, but it has one bad word(which isn't that bad really) so I'll just attach it rather than insert it.

VenomIreland

I wouldn't say ruining, but I would say that some games definitely are suffering.

SmokeyTheBull

Oh and I forgot to mention, that in order to get one of the dlc characters you had to buy the SE edition or whatever or pre-order it before the demo was even released, great marketing strategy there

johnny_ultimate

Oh dear, the internet seems upset. Wouldn't take those user scores into account either, give it a while until people have actually played the game in depth. The super low scores are probably just bitterness about streamlining or something (similar thing happened with Dragon Quest IX in Japan - lots of negative reviews on Amazon because they included a pixie character). And ignore the best reviews, see where it averages out - there's always a magazine or two who will be ludicrously hyperbolic about these sort of things.

I also have to wonder when 'streamlining' became such a dirty word. As I said, playing through the first game on 360 now, and it stinks of a somewhat dodgy PC port from time to time, especially in combat. Nothing wrong with this, game was clearly designed for PC. But what's wrong with designing a game for consoles? It's a bigger market, clearly BioWare would be a bit foolish to ignore said market. And Mass Effect 2 was a wonderful case of streamlining interfaces and RPG elements into a more natural, flowing combat system (the best non-turn based combat system in an RPG IMO). I know PC gamers get very upset by 'console gamers' but perhaps BioWare actually made improvements (and from my experience, the first game could do with a tonne of improvements) and many of the 'streamlined' elements may improve the experience for a wider base of players. It's a shame for the PC gamers who love their pages and pages and pages of stats and inventories, but on a purely economic it benefits BioWare to actually aim for a less niche market.

I don't know, I guess I just can't see how Mass Effect 2 can be criticised for being streamlined, when IMO anyway it was a massive improvement on the first game on pretty much every level. Sometimes removing archaic, dated elements can be beneficial, no matter how attached some are to said elements. (the day one DLC, thought, that I'd take issue with)

But all in all, I'd wait for the 'backlash' to die down a bit before rejecting the game completely (although I personally am only moderately interested in the first place). What's the odds that the majority of those low raters on metacritics haven't even played the damn thing yet? Gamers are a bitter bunch, and unfortunately gaming critics tend to be an inconsistent bunch (and I think it's safe to ignore anything the very first review, IGN or GameInformer have to say). I'd say wait a while 'til gamers have got some time with it, because in the dark recesses of the internet anonymous keyboard warriors can sometimes get their say before anyone has even had a chance to form an informed opinion.

humanji

But what's wrong with designing a game for consoles? It's a bigger market, clearly BioWare would be a bit foolish to ignore said market.

Well a lot of PC gamers will see it as such: Imagine Dev decided that since the Lolcats thread is popular on Boards, he removed every other forum and left one thread with lolcat pictures.

That's a streamlined site with content that greatly appeals to certain people. And other people may enjoy the lolcat pics, but wish that the other stuff on the site, which was pretty good, was fixed instead of removed.

I don't know why ME2 is held as some sort of pinnacle of RPG's. The first had a fantastically intricate plot. The second was "go there, kill the bad buy, the end". It was only the side-quests that really made it shine. The combat was turned into Gears Of War with a couple of skills and the RPG elements were stripped away.

They've done something similar to DA2. They've stripped away a lot of what was good and "stream lined" the rest. What your left with isn't a bad thing, but if they'd actually put the effort in, it could have been incredible. But now it's just nothign special. And something this bland coming from a company that released arguably some of the best games ever made, is quite the let down.

As I said before, I can't see anyone regretting buying this game. They're just going to forget about it pretty quickly.

Liber8or

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh dear, the internet seems upset. Wouldn't take those user scores into account either, give it a while until people have actually played the game in depth. The super low scores are probably just bitterness about streamlining or something (similar thing happened with Dragon Quest IX in Japan - lots of negative reviews on Amazon because they included a pixie character). And ignore the best reviews, see where it averages out - there's always a magazine or two who will be ludicrously hyperbolic about these sort of things.

I also have to wonder when 'streamlining' became such a dirty word. As I said, playing through the first game on 360 now, and it stinks of a somewhat dodgy PC port from time to time, especially in combat. Nothing wrong with this, game was clearly designed for PC. But what's wrong with designing a game for consoles? It's a bigger market, clearly BioWare would be a bit foolish to ignore said market. And Mass Effect 2 was a wonderful case of streamlining interfaces and RPG elements into a more natural, flowing combat system (the best non-turn based combat system in an RPG IMO). I know PC gamers get very upset by 'console gamers' but perhaps BioWare actually made improvements (and from my experience, the first game could do with a tonne of improvements) and many of the 'streamlined' elements may improve the experience for a wider base of players. It's a shame for the PC gamers who love their pages and pages and pages of stats and inventories, but on a purely economic it benefits BioWare to actually aim for a less niche market.

I don't know, I guess I just can't see how Mass Effect 2 can be criticised for being streamlined, when IMO anyway it was a massive improvement on the first game on pretty much every level. Sometimes removing archaic, dated elements can be beneficial, no matter how attached some are to said elements. (the day one DLC, thought, that I'd take issue with)

But all in all, I'd wait for the 'backlash' to die down a bit before rejecting the game completely (although I personally am only moderately interested in the first place). What's the odds that the majority of those low raters on metacritics haven't even played the damn thing yet? Gamers are a bitter bunch, and unfortunately gaming critics tend to be an inconsistent bunch (and I think it's safe to ignore anything the very first review, IGN or GameInformer have to say). I'd say wait a while 'til gamers have got some time with it, because in the dark recesses of the internet anonymous keyboard warriors can sometimes get their say before anyone has even had a chance to form an informed opinion.

Ok, I have a number of things to say about this.

Firstly, well said and I can see your viewpoint.
Secondly, this barrage of scathing reviews from users on Metacritic is rumoured to be some sour group on 4chan angry at the 'streamlining' you have spoken about, so I wouldn't really pay much attention to the low ratings.

Thirdly, when you speak about 'streamlining' you make it sound beneficial or advantageous to the player (for the most part). However, as EA are attempting to reach out to a broader audience, making things easier and more approachable is a logical step. But, the question you really have to ask is; was there something inherently wrong or broken about the original formula?

With regards to Dragon Age, the answer is a resounding no. Both critics and fans praised the game and this can be seen from MetaCritic, just the way we can see it now with the sequel. Dragon Age appealed to the more resilient gamer, one which was willing to grind out a few hours to only learn how to play the game (very different to the modern day shooter which offers tutorial, in the form of a SP campaign, to prepare you for MP) and then baffle you with a crazy amount of settings, customisation and possibilities.

Dragon Age was fine the way it was (personally I thought the GFX could have been better even though I played it on PC), it didn't require a demanding system to play and it guaranteed a minimum fifty hours. Should we sacrifice such quality in favour of 'streamlining'? Should we accept that some people don't have the aptitude or patience for an old-school RPG? No.

Diversity is imperative in art-form. If everything enters some sort of "normalisation" and fits neatly into a perfect genre which specifies certain characteristics, art-form becomes mechanised industry. No sense of innovation, nothing to inspire, predictability becomes essential to guaranteeing sales. I have played every BioWare game apart from Jade Empire, and have enjoyed absolutely everyone of them. Would go so far as to say, they are probably the greatest developer, and it is their consistency which makes them great.

I have not played Dragon Age II yet, I pre-ordered it on STEAM and it unlocks tomorrow night, however I am looking forward to playing it, despite the outcry from the fanbase. I am prepared to criticise it, especially if it is a sign of comformity and of things to come. BioWare were known (and still are I hope) for their brilliant storylines, engaging characters and immersion, but most importantly they were bold enough to go against the grain and challenge themselves. I truly hope they do not lose this principle for the sake of making money.

I have said it before and I will say it again, BioWare have never let me down, and I sure hope they don't start doing it now. However, I reckon my final judgement will come from ME3, as I find the ME series to be one of the best in a long time.

johnny_ultimate

I think the key issue is the difference between 'streamlining' and 'dumbing down'. I haven't played Dragon Age 2 yet, won't for a while, but IMO Origins could use a hell of a lot of streamlining. The inventory management is a pain, the quest structure rambling and dull, the micromanagement of you companions occasionally frustrating. These are things that could be streamlined. However, being able to outfit your characters is an important tactical asset, so removing it would be bad. They could just do something to speed up the process perhaps. (on a side note, unfortunately the aspects of Dragon Age that most need improving - the painfully generic main setting and childish 'mature' content - are probably beyond improvable)

If, however, all that is good about Origins - the freedom to approach problems being a notable one - is indeed gone, then yes, complain on. Your boards example is 'dumbing down' as opposed to streamlining - streamlining ultimately gets the same basic thing done but better. It's not necessarily cutting features - although some of the superfluous ones may be in the process - but improving them. Going back to ME2 - which isn't perfect, by any stretch - what they improved was how natural the combat felt, and how you could still use your abilities more efficiently and quickly. What I really liked about the game was the characterisation and substories - yeah, occasionally the main plot was fairly dull (in fact, wasn't there only like two or three main story scenes?) but the character payoffs at the end were worth it. It is far from my favourite RPG, although potentially one of my favourite WRPGs - one that combines shooter mechanics and Bioware's design strengths far more effectively than the first.

Again, arguing all this not having played DA2 isn't fair (and a game I'm not that interested in in the first place), just a general opinion of mine on how some gamers online tend to address issues online - sometimes change is good, and the violent hyperbolic rejection after outdated elements are removed can be frustrating. Now, if the change adversely affects the experience, than there's cause for complaint. But as I said archaic elements can sometimes be addressed and streamlined, and the balance is not 'dumbing down' the game in the process or adversely affecting the final product. I'll be curious to hear opinions when people have had more time to settle down with the game though. But developers being forced to keep things the same as they've always been will stifle innovation and gameplay in the long term - there's always room for old school design (Demons' Souls the deserved recent champion of gloriously old-fashioned design), but there are somethings the new school do right too. And if developers can retain their original vision while improving the mechanics, then streamlining is good. If though they can't retain their original vision while destroying the mechanics, then dumbing down is bad.

SmokeyTheBull

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

What's the odds that the majority of those low raters on metacritics haven't even played the damn thing yet?

It's been out on torrents (ya, ya, legal or not they've played the game and are more entitled to an opion than those that haven't) for about a week, so there's a good chance that people have completed it by now.

And Mass Effect 2 was a wonderful case of streamlining interfaces and RPG elements into a more natural, flowing combat system (the best non-turn based combat system in an RPG IMO). I know PC gamers get very upset by 'console gamers' but perhaps BioWare actually made improvements (and from my experience, the first game could do with a tonne of improvements) and many of the 'streamlined' elements may improve the experience for a wider base of players. It's a shame for the PC gamers who love their pages and pages and pages of stats and inventories, but on a purely economic it benefits BioWare to actually aim for a less niche market.

This is a bit off topic but seen as its the same developer that seems to be doing the same thing again its somewhat relevant.

Uh what RPG elements are in ME2? Throwing in a few level up bonuses does not an RPG make. Don't get me wrong, I think its a excellent third person shooter with a weak story thats carried by its predecessor but I never though to myself, this is a great RPG. ME had its flaws, but rather than fix them they did away with them, taking everything that made ME more than another TPS away.

You can level and equip gear in DoW2 and in TF2 you can collect items that are based on levels and giving different effects, but no one claims they are RPGs, so I don't see why ME2 has to be an RPG, when its genre is obviously defined when you play it. I honestly can't wait for ME3, I think its going to be one of the highlights of gaming this year, but having seen how Bioware has done sequels for two of its modern hit releases

One las thing I'm going to take issue with and than I'm finished (I swear )
"niche market"... really? Have you ever even looked at the sales figures of games like fallout, baldurs gate, the elder scrolls, final fantasy and Shin megami tensei and dragon quest series. deus ex, kotor,and on and on. There is most definitely a market for RPGs and there is definitely money to be made there, but I don't agree with abandoning some of a games main concepts in order to create a larger profit.


I first become concerned when I saw the developers of DA2 wanted to appeal to the cod kiddies market, a completely different genre of gaming.
Pic is proof I'm not just spouting ****


These games make millions as they are, why do they have to be dumbed down?

DingChavez

Did you even play the game yet?

calex71

I lol'd @ the day one dlc comment , it's -3 day dlc they got it on the market place before the game is out, all 6-12 quids worth

As for dumbing down, these companies don't seem to get it do they ? Ok you attract a few new casual gamers but you single handily alienate the base that bought and enjoyed the 1st game and made it successful enough to warrant a sequel

Mass effect 2 is a prime example, I loved the 1st game because of it's flaws not inspite of them Totally agree with the comment about instead of fixing things they just removing them , ME2 was good just not what a player of the 1st game would rightly expect when buying a sequel :mad: I felt like gears of war with dialog choices

DARK-KNIGHT

just wondering i have been trying to source the signature edition but to put it like this have any of u guys played the full game? is it a let down? should i just buy the ultimate edition of dragon age origins?

calex71

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

just wondering i have been trying to source the signature edition but to put it like this have any of u guys played the full game? is it a let down? should i just buy the ultimate edition of dragon age origins?

If you haven't played it get the uber origins

Edit: From what if seen online stores at least have very limited stock of the signature ed of DA:2 I'm waiting 2 weeks for the inevitable bargain alerts thread on a standard ed

DARK-KNIGHT

calex71 wrote: »

If you haven't played it get the uber origins

Edit: From what if seen online stores at least have very limited stock of the signature ed of DA:2 I'm waiting 2 weeks for the inevitable bargain alerts thread on a standard ed

pricey as hell this game.. 45 in hmv and if you can get the signature edition its 58.99 ffs lol is the extra dlc worth it or will i bother with the signature edition?

calex71

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

pricey as hell this game.. 45 in hmv and if you can get the signature edition its 58.99 ffs lol is the extra dlc worth it or will i bother with the signature edition?

No don't bother with Signature ed if hmv have standard for €45, not sure what else comes with it but the dlc that comes with it has achievements and if you buy new you wont have to pay for an online pass (800 points) gives extra market and some other stuff, the dlc is The Exiled Prince - Price: 560 Microsoft points (€6.72) so do the math for a fancy box

SO HMV standard ed + downloading the dlc = cheaper