Before I get into a detailed review, I know many of you don't like to read overtly long winded reviews and for those of you like that, here's a quick, short, TLDR version.
TLDR:
On it's own as a game (if you pretend there was no such thing as DA:O ), Dragon Age 2 is a "decent" Action RPG. It has it's good points, and as long as you don't know about the depth of the original game then you won't feel cheated out of what should have been a much richer experience. If you didn't play DA:O and you like streamlined, action oriented RPG's, then you'll most likely find a very fulfilling game on it's own. If you played and loved DA:O because of it's grand scope and depth of game-play options and diversity, then you'll most likely be left disappointed in DA:2 and feel somewhat cheated out of a richer experience.
Pros: DA:2's combat is faster and flashy-er than the original. Despite this they did manage to leave a somewhat tactical feel, but, you'll need to crank up the difficulty to see it. DA:2 has slightly better graphics than DA:O. Your character in this game actually has a voice which aids in the feeling of guiding a narrative.
Cons: DA:2 has been "streamlined" To Death. The wealth of options which provided Depth and some types of strategy like taking the time to fully equip each party member are gone. Conversations have been regulated to a "wheel" ala Mass Effect 2. Many of the sub quests only provide the ILLUSION of actual choice when in reality there is none. The game's difficulty is a joke and is quite laughable unless you put it on Nightmare mode. Far too many shortcuts were taken such as re-used environments and the lack of control over equipping your party except for their trinkets.
And now on with the In Depth and HONEST review....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dragon Age 2 feels much more like an "Action RPG" than a traditional RPG. The combat changes that many lovers of DA:O feared would ruin the game actually haven't ruined the game. What ruined the game was the lack of Non-Combat options which is one of the areas the original game shined at. Much of the Depth has been stripped away for no apparent reason when it comes to actual Game-Play. These "streamlined" changes didn't do anything at all to improve the game and had the exact opposite effect. The battles feel fun and exciting but with a camera that jumps around because you can't keep an over-head isometric view (even on the PC version) they can get confusing, frantic, and this lack of a proper view actually hampers spell casting at targets that are more than a screen away. Having said that though, standing on it's own as a stand alone game, for what it is, an action rpg, it does a decent job and has kept me playing for the last two nights and I imagine I'll keep playing until I finish the game at least once. Either that or until Shogun 2 hits and drags me away from all other life outside of conquering medieval Japan.
Storyline and Quests: The storytelling and quests in DA:2, while good, seem to jump around a lot which takes away from a "cohesive experience". I've had some good ones where my actions honestly did determine the outcome. I had control over how things would turn out. I've had other quests where I was only given the "Illusion" of Actual Choice. I tested this by saving it before trying a conversation, playing out the conversation, then reloading it and trying the conversation a much different way, still with the Exact Same Outcome. When I found this out it left me feeling cheated and made me wonder how many other quests this would be happening to without my knowledge because I'm not going to test every single quest in the game to find out which ones do this and which ones don't. I'd name off the specific two quests this happened to me in, but, I can't do that without explaining about the quest which would provide spoilers and it's far too soon to be giving away spoilers in a review. By only providing the Illusion of choice though, they stripped away many options that could have gave the game replayability and stripped away a layer of Depth that should have been kept intact from the original. The original game did this as well in a few areas, but, they were much harder to spot and I guarantee much fewer in implementation where it did happen in DA:O.
The Conversation Wheel: This Convo Wheel, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse to simplify things and to copy the commercial success of the Mass Effect series. The convo options given only show you the over-all gist of what your reply will be and in what tone it will be given. This can often lead to the player going "WTF, that's not what I wanted to say and I KNOW that's not the way I picked"...and in a game like this that's the last thing you want your player saying. Despite the opinion by some that this was a positive change because it helps with providing a voiced main character, in reality it detracts from the Depth of the game if you're looking for a more traditional RPG game with in depth conversations with real choice. The convo wheel could have been added and done "right" by explaining some of the replies better before they were chosen and by making sure the replies had a lasting meaning on the conversation. With a little more Depth added to the wheel, I feel this could have been a truly positive change instead of hampering and streamlining a much deeper system which it has done.
Graphics: Over-all, the graphics in DA:2 are much improved from the original, especially on the PC version where the "High Res Texture Pack" and DX11 come into play. Sadly though, even on a high end gaming rig with all the bells and whistles enabled, some of these new options actually make certain aspects of the visuals pixelate in places and once you notice those places, you spot them constantly, such as the outlines of hair on the models and objects in the background that are supposed to be blurred because of a "depth of field" option. Unfortunately this depth of field option makes some things stand out as being heavily pixelated when you look very closely. If you don't look closely though, they are hard to spot and easy to miss sometimes. DX11 does provide a whole host of new lighting effects which in many areas such as environmental lighting and spell effects makes those aspects shine. So, bottom line on the graphics, they're an improvement in many areas and a slight draw back in others. Mostly this depends on the players attention to detail. If you don't look close you'll miss them and just think the newer graphics are amazing without seeing their faults.
(pictures of this "pixelation" coming soon when I have the time to circle the areas I'm specifically talking about and get the pics up on photobucket)
Items and Equipping Party Members: The item system, like many other aspects that were loved and part of a deep, true, RPG experience, have been half bastardized in DA:2. You have full control over every piece of armor and item/trinket but Only for your Main Character. For your party members you can't change their armor....at all...and can only change their trinkets such as belts, rings, and you can change their weapons IF they're the right weapons for that character. One character, a dwarf named Varric, has a special crossbow which simply can NEVER be changed, so for him at least, even that option has been removed. When you find new gear, if it's a piece of armor of any kind, rest assured it's only going to be usable by Hawke and no-one else. There's really not much need to save any un-used items you may have saved up. Go ahead and sell them, they won't be needed if they're outside your chosen class for your version of Hawke.
For me at least, as a Hard Core RPG enthusiast, taking away the ability for me to fully control the entire load-out of my parties gear is a Big Change for The Worse. This part of the game was Dumbed Down for no good reason other than to cut down on development time and costs. For Shame Bioware...for SHAME!!! A big chunk of party management, of the Depth of it, is flat out gone.
Map Areas and Re-Used Maps: Some (granted though few) of the areas of the game look quite honestly dazzling. Other areas....not so much. Also, there are quite a few maps that get flat out Re-Used. Where you should be going to a completely new area, you get there only to find out the area is laid out exactly like another area you've previously been to. There might be some new items or loot in a chest, but those chests or sacks are hidden in the same spots they were on the cloned map from another area. It's like half way through level design they decided they had enough to work with and fired the guy who was in charge of making new environments. This is yet another area of the game where things have been overly simplified and Dumbed Down to either save on time, money, or both. Using "stream-lining" as an excuse for this doesn't fly for anyone with half a brain. It's just another part of the game where the Depth was removed for no good reason. Again I say for Shame on Bioware...For Shame!!!
Crafting Items and Potions: The crafting system was "stream-lined" as well, and Not in a good way. Now, when you find a potion ingredient, you Always Have It. It works like this. Say you find 3 Elfroot and 2 Deep Mushrooms. A potion you want to make requires exactly that count to make. Now that you've initially found that many, you can make As Many of that potion as you want, and all you have to do is pay money to a potion maker to do it, even if you your-self are a mage/alchemist. You still must pay the cost in money to make the potion, while your total count of the ingredients needed to do so Stays The Exact Same. Meaning once you've found enough of the needed ingredients, you have unlocked unlimited access to making that potion (you need a recipe to learn how to make it oddly enough, even though you're paying someone else to make it). This is another Prime Example of where a system that worked perfectly fine in the first game was Simplified and Dumbed Down for no apparent game-play reason other than to keep the player from having to hunt them down in the wild repetedly (the ingredients) or buy them from a vendor which for me added a lot of Depth to the original game.
Skills and Abilities: The skills break down into very easy to read skill trees, ala a MMORPG like WoW, only with a bunch of small trees per character. Speaking of "per character", some characters who will join you have Specific Skill/Ability trees that were designed just for them, even though another party member might be of the same class, they won't have that specific skill or ability because it was specially made Only for a certain character. Two prime examples of this are Varric and Fenris. Though Varric is a rogue, one of his skill trees revolves around his very personalized weapon. Fenris is a two handed sword wielding elf warrior who has a special skill tree because of something that happened to him which fits into his storyline so I won't spoil that. Those aren't the only two characters that have special skill trees all their own. Some of the others do as well. This wouldn't be a bad thing, except that in some cases other skills or abilities were obviously removed from their classes to make room for these custom skill sets. Again, applying limitations to what can be done with individual characters has over-all Dumbed Down the game and cut out Depth. The way this was done over-all with skills and abilities, it's a small step forward combined with a big leap backward by removing some skills. Also, if you want to "Dual Wield" a blade you MUST be a rogue. Warriors no longer have that ability at all.
Initial Ending Assessment of first 1/3 of the game: Over-all, if you can pretend there was no DA:O , or you simply never got around to playing DA:O, and if you like "Action RPGs", you'll most likely find an enjoyable experience as a whole with DA:2. It is a Fun game so far minus some of the tedium of constantly killing weak and pathetic mobs while you're dealing with the mobs leader. DA:2 does have it's charms. Particularly if you're a fan of the Mass Effect series you'll most likely get a lot of enjoyment out of the game.
If how-ever you did play DA:O and you're looking for there to be the same Depth that was in all the other options in DA:O then you're going to be sorely disappointed. While the combat changes turned out to be an over-all improvement (once the difficulty is cranked up), the rest of the experience is left lacking and wanting of the Depth that were in place when it came to item management, skill and ability management, and being able to effect many more quests and their outcomes.
In the end depending on what kind of game you're looking for and to enjoy will play the biggest role on whether or not you merely like DA:2, or love DA:2. On it's own it's a "decent" Action RPG but with nothing spectacular to write home about. When you take into account all the Depth in the various game-play options in DA:O how-ever, DA:2 comes off as a child-like experience that will more than likely just piss off players of the original game. The new combat system didn't ruin the game at all, it's the Lack Of Effort that was put into all the other aspects of the game that will leave a very bad taste in your mouth.
DA:2, so far, gets a "Raven Score" of 6/10, and that's being a little generous.
I hope you enjoyed this detailed look at what DA:2 is REALLY all about. Happy gaming my friends , RavenX
I'm with you. At first even though I liked the game it wasn't really grabbing me, but the more I go in on it the more I love it.
I'll probably run through it again when I'm done cause I found a DA1 savegame creator and (even though the game probably has other opinions) I'd like to try to do things better.
(Was waiting for some hardware to get to me or I'd probably have finished it by now.)
I'm almost through my second run through, had a Mage and Carver the first run, now going with a Warrior and Beth. Pretty fun trying to get people to either really like me, or really hate me.
And now I'm waiting for some headphones so I can do late nights without worrying about the noise
Although I suppose I should be sleeping.
Altough it's a pretty good game, I have never seen such a diversity and polarization of views regarding a Bioware game before. I'm not smart enough to figure out what that means, but I'm willing to bet that, once they get over the shock,Bioware will be giving Dragon Age 3 a lot of love and will be lobbying EA hard to give them more development time. I look at the environments for Witcher 2 and Skyrim and the longer development times really show. This is not a criticism of Bioware (they have some of the best in the business). They actually did very well with the development time that EA gave them.
*drools* Skyriiiiim.
The way I look at it G_DA is (and this might be totally off-base, but...) that Bioware spends the time when they really need to and will get the greatest returns in the long run. Baldur's Gate was a great series because they weren't just selling that game, they were selling a genre to a market that had kind of forgotten about them. They spent lots of time with ME 1 and DA:O because they weren't just selling those games, but were selling the series. Granted, I thought that ME2 was a better game than 1, but it was a good deal shorter, and most of the positive changes they made seemed to be low cost/high return ones.
I suspect (and see the disclaimer above) that the relative quality of ME and DA 3 will depend on the sales of 2 in both cases. Sadly (for us, not the investors) game development is now a well-run business that puts return on investment first. Why would they spend 1000s of additional man-hours on a game that people are going to buy and be satisfied with (as opposed to in love with) when it doesn't make business sense?
That's one of the reasons that I support Stardock to the degree that I do. A smaller company fighting for market share "has" to deliver above expectations if consumers buying their game isn't a given. Again, just a folk theory of an industry that I don't really know anything about, so take it for what it's worth.
I'm sure that EA sees it that way, but how many times have we seen companies get into trouble when they get big and successful and then forget what got them there in the first place? It takes a good CEO to say, "okay people, let's take a deep breath and take a step back." Milking a success and cashing in works for a short time, but eventually it backfires and customers lose patience.
And...
I'm not really sure? How many times have we seen this (and I'm actually being serious here)? I think what it comes down to is: what are gamers other options for high quality RPGs other than Bioware RPGs (again, being serious)?
I hated it. Finishing it became a serious chore.
I thought Origins was ok. It's no Baldur's Gate, and it was a bit dumbed down, but not terrible. I (naively) hoped that they simplified it to attract a new audience, and then in the future they might elaborate on things and show the new audience how it should be done. In reality they they made the sequel even dumber again, if not more, and the result is just a boring hack N slash. It's not even a well made one either, with all the re-using of locations over and over.. it was really dull. Very disappointed.
Obviously Bioware is long gone now, and what's left is just another EA pawn doing as they're told, and then the token Bioware name is just there to con old timers.
Ahh, yeap..Hmm...I think my auto spell checker changed the word on me there. When it's fixing stuff I just hit "next next next" lol. Maybe I should pay better attention next time..heh.
You have a definite point here, but there is another side of this picture that many of us seem to neglect during these types of discussions. The amount of people who played Baldur's Gate is relatively small compared to the amount that will play Dragon Age 2. The fact is that the gamers that have a long history with the RPG genre are slowly being outnumbered by newer gamers who simply do not have a large set of experience with which to compare. In fact, many of these new gamers would probably be ultimately unhappy with games like Baldur's Gate and the original Fallout which were designed to appeal an older pen and paper crowd that didn't mind slow and methodical game play. The truth is that the advent of the more powerful console has coincided with the decline of deep games, as these console gamers do not critically demand such depth. If one looks at games which do not take this market into account, the games have not reverted to the same levels.
Good point. Sad but true.
Exactly. You sum it up quite nicely here, Kenata, and also bring a realization I think many don't see. It's not just that the games have changed by being dumbed down and not being made with the love and care they used to be back in the day. The audience has changed. Sure those of us who grew up playing the deeper games are still around and still a very vocal part of the over-all gaming community, but, for every one of us there are two kid gamers who grew up on the twitchy console games and who crave action and don't really care about all the depth from the past because most of their generation's games haven't come close to them, so they hardly know what they're missing.
Combine that with major game corporations being "big industry" and a market that caters to the younger generation and you'll end up seeing the types of games that sell well in this generation being the games that get mass produced. Companies have learned that they don't have to cater to the old generation as much because most of the buying power comes from the parents who cater to their children's wants. The companies don't have to spend as much to make a game like CoD or MoH as they do to make a game like Starcraft 2 so they make the cheaper game to make and take in maximum profits.
I guess we can say capitalism killed intellectual gaming.
I kind of find this odd because if you look at the world as a whole, after the fall of the Soviet Union one of the newer business types that set up in Russia is game making and a lot of good studios are over there. Funny enough, most of them make Strategy Games and Simulations. Is that because of some kind of need for warfare in Russian society today? Or because they're economic market concerning gaming is different from the rest of the worlds? Unlike in the US and Japan where mostly action games and shooters are your games that rake in hundreds of millions of dollars.
I still haven't played Baldur's Gate. Or any Fallout before 3. I don't feel any terrible loss.
See!!!
lol J/K Savy
Honestly I have in all the years I have had baldur's gate I have never finished it. It was moderately painful to play.
Baldur's Gate II is where it is at. Level gain is way too slow in 1, particularly when it does not take many unluck dice rolls to get you killed in the early game.
Baldar's Gate II and Fallout 2 where fantastic games. I would love to play them again if I had the same time I did then...
Hey I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am 32 so I'm not a newbie gamer here. I just started with FPSes way too young *grin* My UDIC friends liked Ultima6/7, I liked Ultima Underworlds.
Still don't get as into the Fallout games as others seem to. 3 was good, New Vegas...don't really care about. I like what they tried to do but the setting and the frustrating bits can eat me.
No shortage of games to play whatever your preference IMO. Older games are romanticized because they were great and groundbreaking at one time, but don't age well. I still love Septerra Core. Will I ever play it again? Probably not.
So, whatever. Life goes on. Change happens. I'll stick with the new stuff unless some debilitating illness keeps me from playing.
I hate to admit to this but you are in fact correct. I loved MOO2 a lot as a younger man, and still have many fond memories of playing the game. Yet, when I really think about it, the game had significant shortcomings that if I ran into in a current game would be completely unacceptable. However, as you point out, those games were once great and groundbreaking, and it would be easy to simply say that they had a lot of undiscovered ground with which to explore that does not exist in the modern game arena. The harder truth is that those developers took chances that more often than not modern developers can't.
Well, I have all the Baldur gates, all the Fallouts, Torment, Arcanum, the Neverwinter Nights games, blah blah blah...And I still like DA2. Are there things I would change about it? Yes. Mainly gear. There is one good set per act and all the other gear is just fluff while you wait to find the pieces of the set. And you can't gear up your companions. I miss being a dwarf or Elf too.
Very true, very true indeed. We do tend to romanticize the games we loved in our youth, or even games we loved when we were older simply because they were the first of their kind that we played. We even romanticize games that were in reality pretty lame, especially when compared to modern games.
No matter how good a game is, no matter how deep or how great, it can often be impossible to live up to those earlier memories.
When it comes to Fallout 1 & 2, I think the most loved attraction to those games were their setting and on top of that all the depth it had when it came to quests and ways to complete them. Just about every quest in those games, from big storyline quests to little side quests, either had multiple ways you actually do the quest, multiple outcomes to those quests, or both, which gave those games Immense Replay Value. The same was true in Baldur's Gate 1 & 2. After playing FO2 or BG2 though, it was almost impossible to go back to part 1 of those games. Just as once you play today's games, games from the 90's almost seem unplayable and sometimes we look at them and think "how did I Ever get into liking this piece of sh!t"?
This is both true and false. It's true because devs in those days Did take some pretty big chances on almost every occasion where they were trying something new and innovative. It's false because it's not that current devs "can't", it's that the mega-corporations like Sega or EA don't "want" to spend the money taking a chance on something new when they can spend less money doing something that's already been proved to bring in high returns on an investment, like the latest big budget FPS sequel. The devs go along with it too because it often makes their jobs easier and there are lots of lazy devs out there in just about every major company who don't want to be challenged when doing their jobs.
I think Brad said something like that before I did just so I'm not trying to take credit for shiz that ain't mine.
As far as classic RPG games go they are not good because we think of them fondly. They are just good. Today they are still good if you can make yourself play with "bad" graphics.
But what was said about more people playing DA2 then BG2 is true as today there are a lot more gamers then back then.
Luckily there are still companies that make great games like The Witcher 2 and Starcraft 2 (and hopefully Diablo III).
We shouldn't exaggerate this factor, either. There was a reason we loved those games and forgot about a whole bunch of others that passed by.
When BG2 came out, there was nothing even remotely comparable to it. The very goal of the developers was to excel, and they did it. When MoM came out, same thing. It was amazing compared to everything else at the time (well, we're all still here looking for a worthy successor).
Ok, it's true I've been spoiled by modern graphics and interfaces myself, and I'd have trouble playing MoM now. But the pure, raw fun we experienced back then with those masterpieces it's not just mass delusion. Pretty graphics are pretty and we get used to them, but they can only go so far in keeping you hooked to a game.
If a game like DA2, some 10 years later after BG2, offers 1/10 of the depth and the scope of that older game - hell, it offers 1/10 of the depth of its one_year_old direct predecessor - well, people are bound to be disappointed and less prone, as the new title ages in its turn, to develop fond memories of it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account