So Dragon Age 2 is really bad on the PC and consolized?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
Bioware forums are locking down threads critical of DA2, whether they are troll threads or threads that have constructive criticism, while keeping threads that praise DA2 open:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/520-bioware-locks-critical-posts-alleges-spam

Some petty fucks started spamming threads with spoilers in the titles. It's obvious that there is a significant minority of people out there who hate the game and are determined to spread their misery to as many people who are just trying to enjoy the game as possible. It's pretty pathetic.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
Someone on the Bioware forums had their account suspended for criticizing EA and the game. Not only can't they post, but they can't even activate the game with that account, so they can't use any of the "special" items they had earned on that account. No idea if they IP banned him or not. A Bioware employee named Stanley Woo posted a response saying that it wasn't an error, and that people need to follow the forum rules.

What...

http://img858.imageshack.us/img858/1294/1299800415220.png
 

NoSoup4You

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2007
1,253
6
81
It'll be interesting to see which direction they go in for the inevitable DA3. It's not hard to imagine them streamlining even further - auto-leveling with you only getting to pick a talent/spell each time, full sets of body armor instead of mix and matching Hawke's boots/gloves...etc.

I could see all that and more for the sequel...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,739
31,104
146
True. I have heard people say DA:O took them 30 hours, when it took me nearly 60, and that is without any DLC.

I played DAO through 1 and ~0.7 times so far, (including stone prisoner and the Warden's Keep castle thingy DLC), completely skipped the Mage's Tower mission (god bless that mod!) on the second play through--as a mage! lol--and Steam says I've logged 125 hours at that point.... :eek:D:
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,958
1,269
126
I've put a few hours into this game and can already tell it's not up to Bioware's usual standard.

Oh well. They had to make a dud sooner or later.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,739
31,104
146
Ya, it was called Mass Effect 2.

Shut your WHORE MOUTH!

No really, I thoroughly enjoyed ME2 up until the final mission--having my heart ripped out at the realization that the game is suddenly over, after the storyline just starts, more or less.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,958
1,269
126
AT least Mass Effect 2 took you around the universe a bit and had interesting companions. Dragon Age 2 seems to just take place in some bleak stone city for 40 hours.
 

sticks435

Senior member
Jun 30, 2008
757
0
0
Well, EA has offically put the smack down on Bioware. IGN did an interview with the composer and he admits he had to rush the score because EA wanted to get the game out to capitalize on DA:O success.

I know there are a few bugs that still need to be fixed. Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job. EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now.

Rest of article here: http://music.ign.com/articles/115/1154594p1.html
 

NYHoustonman

Platinum Member
Dec 8, 2002
2,642
0
0
It worked very well in DA:O

If you mean your ability to attack enemies as a melee character... It really didn't. You had to mess around with positioning not in any realistic way, but rather to overcome for the fact that the pathfinding couldn't figure out any of the small movements on its own.

I don't like the jumping around in DA2 either - maybe if they decreased the range? - but playing as a melee character in the original was sometimes more tedious than it needed to be.
 

zerogear

Diamond Member
Jun 4, 2000
5,611
9
81
I don't believe that this game is that bad. In it's own merit, it's actually a good game. But I think what kills the game is that there isn't the same amount of character development that fleshed out the characters and made them lovable like in DAO. Like for me, I'm 8 hours into the game, and I still don't give a shit if my main character (and all the accompanying character) dies in a ditch somewhere. Especially since I just finished DAO replay to get ready for DA2 -- makes me wish that this game (DA2) didn't exist.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,202
216
106
I don't believe that this game is that bad. In it's own merit, it's actually a good game. But I think what kills the game is that there isn't the same amount of character development that fleshed out the characters and made them lovable like in DAO. Like for me, I'm 8 hours into the game, and I still don't give a shit if my main character (and all the accompanying character) dies in a ditch somewhere. Especially since I just finished DAO replay to get ready for DA2 -- makes me wish that this game (DA2) didn't exist.

It really didn't have to exist, there are some games out there, old and new alike that got a sequel for them, and it should have never happened, unfortunately even a failed sequel has to happen to be able to realize that it wasn't necessary, or else we'd wonder what it'd be like if a sequel for a good game would be made. Let's face it, if DAO never had a sequel to this day and if BioWare still wouldn't have talked about making one at all then what do you think most fans would think or even cry for, that's right, a sequel.

I still think that lots of people out there are doing what they shouldn't do, and others aren't doing what they should do. In BioWare's case I think that they are doing what they shouldn't do, I.E making sequels to games that don't need one. I mean DAO wasn't made with a trilogy or a series in mind, was it? They just realized after its great success overall that "hey guys, let's sit down in this room and let's brainstorm about what it'd be like to make a sequel for this"... and here we are, we have a sequel for DAO that in fact might have nothing to do with the original (I'd have to play it to make sure about that one, which I will, eventually, I'll wait for a price reduction).

Personally I don't understand why a development team, video game artists, would want to change a working and appreciated formula for a new one. I would change a formula if I knew and if it was obvious that the one in place isn't working well however, that would make sense. But why oh God why are people like those at BioWare who actually wanted a DAO sequel thought "ok, let's streamline the whole thing guys, it's a great idea!"... HOW can ANY one right in their mind come up with something like that exactly? Why LESS character development? Why having to stay inside a single city for MOST of the game's duration?

But, hey, they released a high-resolution textures pack, so it's alright, right? I only hope that Mass Effect 3 won't be worse than ME2. I can live with "just" Dragon Age: Origins without a problem... but I wouldn't be able to sustain the "loss" of the Mass Effect franchise due a failed finale, please BioWare don't butcher ME (yes, pun intended).
 
Last edited:

sticks435

Senior member
Jun 30, 2008
757
0
0
Fuck EA, Fuck Bioware for selling out.
Yup. What's even better is in the original thread at Bioware, the 2nd post is Stanley telling the OP to stop trolling. For posting factual information. They have sunk to a new low.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
this thread is making me feel bad for liking DA2 more than DAO... if nothing else, I'm not getting prompted by NPC's to buy DLC every 10'.

on the actual subject of gameplay, has anyone run it without a tank? or at least, without a sword/board tank. I really can't stand Aveline. thinking about respec'ing Carver or Fenris for defender (with enough points in warmonger for taunt (+improvement) and having them 2H tank.
 

Anneka

Senior member
Jan 28, 2011
394
1
0
this thread is making me feel bad for liking DA2 more than DAO... if nothing else, I'm not getting prompted by NPC's to buy DLC every 10'.

on the actual subject of gameplay, has anyone run it without a tank? or at least, without a sword/board tank. I really can't stand Aveline. thinking about respec'ing Carver or Fenris for defender (with enough points in warmonger for taunt (+improvement) and having them 2H tank.

Everyone has its own tastes from food to games. But if you like it play and replay whenever you want :D
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Eurogamer have an interview with BioWare's Mike Laidlaw: A defence of Dragon Age II.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-10-biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview .



Eurogamer: What do you say when people accuse Dragon Age II of being a console game?

Mike Laidlaw: There may be some element of... I guess it's fear that if the PC has certain capabilities and they're not being used 100 per cent of the way then the game must have inherently had things removed because of that. I can understand that. I paid a fair amount of money for my gaming rig and I love to be able to crank it up and push it up. But the simple truth is that PC gaming has never been a platform of a single hardware spec. You've always had to support both lower-end and higher-end PCs. You don't want to design a game that cuts out everyone except the guy who bought his computer this month.


Anyway pretty good read and lot of good questions thrown at him.

I disagree with some of his statement about lower spec PCs,you can't wear amour on your characters with lower spec PCs?...yeah I know why they did that because of cinematic scenes and to save time,also I don't like how the icons look too console like,older ones in DAO are better,crafting was dumbed down why?..don't say it won't run on lower spec PCs,point is his argument is not valid for a lot of stuff they changed in DA2.



Eurogamer: Are you happy with the reviews of Dragon Age II?

Mike Laidlaw: I am. What we're seeing is a pretty wide range; I've seen perfects, I've seen less than perfects. There are some things I think that are certainly fair criticisms: the re-use of the levels is something we knew was a bit of a risk, but we wanted to make sure there was more content rather than less, so re-using some of the spaces and coming to them again was certainly one we were careful about and tried to re-use as artfully as we could.

Main reason I see for that is it saves time,designing new buildings and areas takes longer then reusing same ones...I'm all for more content however they did remove a lot of stuff compared to DAO so is his point still valid?

Don't forget to have a look at the comments reply section below the interview,some interesting replies and as always different opinions.
 
Last edited:

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,739
454
126
this thread is making me feel bad for liking DA2 more than DAO... if nothing else, I'm not getting prompted by NPC's to buy DLC every 10'.

on the actual subject of gameplay, has anyone run it without a tank? or at least, without a sword/board tank. I really can't stand Aveline. thinking about respec'ing Carver or Fenris for defender (with enough points in warmonger for taunt (+improvement) and having them 2H tank.

I have a feeling that I'll like it more too, but it doesn't matter. I tired of DAO after a while... I think if I tried again as a mage I'd have more fun. Still, there were just so many breaks in the flow of the game. I'd be having fun, then run into something like that dream world puzzle thing where you have to switch forms and stuff. That sucked, then I heard people say they thought the dwarven area was the most boring... I haven't even gotten there yet. You mean to tell me that there's an even worse part I haven't been to yet?

I haven't been back since. I think I got maybe 1/4-1/3 of the way through it but who knows. It's just missing that edge and that exciting feel. None of the characters seem into their part and are almost as bored as I am. Just wasn't what I was looking for, but that's fine as I wasn't really the target of that RPG style. This one seems more in line of what I want.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Pace doesn't make it an action game.

Technically, while pace isn't the end-all-be-all, it is significantly important. Pace is the difference between a real time strategy game and a turn based strategy game. Pace is the difference between counter-strike and quake. Pace is the difference between a tactical turn based rpg and a hack-n-slash rpg.

Pace is pretty significant. We have to think back to the roots of games like Dragon Age. Dragon Age was originally supposed to be a "throwback" title to Baldur's Gate, which itself was a throwback title to a time when each move in the game was considered a turn to be planned and thought about. The wrong step, the wrong spell, the wrong team placement, all of these things could spell instantaneous disaster. As you speed the game up, you have to continually make it more forgiving, now you can make 5 mistakes, then 10 mistakes, soon you are just hitting the 'attack closest target' and spamming whatever attack you have without any thought toward mistakes.

A game that makes you sit and think about each move is more like a game of chess. Not only do you have to plan your current move, you have to plan the next 5 moves in advance to see if you aren't getting yourself setup for a checkmate. Games like DA2 are as far from Chess as possible, they are more like Wack-A-Mole, a throw-away arcade game meant to eat quarters from 12 year olds with short attention spans.

Note: I see that you mentioned "speed chess" earlier as some sort of exception. However, you should keep in mind that speed chess is something people do after basically mastering chess. It is a like a Quake speed run, you don't do it as a different form of game, you do it because you have mastered the activity into an art form. So let's not use speed chess as some sort of example that a highly tactical game can be extremely fast, because it is somewhat deceptive. Any time you speed something up, you lower the amount of time that can be spent on tactics.
 
Last edited:

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Speaking of pace I think something in between DAO and DA2 would of been ideal,you really don't need the speed like in DA2.

I don't think there is any other RPG that plays as fast as DA2,it may make it more exciting but feels a bit unrealistic to me(I know its only a fantasy RPG game),it feels like I'm playing as a jedi with force speed on lol.
 
Last edited:

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Speaking of pace I think something between DAO and DA2 would of been ideal,you really don't need the speed like in DA2.

I'd rather have had something paced slower and more meaningful than DAO. DAO was already a sped up BG with less tactics, less risk, fewer meaningful skills, less important inventory and equipment. I want a game where I have to think about what my party carries, what they equip, what they choose to specialize in, where they stand in my party line up, who scouts, who holds back, who is weak, who is a tank, whether to rush in or chip away, whether I need to set traps, buff or use potions. I want an RPG where I actually have to think about an encounter again. I want an RPG where having multiple saves is a necessity because your last save could be at a point where your death was already sealed 3 steps ago and you didn't even know it.

Anyone remember trying to kill antlions or whatever in the Baldur's Gate farm area? Just so you could craft incredibly heavy but incredibly useful chest armor for your team? It ruined spell casting ability, could put half your characters overweight, the monsters were nearly impossible to kill at that point but the reward was oh-so-worth-it. Anyone remember coming back to town with 2 chars dead trying to see what you can sell because you don't have enough cash to resurrect (I think that was in BG anyways)?
 
Last edited:

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
hmm glad i didn't order it.

I miss the hard core RPG's. it seems all of the new ones are so dumbed down that it takes no effort to play the game. not to mention many have so many damn cut-scenes that its more like watching a movie then a game
 

Gheris

Senior member
Oct 24, 2005
305
0
0
Well, EA has offically put the smack down on Bioware. IGN did an interview with the composer and he admits he had to rush the score because EA wanted to get the game out to capitalize on DA:O success.



Rest of article here: http://music.ign.com/articles/115/1154594p1.html

This is brutal. The major fear that I had when Bioware went with EA was that EA would have a say in when a project is "finished." This right here is proof of that happening. I don't like to be negative and I have always purchased Bioware titles without a second thought. However from this point on it's going to be "wait and see" for every title except for ME3(going to finish the trilogy).
 
Last edited:

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
This is brutal. The major fear that I had when Bioware went with EA was that EA would have a say in when a project is "finished." This right here is proof of that happening. I don't like to be negative and I have always purchased Bioware titles without a second thought. However from this point on it's going to be "wait and see" for every title except for ME3(going to finish the trilogy).

Can't say I'm surprised,Bioware was always better off before EA got to them.
 

zerogear

Diamond Member
Jun 4, 2000
5,611
9
81
I like how the interview basically tells the user "It's only bad because you can't adapt to change."