-
Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
The second thread dedicated to Dragon Age II, the second game in the popular Bioware franchise! This is the place to discuss chest hair, blood magic, friend fiction, that goddamn Anders and how all qunari are hipsters.
Feel free to press a button and see something awesome happen, but don't bother searching for the Ruined Forever switch; we had to take it out due to over-use.
You can ask about DA: Origins here, but there's a separate thread for that.
If you're curious about the title, the following might shed some light:
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Either I missed something by not playing Origins (yet), but do Qunari decide who is in charge because of horn size? Biggest horns are best horns, obviously.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Qunari had a definite lack of horns in Origins, actually.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Honest Tiefling
Either I missed something by not playing Origins (yet), but do Qunari decide who is in charge because of horn size? Biggest horns are best horns, obviously.
Funnily enough, Horns on a Qunari were a ret-con/correction between Origins and DA II.
The only Qunari you met in Origins was Sten, who had no horns.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
What importance qunari place on horn size is not fully known, but it's likely very little. Some qunari are born without horns (like Sten in Origin) and are regarded as "special" within qunari society. Some Tal-Vashoth also remove their horns.
Keep in mind that qunari are appointed to their roles for life. The Arishok was the leader of the qunari because he was their best warrior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joran
The only Qunari you met in Origins was Sten, who had no horns.
There were Tal-Vashoth mercenaries who were hornless. Armass was a notable example. But you are technically correct, since the Tal-Vashoth are "no longer qunari."
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
You know, I've heard of that, but in three play throughs of the game I've never actually had it happen. Weird considering how many people seem to have experienced it.
I've only experienced the "2 flirts or a rebuff" sequence once so far, and it only came up because I'd flirted with the boy before. And considering the game's hatedom I've got to question how often, if at all, it comes up without flirting beforehand.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
I don't get the hatedom, honestly. Sure the game's not PERFECT, but I considered it worth the price of a pre-order.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Weird. I got it on the first playthrough with no previous flirts. Maybe the character's gender influences it? Or Anders hit on Hawkes with the nice personality?
Yeah, I forgot about the retcon. DAII really needed more models, because the Arishok was the only one who was...Well, shall we say, well endowed? Because he was the only one with a unique model.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
I like Anders. >_<
I haven't beat DAII yet, so I'll be exiting now...
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
The thread title needs to have another 2 in it - as is, it's not clear that this isn't the second thread for Origins.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
douglas
Was it inside his clinic in Darktown?
Of course. That's the only place you can have an actual conversation with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Honest Tiefling
Weird. I got it on the first playthrough with no previous flirts. Maybe the character's gender influences it? Or Anders hit on Hawkes with the nice personality?
In my three play throughs I've done two female Hawkes and one male, and had all three different personality types, so if nothing else it's not just one of those. (Though in my first play through - female sarcastic - I did flirt with him intentionally after his recruitment quest, but then broke it off at the start of part 2 when he went all emo about how Justice would cause him to hurt me.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
douglas
The thread title needs to have another 2 in it - as is, it's not clear that this isn't the second thread for Origins.
Aye, make it II-2 or something. Also, a period at the end, please. The grammar there is going to make my eye twitch every time I come here otherwise...
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Male Hawke picking the Diplomatic options is what it takes, I think.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Male Hawke picking the Diplomatic options is what it takes, I think.
Maybe. My one male Hawke had the confrontational personality type, so that would explain how I missed it anyway.
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
That can't be it, he flipped out on my Lady Hawke. I still think he'll do it if you are diplomatic either in an earlier event or try to reassure him after his first quest. Zevox may not have triggered it if his Hawke tried jumping Ander's bones without provocation beforehand.
It would be hilarious if this conversation was random.
And Pyren, don't feel bad. Anders I feel had a good concept, just a lot of lines out of place. If nothing else, different romance options/squad mates for different people.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Ok .... this game has gotten very favorable reviews, and has been mercilessly axed by users (on metacritic).
Which is it? Personally I have no problems with the game being different from DA:O, as long as the story, background fluff and gameplay is solid.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acromos
Ok .... this game has gotten very favorable reviews, and has been mercilessly axed by users (on metacritic).
Which is it? Personally I have no problems with the game being different from DA:O, as long as the story, background fluff and gameplay is solid.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that DA2 is superior to Origins. Most of the complaining from guys like metacritic users consists of idiotic "they changed it now it sucks" style complaints from what I've seen, though some users here have made more reasonable arguments as to why they personally consider it inferior to the original (but still good, in all cases I can remember).
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
Personally, I'm of the opinion that DA2 is superior to Origins. Most of the complaining from guys like metacritic users consists of idiotic "they changed it now it sucks" style complaints from what I've seen, though some users here have made more reasonable arguments as to why they personally consider it inferior to the original (but still good, in all cases I can remember).
Zevox
Thanks =)
I've tried to mentally sort the user reviews - putting the fanboi rage in one pile, and the more lucid and coherent reviews in another. There's close to 2000 tho, and there are just *so very many* with a rating of 0 or 1.
So ... I want to play more Dragon Age, but I don't want to spend money on a truly subpar game - if that is what it is.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Subpar? Definitely not. As far as I was concerned, it was Origins with more over-the-top combat animations (which I liked, and just put down to Varric's narration), a more likeable/relatable main character (purely because of the voice) amongst other stuff.
Anyone who says that it was dumbed down is missing the fact that pretty much all the tools you had in Origins (crafting aside) is there for you to use in 2.
Of course, it has its problems, most apparent ones being it's borderline character derailment of Anders and the overly reused areas - but if you hold that against it, you need to hold it against Mass Effect 1 just as much.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acromos
Ok .... this game has gotten very favorable reviews, and has been mercilessly axed by users (on metacritic).
Which is it? Personally I have no problems with the game being different from DA:O, as long as the story, background fluff and gameplay is solid.
You're going to get a lot of varying answers here but I'll add in my opinion as well.
DA:O and DA2 are fairly different games, when it comes to story, characters, and gameplay.
Now since this is a game I'll start with gameplay. Which mostly comes down to combat, in this there is little comparison to be made DA2 is faster, more vicious, and more entertaining to watch. As far as class abilities goes I think this is Bioware at it's best, every level for every class I felt like I had something new and exciting to get my hands on. But there is a tone problem to the combat. DA2 is toted as the story of a schmuck in the DA world who steadily rises to power. Unlike the more generic hero arc of DAO this was grounded in one cities politics and grime, yet the main character is shown to hit so hard the opponents literally blow up. While I like the abilities I would have preferred if the smaller scale realism was demonstrated throughout the games design. A second problem comes from how the combats are set up: also called let's find the spawning points. Simply every combat will have multiple waves of enemies that come through the same spawn points. It gets old. If they varied it up a bit the waves could have been a surprising and scary occurrence, but in DA2 they are just run of the mill.
Story then. DAO is about uniting a kingdom to stop the generic evil race of evil. The main storyline is a bit weak while the different pieces on how to get there are very interesting, such as maneuvering around dwarven politics, and trying to undermine Loghain. DA2 takes a different approach, now the main focus just isn't present. There is no set story or problem to motivate your character you either like the game and want to see it through to the end or not. However each act has it's own central storyline which are just as interesting as the best DAO missions. Personally I think the best main story mission from either game is Act 2 of DA2. The other problem a lot of folks have, beyond lack of initial focus, is that unlike DAO where you could make wide ranging decisions that affect multiple aspects of society for years to come, DA2 has far less important decisions for you to make. At times this makes it appear that your character is not really the main focus of the game, taking a back seat to the real shakers in their predestined acts of destruction.
Now to characters. I'll be upfront here, I prefer DAO's companions to DA2. I didn't really connect with any of the DA2 companions accept Varric and Aveline, several times I wished to shake/slap/or punch the other companions for their stupidity. However I am in the minority here as people seem to think that Merril is cute for whatever reason, and not a teenage she-child stomping her feet at her parent and dealing in things she has little to no understanding about because she thinks she's a big girl now, as I tend to view her as. Really this category comes down to your opinion on the matter. However another problem I have with DA2 is the new friend/rivalry system. In DAO if you say or do the wrong thing a companion can hate you, disrespect your leadership, and potentially leave. In DA2 the more a character should hate you the more they gain Rivalry points which tend to make them just as loyal as Friendship points. This leads to the awkward situation where you can spit on a guys beliefs to their face, and claim everything they know is stupid and wrong, and they will still be loyal to your every action and likely will want to get into bed with you.
And finally art design. All I have to say is this: What the hell are the Skeleton's holding? How would that weapon even work? How would you swing that thing? It makes no freaking sense. And why am I in the same cave again? I remember the entry point to the cave last time. I did not go in it again. This is lazy Bioware.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dienekes
Snip
Thank you, that was very comprehensive and helpful. Frankly, as I read it, DA2 ... isn't an rpg, but one of those action-games-with-rpg-elements. Like .... Fallout 3, which I didn't like - though mainly because the story was so bad.
I'ma get Witcher 2 instead. Everyone seems to love Witcher 2 =D
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acromos
Ok .... this game has gotten very favorable reviews, and has been mercilessly axed by users (on metacritic).
Which is it? Personally I have no problems with the game being different from DA:O, as long as the story, background fluff and gameplay is solid.
In the three games so far that have had pretty distinct differences between the critics and the users, I've always gone with the critics and never regretted it.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acromos
I'ma get Witcher 2 instead. Everyone seems to love Witcher 2 =D
Out of these two, it is definately the better game (although the final act shows that they didn't have enough time to finish it properly) and much closer to being an RPG.
Quote:
Frankly, as I read it, DA2 ... isn't an rpg, but one of those action-games-with-rpg-elements.
That's definately the feel I've got after playing the game.
Quote:
Which is it? Personally I have no problems with the game being different from DA:O, as long as the story, background fluff and gameplay is solid.
IMHO the biggest problem (storywise) with DAII is that it was supposed to be the tale of Hawke, but when you play the game, you don't feel your decisions influence anything. Most things happen no matter what you do, and if you can change something, it most certainly is a minor thing (looking on the whole picture). Dienekes pointed out the problems with gameplay and art design, so I won't repeat them.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
karpik777
IMHO the biggest problem (storywise) with DAII is that it was supposed to be the tale of Hawke, but when you play the game, you don't feel your decisions influence anything. Most things happen no matter what you do, and if you can change something, it most certainly is a minor thing (looking on the whole picture). Dienekes pointed out the problems with gameplay and art design, so I won't repeat them.
This. I felt no real connection to my character. I was playing someone else's story and not once did it feel like my own, which in my opinion is the essence of an RPG. It's why I play them.
Spoiler
Show
A third ending would have been nice at the very least. As the conflict built it became clear to me that the best way to solve it would be to kill Meredith and Orsino and take the crown of Kirkwall myself.
Plus, the entire game I anticipated the Seeker catching up with me and becoming key to the ending. Not so. She was nothing more than a framing device.
These are just two of my complaints, but hey, I've been told more than once that I'm an elitist, grumpy ol' gamer so take it for what it's worth.
Most of my gripes are about the story, not the gameplay. And I don't want to hear that I didn't understand the scope. There's nothing wrong with the scope and everything wrong with the lack of impact I felt I had on the city of which I was Champion.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acromos
Thank you, that was very comprehensive and helpful. Frankly, as I read it, DA2 ... isn't an rpg, but one of those action-games-with-rpg-elements.
Um, no, DA2 is very much so an RPG. Very little was changed in terms of fundamental gameplay from the first game, so if you consider that an RPG, there's no reason you wouldn't consider DA2 an RPG, at least not if you have a coherent definition of the term.
Edit: Heck, here's an interesting observation: DA2's gameplay is still much less action-y than another of Bioware's games that I've never heard anyone claim isn't an RPG, Jade Empire.
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acromos
Thank you, that was very comprehensive and helpful. Frankly, as I read it, DA2 ... isn't an rpg, but one of those action-games-with-rpg-elements. Like .... Fallout 3, which I didn't like - though mainly because the story was so bad.
I don't understand this sentiment. DA2 is a Western RPG.
To me, RPG elements can be divided into two parts:
1) RPG game elements
2) RPG story elements
RPG game elements is having character customization, character progression, and tactical combat options. So, in DA1 and DA2, the player can decide which class the main character is, customize gear and abilities, pause the game mid-combat to determine what they want to do. This screams RPG game elements to me.
RPG story elements is allowing the player to make meaningful decisions that impact the world, usually through dialogue and actions. DA1 and DA2 allow you to do this also, building a party with companions, influencing the world (albeit less so in DA2), and more importantly, letting you craft a consistent character with a consistent world view.
It's the same crap I heard from ME1 to ME2. ME2 streamlined a bunch of the RPG game elements, but when I play, it's the story elements that matter and ME2 got those exactly right.
-
Re: Dragon Age II: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Acromos
Thank you, that was very comprehensive and helpful. Frankly, as I read it, DA2 ... isn't an rpg, but one of those action-games-with-rpg-elements. Like .... Fallout 3, which I didn't like - though mainly because the story was so bad.
I'ma get Witcher 2 instead. Everyone seems to love Witcher 2 =D
I would not be that harsh. Now is it more action-y than DAO? Yes, it partly has to do with speeding up combat actions and getting cooler abilities.
But the RP elements are definitely still there. You can still build your character fine, and even be effective without patching different bits of it. Really for character building it's awesome. For roleplaying I definitely think you're given the options to make and act as a distinctive character. Personally I felt closer to acting with Hawke than I did with Commander Shepard partially because of the superior dialogue labeling system. I love the dialogue labeling system and hope they implement it into ME3 or DA3 or whatever other game they have. No longer will I accidentally romance someone, huzzah!
The only aspect that takes a step back from a roleplaying perspective is world spanning decisions. All games do something similar in this, on the big missions there are important choices that you are not allowed to choose. In DAO, can I not do the Joining? Can I just leave the Archdemon? Do I have to oppose Loghain? You are streamlined into acting as the game designers intended with the lure of making smaller decisions along the way, such as saving elves or werewolves, or who to place on the throne. DA2 allows you to make decisions, even important ones, but nothing nearly as earth shaking as in DAO. Now there are some times when the railroading is particularly obvious in DA2, admittedly. But I don't know how that compares to Witcher 2 because I have never played it.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
The fact that the main plot was firmly welded to things was a bit of a problem in DAII. I hope they fix this issue with DAIII. Sure, you could decide the fate of side characters, but the main plot needed a more choice to it. Maybe a lot more choice.
DAII had a lot of other issues, but I did like some features they added. Making the dialogue wheel easier to use with pictures was great. Having Hawke's dialogue change depending on what options you picked was also awesome and definitely something I hope to see again.
Through, having the main character be set is fine by me. I liked Hawke's family, and got to know most of them. (Gamlen could have used a bit more, in my opinion, but I am the sort to open every single cupboard in games in the off chance something is there.)
I am so confident in my manhood that I will admit that a single tear crawled down my stoic, square jawed face. Okay, maybe not, but I did honestly feel for what happened to Hawke's family at a certain point. Having one set main character allows more exploration of the background of that character, and their standing to be able to be programmed in the world.
I don't know if it is feasible for games to put in that many NPC conversations and have a voice over for each and every single possible choice for a main character. A part of what drew me to Hawke was the great voice acting, which I hope will continue to be present in DAIII.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Honest Tiefling
The fact that the main plot was firmly welded to things was a bit of a problem in DAII. I hope they fix this issue with DAIII.
I hope not, seeing as that "issue" is one of the things that I think was an improvement over DA:O (and most western RPGs in general). But I'm sure most of you don't want to me get into another lengthy discussion of that again, seeing as I seem to be the only one here with that personal preference in storytelling.
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Well...I honestly did not mind the fact that DAII was about Kirkwall, and some random person trying to fend off whatever feels like stabbing innocent people today. I liked the fact it was about some random nobody who basically went 'Oh ****' and fought long and hard to defend their hometown.
A plot can be like DAII, with the set pieces of...
Spoiler
Show
1. Running from Lothering
2. Earning money/place to live
3. Qunari Invasion
4. Chantry being asploded, Templar and Circle fighting
While still giving choice. I rather liked the fact that you couldn't bugger off and come back and the invasion will still be on hold, waiting for you. I liked the fact that you were defending your new home. That doesn't mean that a game has to be open world to allow choice.
Say, for the Deep Roads Expedition. Instead of only using one way to earn money for your family, they could have allowed several. Maybe instead of the Deep Roads, you did serious bounty hunting. Another option would be exploring the underworld of Kirkwall, given how many muggers are running about. Each one sorta leads to the same place, but in one you are the shady noble, the other the ruthless noble who hunts down criminals, and in the last, a fearless explorer and defeater of darkspawn. Each could easily be referenced later on in the game, and open different options. Each one might change Kirkwall in different ways, which was another issue with the game.
Personally, and I know this is an opinion few others hold, but I rather a single, changing, dynamic city to a bunch of cities and towns I pass through. I want to know the gritty details and be attached to my home more then explore. And if I do want to explore, that's what wilderness is for.
I hope I did not misinterpret what you liked about DAII.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Honest Tiefling
While still giving choice. I rather liked the fact that you couldn't bugger off and come back and the invasion will still be on hold, waiting for you. I liked the fact that you were defending your new home. That doesn't mean that a game has to be open world to allow choice.
I believe you're misinterpreting my statement (and I'm guessing that means you haven't seen my previous discussions on the matter). It had nothing to do wit the game not being an open-world sandbox - none of Bioware's game ever have been. It had to do with your inability to alter most significant events in the story (i.e. how you cannot prevent the **** from hitting the fan at the end there).
I much prefer a set story designed to explore the characters and themes important to it like a novel would than a choose-your-own-adventure-book type of story. This is why I tend to prefer JRPGs, where you either cannot change the story at all or can just choose between a few different endings (and where the main character is almost never a player-created blank slate), to WRPGs that take the more choose-your-own-adventure-book style of storytelling, which results in a much less focused, usually much less interesting story.
For instance, the options you outlined would be something I would rather not see, since then if you didn't take the Deep Roads expedition you wouldn't have the Idol introduced into the story. While that was admittedly underused and not explored much in the game as-is, I would much rather see a focused exploration of something like that and how it could impact this story and setting than a bunch of options for how to make your character become rich. (And I am hoping that it will be better explored in future DLC or Dragon Age 3 - after all, there's no way that Meridith's statue is just going to be left alone forever.)
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Ah, okay. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements. Through I have to wonder, if there were a few options of different paths to pursue, would they be appealing to you if they explored different characters? I am not trying to criticize what you find good in a game, I just want to understand better. :smallsmile:
Spoiler
Show
Say, the Deep Roads leads to the Idol, exploring Meredith and Bartand. Pursuing the underworld of Kirkwall explores a few gang leaders and their victims. Fighting bounty hunters explores why these people became bounty hunters, either due to choice, desperation, or a need for power, and why certain people want them dead out of revenge or a need for justice.
It is probably unlikely, but I can dream.
And in response to the white text...
Spoiler
Show
And now I have an image of addicted Templars trying to lick the Meredith statue.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Honest Tiefling
It is probably unlikely, but I can dream.
"Unlikely" is precisely the problem with the idea. Trying to split the writers' attentions like that is unlikely to produce a story with as much quality as a more focused one - plus it'd be hard to tie so many other stories into a single larger plotline. While this has usually been the thing that makes me like Bioware games when I usually don't much like other WRPGs - they've managed to at least make their sub-plots interesting even when the overarching story isn't - I'd rather see a more interesting and focused main story which each of the subplots contribute to, rather than some branching story that becomes very different depending on choices you make. The latter more or less just results in the writers needing to write multiple stories for one game.
Plus this also helps when it comes to introducing plot hooks for sequels. For instance, the ending to DA2 will obviously significantly impact any future DA games and DLC set after DA2's main story. It has a huge impact on the setting. But what about DA:O? The biggest plot hooks there were Morrigan's ritual, which you could turn, and the Architect in Awakening, who you could kill. Those choice options will make implementing those plot hooks in future games much more difficult, either relegating them to optional sub-plot status, forcing them to be designed in a way that your choice on the matter doesn't change events, or forcing a retcon that removes the choice entirely. No matter what, actually exploring those interesting ideas in the future becomes a problem precisely due to the options you were given. And I really don't like that, as I'd love to see full games based around those plot hooks.
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Essay ahead.
I feel like the problem I have with the changes from DA:O to DA2 is that they didn't put as much in as they took out - it was an uneven trade-off. People are right in saying DA2 had just as much depth as DA:O's story and choices; and this right here is the problem.
The choices in DA:O may not have been too meaningful, but there was a myriad of them taking place across an entire nation and several cultures. And choices don't always have to matter to be entertaining - along with the major two-sides decisions of Elves/Wolves, Mages/Templars and Bhelen/Harrowmont, there were little options like whether to let Jowan live, or the dying soldier in the Wilds, or the deserter prisoner in Ostagar, and whether to help the girl-dwarf who wanted to see the Circle, and whether to attempt escape from Fort Drakon or await rescue - and if the latter, who should rescue you, and how. It would've been excellent to have those choices make larger consequences than they did, but that was neither expected nor feasible; it was immediately enjoyable just to have the option. Not to mention all the people you can lie to, butter up, or double-cross - options sorely missed in the dialogue-wheel. In this way DA:O gave you lots of superficial choices, many on an epic scope.
The story and choices of DA2, though on par with those in DA:O, took place in the tightly closed concentric circles of Champion, Family, and City. I remember being pretty excited when they were promoting this stuff before the release, because intuitively a character should be able to make a much bigger impact to their immediate surroundings - especially their personal and home life - than to the politics of the four far-flung corners of the world. The devs stressed their departure from the typical fantasy epic, and I agreed that this was good.
Spoilers after this point.
Spoiler
Show
But those choices were just that - on par with DA:O's. There was no trade-off of 'epic' for 'depth'. We got both the superficiality of the choices as well as the additional limitation of a small sphere of influence - the worst of two worlds. Prime example is not being able to stop Bethany getting dragged away, or Carver leaving for the templars - particularly in the latter.
Sometimes it felt like the writers had geared themselves up to present a significant choice and then just gave up, like in giving us the red herring of Gascard DuPuis. Essentially I saw this as a test of faith - how far were you willing to give this man the benefit of the doubt? But ultimately, this decision had no impact on Leandra's fate (which was ridiculous, by the way). There is even an option to allow DuPuis to magically help you track down your mother. If the option to let DuPuis live and help had saved her life, that would've been a brilliant reward for seeing the best in people, and a lesson on the moral ambiguity of magic in both ruining and saving lives. I'm almost convinced that was how the story was meant to go in its original conception. But as it stands, you will never get there in time to save her, all blood mages are lying and evil, and it doesn't matter who you trust.
Similarly, I expected - since we have one city instead of four to deal with - that the politics would be more complex and in-depth. The closest we got was the Qunari/Chantry conflict. It was refreshing to see a culture posed as an alternative to Western individualism and liberalism, especially in such an ambiguous way. They succeeded in making Saemus sympathetic, and Petrice a totally :smallyuk:, and the Qun was right in condemning the chaos and selfishness of a place like Kirkwall, and how it breeds the kind of decision-making that leads Isabella to plunge a city into war. It rightfully questioned our assumptions about our values as well as showing the disadvantages of a restrictive communitarian society.
Act 3 was rubbish, of course. The mage/templar conflict leaned very heavily on contemporary issues of potentially unconstitutional (or not!) terrorism legislation ongoing in nearly all the major liberal democracies. Except, of course, all this brilliant set-up is irrelevant, and which side you pick as a result of these considerations is irrelevant, because both bitches be crazy. This is not morally ambiguous in a difficult, thought-provoking, morally gray kind of way. This is morally irrelevant. Morally disco-pink.
So in these political plots, what seems to be the problem is not the plots themselves but the choices within them. The conflicts would always have borne out, much like you were always going to slay the Archdemon - you should have better things to do than play an RPG with the express purpose of avoiding its central conflicts. But what you do to get there should've been richer and more meaningful in DA2.
Ultimately, Dragon Age 2's story and roleplaying choices were in the majority not any worse than its predecessor's - but it should've been better, and in fact needed to be, in order to match the first game's epic feel and exploratory freedom. It would've been a worthy trade-off had the other side fully repaid what we lost in those areas, and a breath of fresh air in a genre dominated by "epic" and starved of "personal". The rewards of a "personal" story were those that Bioware, a group that admirably gives so much weight to its writers, had a birthright to reap - but they ultimately failed to pull it off.
For these reasons I prefer Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age 2.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
I too think DA2 is the better game and it is certainly an rpg. While it has a lot fewer story-choices, ultimately I feel that DAO gave us a lot of choices we never should have had. It let us decide not one but two monarchs, wether to prop up the greater religion or destroy a priceless artifact and three ways to settle what basically is a blood feud.
Yes, it gives the player agency... but robs the world of it. It feels, to me, like in DAO I'm the only one doing anything ever. That people can only be competent if I am involved (and on their side).
DA2 doesn't give us those choices. It props us right in the middle of those situations, asks us how our Hawke feels about it. Gives us something to work for. But ultimately, there's more people than us doing stuff. We get to decide what we feel and what we want to do, but we never get to decide what happens.
And I, personally, think it's much much better.
Not because I dislike choices. But because ultimately, there's only one character that I should control. The protagonist.
I shouldn't been allowed to decide who rules the dwarves. I should be allowed to say my meaning and work for those I want to support, yes. But not decide whom gets to be king. The assembly should have.
Not even Loghain felt like he did anything at all outside of cutscenes. The only time I felt I wasn't the one deciding the future of the world (as opposed to influencing/working hard for it) was in the circle tower, there it was Gregoir and Irving that actually decided.
I think perhaps DAO spoiled us a bit with choices we never should have had, and then removed them for the sequel. Which is why the rpg aspect might feel less to some.
In a way. DAO lets you change the world the way you want, but ultimately you can only succeed at it. DA2 sets up situations where you can decide what you want to do, do everything you can to stop it... and still fail. It isn't about what you could do... but how you felt about it.
And that's why to me, it's the greater rpg.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
While I agree that some of the hatedom is exaggerated there are a few legitimate gripes in there. When playing the game I feel that there is a lot less options available than DA:O.
I'll give an example. The quest gained after meeting Isabella requires you to retrieve some crates from the docks. This first requires you to talk to the harbor master to find where the crates are then talk to the guards guarding the warehouse they're located in.
This quest annoyed me quite a bit. When you talk to the harbor master you're given 3 options - leave (which doesn't further the quest at all), threaten him or bribe him. It should be noted that threatening him does nothing since he knows you won't kill him in broad daylight in a public place, leaving you really with two options. This bugs me because in Origins you could tell this scene would allow intimidation to work if you had decent strength and took the Coercion ability, it would probably also allow some kind of bluff or persuade option. Regardless there would be more than two - one of which is don't bother with the quest.
Go to the warehouse after getting the information and you come across some guards. While you're given several options such as asking who owns the place nothing actually seems relevent. You are once again only really given two options - leave the quest or fight. Yes...that's right, kill some people in broad daylight in a public place, the very thing that you couldn't do to the harbor master.
That's just a quest example really, there are other ways in which I feel you have less options. In Origins there were two mages you could party with - Morrigan the power hungry "Do what I want to get my way" kind of mage and Wynn the level-headed "Circle life isn't so bad" mage, two radically different characters. However Kirkwall doesn't seem to house a single Non-Blood mage except maybe Anders (if he counts, he is routinely possessed by a spirit bent on destruction against his will, so in many ways he could be considered an Abomination). The only two mages you can have in your party seem to be anti-circle and anti-templar to a heavy extreme.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nero24200
This quest annoyed me quite a bit. When you talk to the harbor master you're given 3 options - leave (which doesn't further the quest at all), threaten him or bribe him. It should be noted that threatening him does nothing since he knows you won't kill him in broad daylight in a public place, leaving you really with two options.
Actually you simply didn't learn everything about that quest. Choosing to leave will further it, if you have Isabella with you - she'll suggest coming back at night and stealing a look at the manifest you need, which you can then do. Also, intimidation will work, if you have the confrontational personality type. I'd guess that's supposed to represent the kind of reputation you build - someone with the diplomatic or sarcastic personality types the guy won't believe will actually kill him openly like that, but someone with the confrontational personality type has the kind of reputation that makes him believe the threat could be genuine, and he'll thus crack then and there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nero24200
Go to the warehouse after getting the information and you come across some guards. While you're given several options such as asking who owns the place nothing actually seems relevent. You are once again only really given two options - leave the quest or fight. Yes...that's right, kill some people in broad daylight in a public place, the very thing that you couldn't do to the harbor master.
Again, I'm pretty certain there are more options there, though my memory is hazier. I think one of them may be, once again, returning at night, when those guards won't be around, and I think there was also a way to talk your way past them, you just only got one shot at it. (Edit: checking the wiki, it mentions you can trick the guards into leaving, though if you have Merril in the party you'll end up fighting because she'll mess up your attempt at lying to them.)
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Nothing you do matters. Whether you get there quickly or not, whether you use magic or old-fashioned sleuthing, you will ALWAYS be just too late Spoiler
Show
to save your mother.
I don't see that as a "realistic" choice stemming from only controlling the protagonist. If it was, there should have been a difference between the route that gets you there fast and the route that doesn't.
And where was my neutral choice in the endgame?
Spoiler
Show
Meredith: Hawke, the mages have all gone rogue, we must eliminate them.
Orsino: What? She's crazy, it's the Templars that need to be wiped out!
Hawke: I should go.
Orsino: Wait, what?
Meredith: But... but who's going to decide the victor?
Orsino: Well, now I just don't feel like it anymore.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Nothing you do matters. Whether you get there quickly or not, whether you use magic or old-fashioned sleuthing, you will ALWAYS be just too late
Spoiler
Show
to save your mother.
To be honest, I'd argue that this was in fact the main point of that quest. That simmering realisation that despite the best you can do... it's still not enough. Spoiler
Show
That feeling of: "No... nonononononono..." as you realise who the woman in white is.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aux-Ash
To be honest, I'd argue that this was in fact the main point of that quest. That simmering realisation that despite the best you can do... it's still not enough.
Spoiler
Show
That feeling of: "No... nonononononono..." as you realise who the woman in white is.
Which would have been fine if real choice had existed elsewhere. Without that, it just feels like another slap in the face.
Dragon Age II is an exercise in fatalism.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Which would have been fine if real choice had existed elsewhere. Without that, it just feels like another slap in the face.
Dragon Age II is an exercise in fatalism.
There were plenty of choice elsewhere. All on a personal level, sure. But plenty of choice.
Feynriel's future depends on your choices. Who you bring with you to the deep roads have three different outcomes depending on your choices. You can support or oppose Petrice's plan. That's just a couple of examples.
Just because theyre not big and world changing does not mean they don't exist or that they aren't meaningful.
DA2 isn't fatalistic, you're just involved with people who have a whole lot more people backing them in the big decisions.
And need I remind you; there was no neutral option in DAO either. In any choice.
That said... I did find act 3 a bit short and lacklustre. It had so much potential to be just as good as act 2, if it only had been quite a bit longer.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aux-Ash
There were plenty of choice elsewhere. All on a personal level, sure. But plenty of choice.
Feynriel's future depends on your choices. Who you bring with you to the deep roads have three different outcomes depending on your choices. You can support or oppose Petrice's plan. That's just a couple of examples.
Just because theyre not big and world changing does not mean they don't exist or that they aren't meaningful.
DA2 isn't fatalistic, you're just involved with people who have a whole lot more people backing them in the big decisions.
And need I remind you; there was no neutral option in DAO either. In any choice.
That said... I did find act 3 a bit short and lacklustre. It had so much potential to be just as good as act 2, if it only had been quite a bit longer.
Big difference. In DA:O, none of those scenarios were the "big choice", and it was made very clear from the beginning that you needed help to fight the unstoppable evil that will kill everything. You needed to pick sides, because it was clearly laid out that you needed at least one of the sides to help you. Not so in DA2. In this game, the sides aren't means to an end but the end in themselves. There's no convincing reason that I can't just skip town or refuse both sides. Even if that means I have to take them both on, it would be nice to have that.
Of course, what that says to me isn't that it's a failing of game design. After all, But Thou Must is fairly common and at least necessary to BioWare's style of game. So I suspect that it's an issue of writing, in that I didn't find the railroading believable in the endgame, and while the concept of the aforementioned suckerpunch was good, the execution just left me feeling cheated.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
I think its a choice between Depth and Breadth. Breadth allows you to run off and leave Kirkwall to its fate, Depth would (hopefully) make Kirkwall interesting by providing little details regarding the areas, people and history. Just seems like different styles of play to me.
I think the idea is that Hawke is unwilling to leave Gamlen, Leandra, and Bethany/Carver behind. Even if Hawke is not on good terms with all of them, they are also held to the old family name. I think that was the idea of it, but it could have used some exploration so it doesn't feel like Hawke is just too lazy to move.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Honest Tiefling
I think its a choice between Depth and Breadth. Breadth allows you to run off and leave Kirkwall to its fate, Depth would (hopefully) make Kirkwall interesting by providing little details regarding the areas, people and history. Just seems like different styles of play to me.
I think the idea is that Hawke is unwilling to leave Gamlen, Leandra, and Bethany/Carver behind. Even if Hawke is not on good terms with all of them, they are also held to the old family name. I think that was the idea of it, but it could have used some exploration so it doesn't feel like Hawke is just too lazy to move.
I don't think Hawke is really worrying about Leandra at that point, and there's good chance that his siblings are with the Grey Wardens by then. Even still, the writing should have really established that.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Spoiler
Show
Yeah, well...I was too lazy to put in spoilers. So mommykins does die, but I guess Hawke likes the family crest and stuff? But agreed, there needed to be more of a reason. If a game is going to be so limited to one area, I think it is best if it really establishes that one area
Like Potion Lady. Whatever her name was. Seemed weird that she was either buddy buddy with you or horribly snarky (I couldn't tell which) and then never seemed to say anything later...
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
. Not so in DA2. In this game, the sides aren't means to an end but the end in themselves. There's no convincing reason that I can't just skip town or refuse both sides. Even if that means I have to take them both on, it would be nice to have that.
Oh there I can agree with you to some extent. The only reasons is that it's happening now and you might have a sibling in danger. But overall I agree that there's a lack of a proper buildup to the endgame. Act III really needed to be longer.
Spoiler
Show
A proper become-the-viscount questline in a couple of steps would have been proper methinks. As well as more evidence and hints of Orsino's foul play.
And not being forced too fight them both as bosses, regardless of whom you side with.Meredith as last boss had been fine to me if Orsino had been replaced with say... another templar
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Still only on Act 2 on my first playthrough, so trying to avoid spoiling myself, but I have two gripes.
On the 360, the text is even more illegible than Mass Effect 2 if you don't have a high-def TV. I'm picking one up soon, I expect, but it still bugs me.
Also bugs me: putting the DLC achievements together with the main game ones so that I can't 'complete' the game without doing them. I haven't got Sebastian and wasn't really intending to, but the completionist in me demands it.
I know it's not the first game to do this, but having looked at all the other achievements, they seem eminently doable. I don't try for 100% on most games (including any that require online play because it's just not my thing) so it's annoying to see it and I think 'I could do all those!' but still have to fork out for an extra character who looks like he'd just annoy me anyway.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
So, there's a new DLC for Dragon Age II, and it's coming out soon.
I think it looks pretty good so far from what we see. The story seems interesting enough, and leaving Kirkwall is always a pluss. And hopefully that means new map designs. Wondering how long it will be though.
Although I probably won't buy it right away. Mainly because I want to do a DA:2 playthrough with a DA:O save imported, and use that save to play the DLC, but that's just me.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Wait, who is that guy in the background up there. Is that the Architect?! :smalleek:
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Archpaladin Zousha
Wait, who is that guy in the background up there. Is that the Architect?! :smalleek:
Looks a bit like him, doesn't it? But I don't think that's him. I won't rule out a connection to the Architect, however.
I'm going to throw out a theory ...
Spoiler
Show
That's one of the ancient Magister Lords, one of the first darkspawn.
I'm all up for defeating ancient evils, so I'll probably get it.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
snip
Isabella wasn't in my party. It seems a bit much to cut out the only other options if a specific member isn't in your party. Besides it's the logic behind it as well.
"You won't get an option to kill me because it's too public, but these others are fine to kill in public". If choosing only nice options didn't allow for violent options why do I still need to initiate a fight?
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Candle Jack
Looks a bit like him, doesn't it? But I don't think that's him. I won't rule out a connection to the Architect, however.
I'm going to throw out a theory ...
Spoiler
Show
That's one of the ancient Magister Lords, one of the first darkspawn.
I'm all up for defeating ancient evils, so I'll probably get it.
Connection, maybe, but it's definitely not him. Part of the Architect's face is warped, it's why he wore a mask. This guy's eyes are where they should be.
Eh, first DLC (not counting the Item Packs :smallsigh:) is usually a given for us. I know it's kinda like saying "maybe this hot iron won't burn me when I touch it" but we usually give them a chance before writing off the rest of them.
Though with some of the crap we got for Origins, heaven knows I'm tempted to...
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Return to Ostagar was the only DLC I thought was a bit lacklustre, though it's always fun slicing up darkspawn. I played it once I gained all the treaties, so it was a bit of emotional closure for my PC.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
C-Lam
So, there's a new DLC for Dragon Age II, and it's coming out soon.
I think it looks pretty good so far from what we see. The story seems interesting enough, and leaving Kirkwall is always a pluss. And hopefully that means new map designs. Wondering how long it will be though.
Although I probably won't buy it right away. Mainly because I want to do a DA:2 playthrough with a DA:O save imported, and use that save to play the DLC, but that's just me.
Huh, that page tells us remarkably little. I think I'll wait until more information is available before I decide whether to pick it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Archpaladin Zousha
Wait, who is that guy in the background up there. Is that the Architect?! :smalleek:
I don't think so. The Architect has a pretty distinct, oddly warped face. That character just looks like a cross between a rather brutish human and a darkspawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nero24200
Isabella wasn't in my party. It seems a bit much to cut out the only other options if a specific member isn't in your party. Besides it's the logic behind it as well.
"You won't get an option to kill me because it's too public, but these others are fine to kill in public". If choosing only nice options didn't allow for violent options why do I still need to initiate a fight?
First, you don't need to initiate a fight - as I said, there are ways around that.
To answer your question about the logic though, it's because your threat with the first guy was just a bluff. Killing an assistant to the docks' manager in the middle of his workplace, surrounded by witnesses no less, wouldn't get you the answers you were trying to get out of him, and would get you all sorts of trouble. Killing some rather shady guards in a back alley corner who are all that stand between you and the warehouse you need to enter, on the other hand, is less risky (as far as law enforcement troubles go) and does accomplish your objective of getting into the warehouse. The assistant just calls your bluff if you don't have the reputation to back it up.
Zevox
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Of course, that could be the Architect's new appearance. Possibly.
EDIT: I guess that squat, muscular creature with the skull-face and the shield is the new genlock. Well, colour me impressed. Dude's been working out.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Candle Jack
Of course, that could be the Architect's new appearance. Possibly.
EDIT: I guess that squat, muscular creature with the skull-face and the shield is the new genlock. Well, colour me impressed. Dude's been working out.
They sort of previewed it in Dragon Age Legends when you encountered genlock enemies. Though there they didn't use shields and such, and instead moved like gorillas.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Okay - still in Act 1, so I'm stepping warily around the spoiler minefield, but I'm far enough in that I can start commenting on this game vs. DA:O.
Positives: Adding a voice to Hawke was hands-down a great move by Bioware - it's really drawing me into the game. Especially since they took it a step further than Mass Effect, and gave you what I'll call a "latent personality."
I'll explain what I mean: In DA2, if your Hawke tends to pick the same kinds of reply/tone in conversations repeatedly, he will use that tone when addressed even without player input, or where the tone of a given conversation option isn't set in stone. Mass Effect had a little of it, but nowhere near the depth of it that this game does.
A couple of spoiler-free examples (spoilered instead for length):
Spoiler
Show
My Hawke - a mage, naturally - is going the very honorable/diplomatic, "Paragon-ish" route. What really clued me in that this was going on was when I took control of one of the other party members (I believe it was Varric, to disable a trap at one point) and decided to try to talk to Hawke to see what would happen. I didn't expect to get any kind of answer from him since his personality is supposedly a blank slate until the player sets it with conversation options.
Imagine my surprise when Hawke started spouting lines like:
"Let's make Kirkwall a better place for everyone."
"There is no time to delay! We have much to do!"
"When in doubt, run away, and let ME handle it."
Needless to say, my inner Paragon was squeeing at this point, because those are exactly the kinds of things I would have had Hawke say in a conversation. I have no doubt that being a bastard or a jokester would provoke different sound-bites from Hawke.
Then there was a side-quest where I had to rescue a runaway half-elf apostate from some slavers that had "rescued" him themselves, and planned to sell him off to Tevinter. When my party stormed the room, the slaver pulled a sword on the boy and told us to surrender or he'd kill him. One of the response options was "I'll risk it" with the combat icon so I couldn't tell the tone, but I decided to try it (as common sense said they were just bluffing and wouldn't kill their meal ticket) to see what Hawke would say. I was expecting Hawke to say "go ahead!" possibly with a racist slur thrown in and that I'd have to reload my save. Instead, my Hawke called the bluff by saying "Go limp; I will not let him harm you" - getting the message across in a very paragon way.
So yeah, big, big points for immersion from DA2.
The other big pro is the combat. I'll never get tired of the new attack animations, particularly for mages and rogues. Combat feels a lot more dynamic. It's lost a bit of strategy though; pretty much every ability has a cooldown now, so you're pretty much just rotating through your repertoire once everything is on cooldown, repeating attacks until the enemies die. You'll need more strategy at the higher difficulty levels, but I'm not about to play those on the console version; all the pausing is annoying enough on Normal without having to carefully set up shattercombos to beat the enemies too.
Negatives: The inventory/customization system. Yeah it's nice that you don't have to put armor on your party members (meaning as soon as I get any helms, plate, greaves etc. that they head right to the vendor bin), but I'm already tired of Anders' feather boa and Aveline's guard digs, and its only Act 1. At least let us find whole suits we can swap their armor out with if you want to keep companion gear simple, while still letting us feel like our party members aren't wearing symbiotic auto-improving nanosuits.
And the other problem I have with the inventory is the sheer amount of JUNK you find EVERYWHERE - and it ALL takes up bloody space. If you ever forget to hit that Y button when you stop at a shop - hell, if you forget to shop at all for longer than two quests in a row - your bags will full faster than you can say "omnigel." Sure it's easy to get rid of, but even dropping a page of the stuff barely nets you a few silvers, at least at the point in the game I'm at. Was it really necessary to code in that much crap?
That was a minor quibble though. In truth I find the system simpler than DA:O, I just think the solution they chose was a bit clunky. The bigger problem I have is the pacing.
I'm in Act 1, getting ready for that Deep Roads expedition, supposedly so I can duck some Templars who may have gotten wind there's an illegal mage running around Kirkwall righting wrongs. Or at least that's what Carver told me at the start of the Act, and that issue seems never to come up again. There are no Templars asking suspicious questions, no wanted posters, no sense of pressure at all. Even molasses-Oblivion did a better job at making me feel like something was at stake, even if they only did it by opening a few random hellgates in the countryside that nothing ever came out of if I started dallying. But not Kirkwall - I can walk right into the gallows in robes and staff, chat up the Templars, kill some while recruiting a party member, and cast spells in front of more (including Cullen - yes, THAT Cullen!) all without feeling the slightest bit of urgency or fear. I presume if you're not a mage, the same excuse is given, but only for Bethany? Coupled no doubt with the same lack of hurry. And the quests themselves have no rhyme or reason to them. I'm playing with a walkthrough, not because the quests are hard to follow, but because I hate to have to visit the same area of town 10 times because I didn't grab the quests in the most optimal order. DA:O didn't have this problem - you went somewhere, cleared it out, got the treaty signed by [survivor], and moved on. Clear goals, clear progression, and urgency from the impending Blight.
All in all, I think DA2 is an improvement. I just hope DA3 has a much clearer focus.
[/essay]
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
I agree with your points, Psyren. I don't know how anyone can complain about the dialogue system in DA2, which is quite frankly amazing.
While your second point has some credence, I will note that in regards to Bethany …
Spoiler
Show
... if you don't take her on the Deep Roads expedition …
Spoiler
Show
... the templars come and haul her away. :smallfrown:
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
The Junk system kinda bothered me too, until I realized that really all they did is start calling all the useless crap you inevitably acquired through the adventure "junk" instead of giving you yet another piece of armor/weapon that is completely outclassed by what you already have.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
It's lost a bit of strategy though; pretty much every ability has a cooldown now, so you're pretty much just rotating through your repertoire once everything is on cooldown, repeating attacks until the enemies die.
I find this an interesting thing to point out. In this regard, there's no difference whatsoever to Origins. They were on cooldown then too. You rotated through your repertoaire then too. The only real difference being that the cooldown is now shorter, so you spend less time just doing autoattack.
I can understand it feeling differently... but less strategical? The only thing they took out of the combat system is dead time. In fact... given the combos... I'd argue that it's far more critical to make sure connected abilities are off cooldown roughly at the same time... adding a cooldown management layer to strategy (for more classes than just mages).
Quote:
The inventory/customization system. Yeah it's nice that you don't have to put armor on your party members (meaning as soon as I get any helms, plate, greaves etc. that they head right to the vendor bin), but I'm already tired of Anders' feather boa and Aveline's guard digs, and its only Act 1. At least let us find whole suits we can swap their armor out with if you want to keep companion gear simple, while still letting us feel like our party members aren't wearing symbiotic auto-improving nanosuits.
While I agree with you. Adding several swappable suits of unique outfits for the companions demands quite a bit of resources. I don't think it's really feasible to expect it to go beyond the "nice to have"-category (and thus very low priority).
Quote:
And the other problem I have with the inventory is the sheer amount of
JUNK you find EVERYWHERE - and it ALL takes up bloody space. If you ever forget to hit that Y button when you stop at a shop - hell, if you forget to shop at all for longer than two quests in a row - your bags will full faster than you can say "omnigel." Sure it's easy to get rid of, but even dropping a page of the stuff barely nets you a few silvers, at least at the point in the game I'm at. Was it really necessary to code in that much crap?
This is a case of a compromise. The community is split in people that loves loot and people who think it is unneccessary with useless items. One group wants to see lots of stuff to sort through, one would rather just have the money. So they made the Junk system... a soloution that satisfied neither side.
Amusingly though... many of the "junk" items of DAO can be found as junk in the later game. Including many of the weapons that would invariable be sold at first opportunity.
Quote:
There are no Templars asking suspicious questions, no wanted posters, no sense of pressure at all...But not Kirkwall - I can walk right into the gallows in robes and staff, chat up the Templars, kill some while recruiting a party member, and cast spells in front of more (including Cullen - yes, THAT Cullen!) all without feeling the slightest bit of urgency or fear.
This is because of Bioware having it to be almost sacrosanct never to inconvenience the player.
Yes, if the game adhered to the lore fully you wouldn't be able to fight a single fight without the templars swarming the place a couple of minutes later. Your home would be stormed at first notice. Your family probably arrested or killed.
Not only would it massively derail the plot and punish you from picking mage, but even if they allow you to survive it.:They'll still firmly and utterly place the Templars in the camp of Antagonists and Enemies. And a big part of the game is that this is at leat a little ambigous.
In a way... it's kind of asking for something you don't want, since the easiest way to get the templars to react the mages "properly" is to remove -all- mage options for the player.
Because the way the game is designed and the lore is built up... you either handwave why the templars don't notice you, make mages unplayable and unrecruitable or make a separate game entirely for mages.
Just like we never suffer disease or have to suffer our character staying home with a broken leg for weeks, never get arrested for comitting violence inside the city walls and other logical and realistic restrictions... you don't get boarded up in the Gallows as a mage.
Because it restricts your freedom in the game as a player.
And it's nothing new... it's just like that the party could have Bastila with her lightsaber in hands running about on Taris in KotoR, that you never get sick in NWN or that you cannot be lost in Sloth's dreamprison or possessed in DAO.
-
Re: Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Negatives: The inventory/customization system. Yeah it's nice that you don't have to put armor on your party members (meaning as soon as I get any helms, plate, greaves etc. that they head right to the vendor bin), but I'm already tired of Anders' feather boa and Aveline's guard digs, and its only Act 1. At least let us find whole suits we can swap their armor out with if you want to keep companion gear simple, while still letting us feel like our party members aren't wearing symbiotic auto-improving nanosuits.
I don't think that was to keep the gear "simple," but rather for the purpose of giving the companions each unique looks, as opposed to the interchangeable generic armor most of them spent most of the first game wearing. Bioware just decided against a gameplay-story separation deal where you could alter their equipment without it impacting their appearance. Personally I'd probably prefer that alternative myself, but given the choice between DA1 and DA2's approaches, I'll take DA2's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
And the other problem I have with the inventory is the sheer amount of
JUNK you find EVERYWHERE - and it ALL takes up bloody space. If you ever forget to hit that Y button when you stop at a shop - hell, if you forget to shop at all for longer than two quests in a row - your bags will full faster than you can say "omnigel." Sure it's easy to get rid of, but even dropping a page of the stuff barely nets you a few silvers, at least at the point in the game I'm at. Was it really necessary to code in that much crap?
I agree there. For as annoying as filling your inventory with useless loot could be in 1, at least there you could sometimes randomly find a useful item, or at least an item worth more than a handful of coppers. All the "junk" items in DA2 are worthless for anything but selling and don't even sell for much, which is much more annoying.
Edit: Trailer for Dragon Age: Legacy (the recently announced DLC).
My reaction: meh. Like all too many video game trailers these days, it comes across as just a generic action movie trailer to me. I think I've become inured to those.
Zevox