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:

Spoiler

Show

http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/comics/2011-04-18.jpg

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.

Qunari had a definite lack of horns in Origins, actually.

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.

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."

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.

I don't get the hatedom, honestly. Sure the game's not PERFECT, but I considered it worth the price of a pre-order.

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.

I like Anders. >_<

I haven't beat DAII yet, so I'll be exiting now...

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.

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

Male Hawke picking the Diplomatic options is what it takes, I think.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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