Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.

[Honest Tiefling]

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.

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.

[Zevox]

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

[Wing]

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 , 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.

[Aux-Ash]

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.

[Nero24200]

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.

[Zevox]

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.

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

[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.

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.

[Aux-Ash]

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.

[VanBuren]

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.

[Aux-Ash]

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.

[VanBuren]

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.

[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.

[VanBuren]

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.

[Honest Tiefling]

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...

[Aux-Ash]

. 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

[ShinyRocks]

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.

[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.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Wait, who is that guy in the background up there. Is that the Architect?!

[Giggling Ghast]

Wait, who is that guy in the background up there. Is that the Architect?!

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.

[Nero24200]

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?

[Cristo Meyers]

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 ) 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...

[Giggling Ghast]

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.

[Zevox]

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.

Wait, who is that guy in the background up there. Is that the Architect?!

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.

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

[Giggling Ghast]

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.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

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.

[Psyren]

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]

[Giggling Ghast]

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.

[Cristo Meyers]

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.

[Aux-Ash]

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).

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).

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.

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.

[Zevox]

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.

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