Dragon Age II

[Murdoc]

I'm with Forbin on this. It seems like the surrounding stories and narrative was way better then that Lotr garbage from the first one... which sort of made me believe the professional writers came in later and went to town on it without changing anything about the game that already had work done to it.

Time to get out, leave the grey wardens and darkspawn behind and visit those cool places we heard about from everyone else. I would have loved to do this with my first character or a blank character I could make my own again though.

[Karimi]

I think the hallmark of any great RPG has always been the side quests rather than the primary narrative. So while a great setting provides for tons of quirky sidequests (Planescape,Baldurs Gate), I think with some good writers you can get some great side quests in spite of a very mediocre and 'vanilla' primary story.

[Erkki]

Hmm... so I played the demo a bit. It's an action game with RPG controls? No thanks.

[Gwardinen]

I played the demo on the 360 earlier today, and it was pretty action heavy but I wasn't sure how much of that was due to it being the 360 version and how much is a change from the first game. That said, it didn't particularly bother me and for the most part I enjoyed the conversation and characterisation style changes - I like the new blend of Mass Effect and Dragon Age. I wouldn't be surprised if the gameplay is generally faster and more streamlined, though, as I think the first DA may well have been the glorious swansong of the hardcore traditional PC RPG.

The PC demo is in the process of downloading at the moment, because I want to play both to see which platform I want to get the game on. This is even more important because my PC is gradually getting to the point at which most games just don't run well on it anymore. I just finished playing the Shogun 2: Total War demo a bit, a game I've been anticipating for some time, and was truly saddened by how badly it performed. PC gaming really does break my heart some days.

[Lu]

I'll wait for a cheap GOTY edition, I think. I don't like the Mass Effecty dialog stuff at all. The transitions into various cutscenes are also really jarring. Not really sure that this game works as well with a more console centric focus (not on PC anyway, hurrrr). Other things I could complain about, but why bother.

Officially disappointed! I'll still play it someday, because I'm sure there is enjoyment to be had somewhere. Exploring and questing and all that!

PS.

GIANT TITS. SHAPELY ASSES.

[Erkki]

I think the first DA may well have been the glorious swansong of the hardcore traditional PC RPG.

Maybe swansong of the hardcore, but there's still The Witcher 2, Skyrim and some other RPG-s coming this year. I'll skip DA2, likely won't have time to play them all.

[Hermie]

I was actually surprised that the console and PC versions control completely different.

The PC still controls mostly like the original, pausing with space, giving commands with the number keys and then un-pausing. And you right click once to start regular auto-attack.

While on the consoles, you have direct control via sticks, while mashing the A button to attack, and the other buttons acting as hotkeys for abilities. They felt very different.

After a lot of scepticism, I am now very encouraged by Biowares ability to do both console and PC versions of games. (There's even a configuration utility that's a separate .exe. remember those?)

[Gwardinen]

Maybe swansong of the hardcore, but there's still The Witcher 2, Skyrim and some other RPG-s coming this year. I'll skip DA2, likely won't have time to play them all.

That's true, although from what I know of the Witcher 2, if you don't like the more action-focussed fighting in DA2 you may well be disappointed by that as well. For some reason Bethesda games never register in my mind when I think about traditional RPGs, but they are almost a tradition in themselves at this point so I have no idea why that is the case.

I agree, Hermie, the way both versions still play to their strengths somewhat while supporting the overall more action-y direction that BioWare clearly wants is quite impressive, whatever you think of the shift. The only thing that bothers me about the console version is that targetting is much less precise. Basically you target whatever is most central to your current camera view, and you can shift targets with the d-pad, but it will then shift again as soon as something moves or your camera moves (or so it felt). It makes manoeuvring away from other enemies while focussing on a main target (for example, when fighting the ogre) quite frustrating.

[Erkki]

That's true, although from what I know of the Witcher 2, if you don't like the more action-focussed fighting in DA2 you may well be disappointed by that as well.

No way, The Witcher is one of my favourite RPG-s ever. The DA2 demo may be non-representative, but it is way more of an action game than Witcher. Cutscene-big fight-cutscene-few lines of dialogue-cutscene-big fight-... at that point I gave up the DA2 demo.

Besides, Witcher had GOOD* controls for what it was doing. The DA2 demo feels like it's pretty much an action game, but viewed and controlled like a hardcore RPG. Which is just stupid. Graphics issues (black polygons all over the place when viewed from some angles) limited my available view perspectives so maybe I didn't experience the best way I could, though. I'll give it another shot today.

*maybe not ideal

[Gwardinen]

Ok, but what I'm saying is, if you don't like the fact that DA2 is more action-heavy than DA, you may be disappointed with the Witcher 2 because it is intended to be more action-heavy and smooth fighting than the Witcher. I'm not talking about the first game at all, I'm saying that the Witcher series is ostensibly shifting in the same way that the Dragon Age series is shifting - faster, smoother, more streamlined combat. To the point where, in all the live events the Witcher 2 has been shown at, the participants have been encouraged to play with a 360 controller no matter the platform.

[brkl]

DA was damned combat heavy. I'm not complaining if that combat moves quicker and is more exciting. Far as I can tell your tactical choices haven't been cut down at all.

[CaptainFish]

Oh man, that gypsy Egyptian (Egypsyan?) pirate lady wanted to have sex with my character*! I didn't even have to say anything, or give her a cake my dog found! GoTY.

In all seriousness, the combat did seem similar. I would've liked some waypoints, so you could, for example, move to flank, and then attack in the same pause. It was kind of hard to get a good handle because of how fast everything moves.

The camera kinda sucked. Instead of just pulling out to show the battle and allowing scrolling (DA:O did have scrolling right?), it's too close to each character such that you can't line up spells until you've moved in. Positioning and attacking was super awkward, because when I moved for flank the camera would move with my dude. I honestly don't think a zoomed out semi 3rd person view is best for a game that is about tactical battle, let me pull it all the way back.

The dialog stuff seemed alright. I like having a voiced character. I assume in the full game (or in a manual) they'll actually describe what each tone icon means. One of them was just a purple gem. Does that represent greed? Or a gem of a line? An offer to play Bejewelled?

I'm wondering if this game will have a campfire/Normandy hub equivalent.

* Did I mention my character was a lady at the time?

[Hermie]

I interpreted the gem as "hardened", at least when looking at the lines.

Also, it seems like the EA marketing team got a hold of some of the character design. Flemeth went from this, to this, and Isabella (pirate chick) from this to this.

(Isabella's design in general actually looks slightly better, more distinct, but she seems to have way more in the Department of T&A.)

I can see why they went for a more Mass Effect route in the story, with the voice acting and dramatic opening and all, but I still find human characters bleghboring compared to playing as something completely different in fantasy and sci-fi games.

In fact, I really don't get people that pick human in RPGs, because their description and stats are always "A medial balance of average and normal". Who wants normal?

[Forbin]

I don't understand. Everything I've seen about this game has said that the console version will be actioned up but the PC version should play the same as the first game. Why would you download the console demo then assume the PC game is doomed? If you're the type of player that likes that style of RPG, you shouldn't be touching your console with a 10-foot clown pole.

If you're building up a case to skip the game for other reasons, then give it a pass by all means. But if you're legitimately interested in Dragonage then you owe it to yourself to try the PC demo at least before dismissing DA2.

[Lu]

That's the same Isabella as from Dragon Age Origins?

Played the demo some more, as both a rogue and a mage. I actually really enjoyed the rogue gameplay. Would like to play this game. Still waiting for GOTY edition, if I can.

I like the simpler skill-tree. Makes each skill choice a bit more defining for your character, yet there are still enough to have strategic depth. The cone of cold they have in the game is pretty badass too! Swoosh!

[Gwardinen]

I completely forgot about the Isabella character from DA:O but it'd make sense if it was her. The Flemeth redesign caught me a little off guard too, but I actually quite like it. Also, and I'm completely aware that I'm straying into fanboy rationalisation here, it feels appropriate to me because in DA:O Flemeth was trying to appear nonthreatening and just nudging you along, whereas in DA2 she has literally just saved your ass and is trying to bargain from a position of power.

I also second the enjoyment of the rogue gameplay - the archery stuff is still somewhat meh but the two blades melee rogue build is awesome. They took my least favourite class from the first game and made it incredibly cool. My current go-to simile for it is "like a ninja on crack".

My one complaint about the story/character stuff so far is that it seems like there is rather a defining moment for your party that is completely based on which class you pick at the start.

Specifically, which of your siblings dies. It seems like as a warrior or rogue, Carver will die, whereas as a mage Bethany dies.

As far as I can tell you make no other "choices" to determine this seemingly far-reaching decision, so unless something has been stripped out to accommodate the demo that does rather bug me.

[Lu]

Maybe it's a way of balancing the character classes? Like, only so much mages/warriors available in your party?

Besides all the nitpicky stuff I can complain about and have complained about, in my mind the bigger problem is the Mass-Effectification (uhu) of the entire game. I think there is some merit to using a template, but it does make all Bioware games too same-y, which would be a shame. It's a different style of game for sure, but I guess I was just disappointed that they didn't push it into a different direction from Mass Effect.

And yea, Gwardinen, melee rogue! It had like this sweet range of crowd control and fancy melee attacks with a lot of strategic moving around. I killed that big ogre so fast compared to the warrior!

[Erkki]

Ok, but what I'm saying is, if you don't like the fact that DA2 is more action-heavy than DA, you may be disappointed with the Witcher 2 because it is intended to be more action-heavy and smooth fighting than the Witcher. I'm not talking about the first game at all, I'm saying that the Witcher series is ostensibly shifting in the same way that the Dragon Age series is shifting - faster, smoother, more streamlined combat. To the point where, in all the live events the Witcher 2 has been shown at, the participants have been encouraged to play with a 360 controller no matter the platform.

Well, I'm not sure I've followed it closely enough to see how much more action-heavy The Witcher 2 will be, but I hope it will be. The first Witcher should have ideally been more of an action-RPG hybrid, with much more freedom of movement. If they manage to give us that, that seems good to me, even if they make the combat feel less challenging by streamlining (But they said Hard will still pretty much require some alchemy so that sounds good).

Their action-heavy RPG will still be structured pretty much like an RPG and have the best of both sides probably.

But what is my impression of the part of the DA2 demo that I played that it's structured like a linear action game. Maybe it was the wrong impression, but then my rant becomes just against such a bad non-representative demo, not the game itself. And as I mentioned, I haven't even finished the demo, but it seemed like there would be more of the same.

Why would you download the console demo then assume the PC game is doomed? ... But if you're legitimately interested in Dragonage then you owe it to yourself to try the PC demo at least before dismissing DA2.

If that was aimed at me -- I never said anything about the console demo. I didn't even know there was one.

[Gwardinen]

Maybe it's a way of balancing the character classes? Like, only so much mages/warriors available in your party?

Besides all the nitpicky stuff I can complain about and have complained about, in my mind the bigger problem is the Mass-Effectification (uhu) of the entire game. I think there is some merit to using a template, but it does make all Bioware games too same-y, which would be a shame. It's a different style of game for sure, but I guess I was just disappointed that they didn't push it into a different direction from Mass Effect.

Yeah, I'm sure it is to do with getting a decent starting party composition. My issue with it is that while a good party composition is a fine thing, I'm much more interested in the characters in a BioWare game than I am the mechanics. ME2 was a better shooter than ME but if I wanted to play a game that was a great shooter, it would not be what I would pick up. I played ME2 for the characters, the dialogue, the universe, etc. As such, I would rather somewhat gimp myself than have characters taken away from me without a choice. This is particularly problematic because I played a mage in the first game and I may well do the same in the second, which would kill off the character I actually prefer (from what little I've seen) out of the two possibles.

I see what you're saying about homogenising the BioWare games, but I can't say I'm surprised. It seems to me that the release of DA:O followed quickly by ME2 was actually an aberration in terms of BioWare's design. These two quite significantly different games being released at roughly the same time is very unusual, from what I can tell, for BioWare. Generally they're a much more single directionally progressive company - I can see a definite trend of focussing more and more on streamlining interface and combat and making a more dynamic and fully-voiced dialogue system to go along with more clear-cut moral/personality choices from BGII to NWN to KOTOR to Jade Empire to Mass Effect. It's not completely unbroken but you can definitely see a specific kind of progression there. DA:O was actually kind of an anomaly, it was jumping back to KOTOR, almost to NWN or BGII, in terms of overall design and theme.

[Lu]

That makes sense. Bioware does seem to have a more singular vision of what kind of games they want to make and what they're pushing towards. I can see more clearly where they're coming from when you think about it like that. Still find it a shame they don't see it as experimentation down a different road to achieve the same thing. OR SOMETHING!

Might just also be a result of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 being developed at the same time. It's hard to keep ideas from one project out of another if you're working on 2 things at the same time. That DAO was anomalous is kind of true... Wasn't Dragon Age originally announced as an MMO many many years ago? Then didn't hear anything about it and then eventually Dragon Age: Origins happened. I thought that was because they wanted to tell the origins story of the world, before they launched the MMO, to settle a universe before making such a big gamble. I wonder if that changed because of World of Warcraft.

Aaaaand end rant!

[Hermie]

Not sure if they announced it as an MMO, but it's well known that they started working on DA way before the first Mass Effect, which would explain it's anomaly-ness.

As for the character-killing, I too was disappointed that they make such a huge decision for you, but on the other hand, it makes sure that you will have a unique experience from the get-go. In the original, as soon as I finished it, I went back to explore more origin stories, and I'll probably do the same to experience the other characters take on things.

[brkl]

No, Bioware had been working on DA on and off for ages. The Origins bit got added later to emphasize the player characters' origin stories (probably by the same guy who did all the early trailers...).

Dragon Age!

[Gwardinen]

I had no idea Dragon Age had been in the works for so long, that explains a lot about it - and to be honest, also makes it impressive that it ended up being so good and cohesive.

It's also sort of weird to think that now BioWare is doing an MMO, but it's effectively based on a fusion of KOTOR and the new Mass Effect-inspired dialogue and voicing and such.

I do want to give props to BioWare on the technical side, though, the DA2 demo looks great and runs totally smoothly on my relatively old machine (ok I can literally only select up to medium quality, but it still easily looks as good as the 360 version). This contrasts harshly with my issues with Shogun 2: Total War at the same time.

[Erkki]

I finished the demo now. Turned down the graphics settings and now there were no rendering artifacts, which helped a bit. But the demo was still structured exactly as linearly as I thought. Maybe the full game won't be, but I'll still at least wait for reviews to make this clear, before I even consider playing it.

[gordonthomas]

I'm excited for the release of this game.