All things Dragon Age

Yay, yipee! I just found out last week that a new Dragon Age game is coming out next year!

I love Dragon Age!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age



The new game: It's going to be called Dragon Age: Inquisition and here are some previews:

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/dragon_age_inquisition/preview-3499.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/428051/previews/preview-dragon-age-inquisition-goes-after-skyrim/



It looks fantastic and I can't wait to get my hands on a copy or two! As the hype surrounding Dragon Age: Inquisition builds, I realise I never did quite understand the dislike of the gaming community toward Dragon Age 2 (DA2). It's what I'll focus on here.

I remember having some negative interactions with a few people about the time when it came out. I posted a comment on the game's Amazon UK comment thread (not the reviews, just the comments) saying that it had scored 94% (or something like that) in PC Gamer magazine. Wow, was that a mistake. I had this guy replying to say he would never buy it, and accused reviewers of bias and even being paid off by Bioware /EA. For the uninitiated, Bioware are a famously good developer of role-playing games (RPGs) and EA (Electronic Arts) are one of the main video game publishers who have owned Bioware for a few years now.

The crazy guy then went on to suggest that fake reviewers were being employed by the game's marketers to write favourable reviews for the game. Whether this crackpot notion is true or not, it doesn't really matter too much in my opinion. There are at least a couple of reasons for this:

*Weight of numbers.
The marketing company really would have to put out one heck of a big pile of cash to hope to make a dent in the shape of the group-think of your average opinionated Joe reviewer. There are so many young gamers out there with a game pad and a voice, trying to turn the tide against what they are saying would be like taking a scoop out of the ocean, or some less savoury metaphor I can also think of. Furthermore, it is often possible to tell fake reviewers apart, as the quantity of postings they need to make in order to get paid means that

*Trusted sources.
After reading through game reviews for a while you start to learn which publications and websites have opinions you trust and respect, those whose feelings on a game generally mirror your own. You take a look at these sources first when deciding whether or not to purchase a new game, and perform some sort of mental weighted-average calculation to come to your determination. Suggesting that fake reviewers could infiltrate their way past the quality control of these sources to any significant extent is pretty far-fetched.

You've certainly no skeptical brain if you can't tell what are genuine reviews and what is fake, and which sources to trust more than others.

He didn't quite go so far as to suggest I was being paid for promoting the game, but it felt like that was what he wanted to imply.

Yeah dude. I'm still waiting for that cheque I'm owed. Oh, and I never did post a 5* review for it, so he can stuff off. He obviously wasn't being fooled, so why care?

I'll examine some criticisms of DA2 after I go over...

My thoughts on Dragon Age 2

I really loved the game, and all the extra downloadable content (DLC) that was published! It was an excellent, nuanced story with great characterisation, epic battles and a decent ending (well better than Mass Effect 3 anyway!)

The combat was hard-hitting and fast paced compared to the first game, Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O). I thought that the combination attack system worked well. To do large amounts of damage, for instance to a boss enemy, you had to exploit a combination system whereby a number of set-up attacks applied a status effect to the enemy. You then had a limited time to affect a specific follow-up attack to the same enemy, which then applied a large damage bonus. It really was the only way to take down tougher enemies. The greater number of skill choices and power-ups available made choosing your skill tree selections when levelling up more tactically important and challenging.

I for one really enjoyed re-exploring Kirkwall in each new act and noticing all the little details that had changed. All the characters you could bring into your party were well-realised and voice-acted. My favourite was probably Isabella, she was ultra-cool and so hilariously funny I was genuinely laughing my ass off at times listening to her jokes. And some of her dialogue with Hawke was pure gold! This brings me to one of my favourite aspects of the game: the conversation system. Taking it further than Mass Effect's conversation wheel, the system in DA2 had a green (co-operative or diplomatic) option, a red (aggressive or negative) AND a purple (humorous / witty / charming) choice as a response in most conversations.

My favourite responses were often the purple ones! There were some great one liners in there, and Hawke had this uncanny ability to put across a killer line with faultless timing. To this day, sometimes when pressured, or if someone slights me, I think to myself "What would be the purple response?" I've found it's a great way to diffuse situations that may have otherwise erupted into something more incendiary.

For example, if, whilst driving, someone cuts me up at a roundabout, instead of beeping angrily, shouting or making unsavoury hand-gestures, I will say the "purple response", something like, "Well, that's ONE way to drive!" It's great fun. You should try it!

Overall I felt the game improved most of the weaker aspects of DA:O that needed it. The predictable and stereotyped story, the slow and ponderous action, the samey-samey talents of each class, the lack of options in levelling up and the way some supposedly epic items became trash as you advanced through the game.

Unlike most people, I didn't really feel that DA2 failed in any new way, significantly. Hence I loved it and much preferred it to DA:O (which was a really great game in its own right, don't get me wrong).

Here are some common complaints of DA2. They are fairly universal and most review sites are now saying they found the game disappointing.

* Over-Appreciation of DA:O

This is one of the main issues. It was a great game, but hardly flawless. There were a few significant complaints which in my view are more justified than those levelled at DA2. I highlighted some of the main problems above. In addition, parts were tedious. The Mage Tower stage in particular is a real chore to have to repeat one you've already completed it, because it's very linear, and incredibly long.

If you played as a warrior, you basically had 2 choices, be a sword-and-shield tank type character, or a more aggressive double-handed weapon wielding fighter. As there were a very small number of talents that were exclusive to each, the only real choice you had was what ORDER to put your skill points in, and which prestige classes to select later in the game (and some of the combinations of these weren't very compatible, to make things worse).

The variety of the Origins stories were nice but pretty low on content that couldn't be found in a playthrough with any other character. I actually found this to be a bit of a gimmick.

Finally, the way that the expansion pack "Awakening" integrated with the original game was really disappointing. The extra skills and item levels featured in the expansion were not available in the original when both were installed, even if you reached the requisite level in DA:O that would have meant you could have accessed them if you were within the "Awakening" environment. I found this a significant problem for motivating subsequent playthroughs of DA:O.

And yet you still get things like this written:

"I genuinely believe that Dragon Age: Origins is a 10/10 experience. While it didn't do anything drastically different to what BioWare had done previously (I don't think many would be too offended by calling it 'KOTOR with fantasy'), it was so superbly put together - with characters you actually cared about - it still stands as one of the best RPGs this generation. And then we came Dragon Age II…

While the sequel was certainly not a bad game, it seemed to lack many of the qualities its predecessor possessed. Familiar faces you'd grown to love appeared in mere cameo roles (1), you never did find out what happened to your demon spawn (2), and the changes to combat and the world didn't feel as impactful as we were all first led to believe (3). If it was by any other developer, or part of any other series, it may have gone down far better than it did. Given the expectations set by Origins, though, II felt like it never fed off the ambition that had been put in place (4)."




(1) Developer's prerogative. They are under no obligation to include (or exclude) any character that may or may not have appeared previously in the series. What's wrong with "well they could just be in the next game?" HINT: There were always going to be 3 games, at least. Why did DA2 have to finalise every burning question from DA:O? In my opinion, it was about time they introduced some new faces.

(2) Firstly, your character(s) may not have necessarily sired the demon spawn (it was one of many outcomes) and secondly, see (1) above.

(3) Well that was a remarkable slight-of-hand by the marketers then, wasn't it? They should take up stage magic. Just don't be so credulous. This really says more about the reviewer than it does DA2.

(4) A vague and fairly vacuous sentence. What expectations and ambition? DA2 was a different type of game. It was always going to be. Get over it.

*Marketing and over-hype

Why believe it? Aren't developers allowed to advertise their games anymore? Surely I don't have to tell you to take ANY AND ALL adverts' claims with a metaphorical pinch of salt?

There was this big "I want my money back" thing with DA2. What is this, a faulty vacuum cleaner?!

I never got it. And I was very happy with my purchase (PC version).

If there's any hyperbole to be had here, it's up above in that piece about DA:O. I'm sorry but it was never a 10/10 experience in my book.

*Icons Yep, seriously. The ICONS used for items and skills in the game's UI weren't pretty enough for some people. Please, grow up.

*Follower armour This was a concession to realism that I thought worked really well. In real life I doubt you could make your party members wear something they didn't want to. This approach gave visual changes between acts, level-up improvements AND personalisations by being able to buy upgrades and affix gems to give different resistances to elemental attacks for example. In my view, it was an effective and complete system.

*Size Yeah, not an issue for me. Apart from Kirkwall which was pretty sizable in my book, each act had a number of large outside zones that changed between them, and also an act-specific area or two. The fantastic story made the game epic enough to me.

*Repeated Areas Linked to size. OK, maybe it wasn't ideal, but remember DA:O also used repeated areas and layouts played in reverse quite often. Each act, you stayed in Kirkwall for the main part which had changed slightly in layout and populace etc. from the last act. I actually enjoyed the familiarity of the city areas and liked the subtle changes they put into the feel and atmosphere.

In conclusion, is it just me or do some of these "problems" feel pretty weak looking back now?

I really do feel that some of these complaints are pretty minor and pretty irrational. Talk about scraping the barrel!

But I doubt anyone will come out and say "I was wrong!"

Well, in any event, I'm off to play through DA2 again before the third instalment is released!