Review Dragon Age II Is Mediocre, BioWare Is Becoming Terrible

[attackfighter]

I'll sum up - crux of the thing and all that - by saying that although BG2 had the edge in entertainment value, it's hard to give it the credit; if only because most of these imaginative options for dealing with encounters are the product of our imaginations and skill at playing the engine against itself, rather than any feeling of internal design decisions made on the part of the developer team. In contrast, DA:O is made in such a way that we've no option but to approach the challenges set by the devs at the level they intended, with the approaches they had in mind - so anything that's good or bad about it, we can certainly say that it's due to the developers.

(as a tangent, though - mages the best damage dealers and tanks? Rogues have the edge on them in damage, even ranged rogues, and only a very specific build of mage can out-tank a warrior - a build that renders the mage with very few spells not related to tanking, for some time.

Oh, and that both BG2 and DA:O had aggro-mechanics. That's just a way to decide what gets attacked by what. What DA:O adds, though, is a taunt mechanic.)

It doesn't matter what the designers intended, the end results are what matter. And anyways you can't even prove what the devs intended - for all you know those "imaginative options" went just as planned by the dev team.

 

[Alec McCabe]

It doesn't matter what the designers intended, the end results are what matter. And anyways you can't even prove what the devs intended - for all you know those "imaginative options" went just as planned by the dev team.

I'd disagree with you. When the question is, 'Is BioWare becoming terrible', the issue of whether some of the things we praise them for in the past were actually accidental or incidental becomes relevant. If the developers of Baldur's Gate 2 had the freedom to create something of their own design, something that wasn't so heavily based on AD&D, would it have been something like DA:O? Wasthe charm of BG2's combat not a result of BioWare genius, but by the limitations placed upon them by TSR?

As for the imaginative options being intended, I'm going to say, no way. No way could anyone have covered all the crazy angles you could cover in BG2. Especially when so much - spells, abilities - was simply a translation from AD&D to Infinity Engine.

 

[attackfighter]

I'd disagree with you. When the question is, 'Is BioWare becoming terrible', the issue of whether some of the things we praise them for in the past were actually accidental or incidental becomes relevant. If the developers of Baldur's Gate 2 had the freedom to create something of their own design, something that wasn't so heavily based on AD&D, would it have been something like DA:O? Wasthe charm of BG2's combat not a result of BioWare genius, but by the limitations placed upon them by TSR?

You started this tangent as a response to Edward_R_Murrow's post, not the OP. The title of this thread isn't what we're "debating" my good sir. Heck, in your last post you wrote this:

I'll sum up - crux of the thing and all that - by saying that although BG2 had the edge in entertainment value, it's hard to give it the credit; if only because most of these imaginative options for dealing with encounters are the product of our imaginations and skill at playing the engine against itself, rather than any feeling of internal design decisions made on the part of the developer team.

You're clearly attacking the game itself, in addition to the developers.

As for the imaginative options being intended, I'm going to say, no way. No way could anyone have covered all the crazy angles you could cover in BG2. Especially when so much - spells, abilities - was simply a translation from AD&D to Infinity Engine.

Their design philosophy, whatever it was, payed off and BG ended up being pretty good. That's about all we know, you've offered no evidence to suggest that they were mindlessly slapping shit together from a D&D rulebook. And again, whether or not BG owes it's success to Bioware is irrelevant, because in the end it's all the same.
BG>>>>>>>>>>>Dragon Fag: Orifice. Period.

 

[Virtual Vice]

Just saying I deleted my previous post earlier after logging in again and actually reading it, and feeling embarassed about it. I did it in a haste on impulse and ended up with an absurdly long and incoherent rant with several mistakes, it was crap.
My apologies to anyone who happened to read it and the poster I was supposed to be replying to. I am also apologizing to make it clear I wasn't trying to troll anyone with my views on BG2 versus DA:O, I was just trying to indicate what I thought were relevant issues with BG2. Besides it seems there is little that I can add to what has been said in this thread besides nitpicking or talking about my personal preferences.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Putting the focus of bioware on general market appeal aside I find the BG2 evocations laughable.

I dont know about DA2 but how can someone who has a minimum of objectivity consider BG2 a better game than DA:O?? I am not saying there are not plenty of reasons to criticize DA:O, or any other recent offering by Bioware, but comparing it with BG2 is definitely not a good basis.

Seriously, I dont know if its the usual mix of amnesia/nostalgia, putting on those rose-tinted glasses, or just blindness to BG2's flaws. There are almost 0 specific aspects of BG2 that would compare well to its equivalents in DA:O, and the ones that might hold up are arguable to say the least. Not to mention that BG2 at its heart was an adaptation to the PC ( even if a competent one) of an old and quite shallow edition of DnD, a system designed and created for PnP play.

Graphics
BG2 has colorful handdrawn backgrounds that still look good today. The character models are a bit lacking, though. Good looking spell effects for its time.

DAO has substandard 3D graphics in various shades of brown, ugly textures, and annoying sparkly effects.

Encounters

BG2 had a wide variety of handplaced monsters and NPCs, each with handpicked spells and abilities, and a decade of modding support for people looking for an extra challenge.

DAO has the same encounters copy/pasted ad nauseam, with a handful of interesting bosses.

Combat

BG2 has the advantage of being adapted from a tabletop PnP system, making the rules transparent and giving the player plenty of choices with over a dozen classes (probably close to 30 if you count kits), abilities, and spells.

DAO has 3 classes, each with several spells or abilites, however many of those abilities tend to be passive or useless outside certain builds. DAO also has specialties, which were an interesting idea with an utterly botched execution.

Story

BG2 has a fairly simple story about a mage seeking godhood and revenge, with each step being fairly easy to follow and making logical sense.

DAO has a retarded story about saving the world from an army of darkspawn that everybody knows is coming but ignores until you do a quest for them. Also nothing the antagonist does makes any sense at all.

Writing

They're both about equal, really.

Companions

BG2 wins here just from sheer choice, but both games have decent characters as well as annoying ones.

So yeah. Also sup Drog.

Basically all of this.

And more.., basically DA:O had decent C&C while BG 1 and 2 had everything else.

There are so many little things that BG had over DA:O
It didnt have auto healing, party members could die, there was no level scaling in 1 and not much in 2. You could bash chest, you could use gorilla tactics because enemies didnt auto heal. Ranged weapons mattered. You had real calender time with weather and a day and night cycle.

 

[Volourn]

DAO also had better characters, better character system, was more challenging (hell, they ahd to release a patch to make things easier for certain losers on the codex), had origins, and the list could go on.

What BG2 largely has is nostalgia and it came first. R00fles!

 

[hoverdog]

Why do you lie?

DAO also had better characters,

no

better character system,

no

was more challenging (hell, they ahd to release a patch to make things easier for certain losers on the codex),

yes, but modded BG2 is much more challenging in addition to having a waay better encounter design (already in basic install)

had origins,

which, other than being tutorials, influenced what? a couple of conversations at best

and the list could go on.

stop the liez, start the truthz

What BG2 largely has is nostalgia and it came first. R00fles!

What BG2 largely has is better quality. r00fles!

 

[Volourn]

" modded "

I win.

 

[hoverdog]

no.

edit: missclicked

 

[DragoFireheart]

" modded "

I win.

no.

Volourn: 1

hoverdog: 0


ROUND 2! FIGHT!

 

[hoverdog]

no.

I don't understand why we should forsake mods or modding scenes while comparing. These can be important parts of games or give them second lifes. Judging Morrowind or NWN unmodded, really?
DAO has a full custom editor and yet its results are mostly nude or romance mods.
BG didn't have any kind of editor published, but produced tons of great mods, from difficulty enhancers, npcs, quests, classes and even "full" conversions (with reused assets, but still). And, of course, its fare share of romances, *cringes* Saerileth *cringes*.
Of course, BG2 was published eleven years ago while DA:O not even two; but, seriously, can anyone expect anything worthwile from bioware player/modder base?

 

[DragoFireheart]

no.

I don't understand why we should forsake mods or modding scenes while comparing.

Because we are evaluating the quality of the developers work, not some random consumers/fans work. Mods that are not made by the developer shouldn't be considered as part of the game in one instance but then ignored in another. Otherwise, arguments boil down to "well, THIS mod fixes this, unlike yours!, "Uh, MY mod does that too, LULZ!"

 

[Black]

Hoverdog vs Volly?
Whoever wins, logic loses

 

[DragoFireheart]

Hoverdog vs Volly?
Whoever wins, logic loses

I think you mean:

Whoever wins, we lose.

 

[waywardOne]

party members could die

not just die, but die permantly via chunking or disintegration. how i wish that had been possible for DAO.

 

[flabbyjack]

frustrating tendency to underachieve

That sums it up right there.

They were more focused on making the game play well on consoles than they were at adding content. There are some pretty big 'holes' in both the story and overall gameplay experience that any developer would have tried to implement. I won't list any spoilers here though.

PS - don't travel through the city at night, unless you like fighting waves of enemies at every turn for no reason(Where do they come froM?!?!)

 

[Jaesun]

They were more focused on making the game play well on consoles than they were at adding content.

I think this sums it up very well.

 

[Virtual Vice]

Since this thread is still alive I am going to try again one more time to explain why I favor DA:O over BG2, or better yet what are some of the problems that I find in BG2 in a more clear and calm manner. I’m just going to refer to combat since that seems to be the main aspect. I also have trouble writing small and concise posts when it comes to this sort of thing, so if you don’t give a fuck in any case don’t read. And there is always the ignore button…


I don’t consider BG:2 a good game in terms of tactics. Nor good game in terms of combat. And yes overall I prefer DA:O’s combat.


In my view tactics are about adapting to the situation when in combat, that is not related to decisions you make sometime prior to combat, but in combat.


That is why I favor DA:O in the sense the options you make in terms of spell or abilities for your character’s should all be available to you during combat. You have the good tools and the bad tools, there are the better choices, and the poorer choices but the same set of options ( that you chose from a larger pool) should always be available at the beginning of combat and during combat, with restrictions in place only to prevent spamming or being more careful about timing and sequence which I think is the case of the combat design approach in DA:O.


In this system and unlike BG2’s system, tactical depth can be increased directly and in a more organic fashion by increasing the number of options, and by making many of those options have risks and drawbacks, or possible combinations that produce new effects. Granted the latter and more interesting aspects is something DA:O only barely touched upon, that is clear, but in general is it not a good approach? And was it that badly implemented in DA:O?

As mentioned in DA:O all spells remain potentially useful in almost all situations, which is also tied to the charging system for spells and abilities that I see most people hate because it’s MMOGish. MMOG’s are formulaic no doubt, some more than others, but isn’t BG2 combat and spell systems and its classes just as formulaic as the DA:O equivalents?


I think DA:O design approach to combat is a step in the right direction compared to BG2’s approach, certainly in principle at the very least. I do not mean to say DA:O could not use more spell variety. It certainly could. The thing is DA:O’s approach favors tactical decisions more than BG2’s approach to casters, casters being the class that allows for more depth in terms of choices in BG2. When we are speaking of combat depth in BG2 I assume we are referring mostly to a party that has at least one specialized offensive caster and maybe a support caster as well.

So are the systems of spell selection for a wizard or even a sorcerer in BG:2 the better approach in terms of tactics? Or is spell selection in BG:2 really more about strategy, that is mostly about preparation for combat itself, regulated by the possibility to rest, the way enemies are positioned in the map, and occasionally the way the maps are built?


What I mean is that in BG2 tactical options seemed to me to be very conditioned, it’s not just about the lack of active options for most classes or how these are tied to set repetitive ways of handling combat depending on party build. Even playing a caster, or the caster classes that have more real options, that is the offensive casters, BG2 is pretty damn formulaic. Now I know that many will disagree here, but think on it for a bit.


In challenging encounters in BG2, ( which I think are far from being as frequent as some people in this thread claim,) you need to encounter a formula to counter a specific status effect or powerful attacks from an enemy, but mostly to counter status effects, to prevent them, to remove them or avoid them by being fast and effective enough. These play a much smaller role in DA:O, and in comparison that is a good thing.

For example the more troublesome foes in BG2 were the ones that could made you lose control of party members, there were others things to worry about in difficult encounters, but these particular effects left little room for the player to react, and they encouraged a series of reloads, the reloads were not really about changing your approach tactically, because your true weakness was inadequate preparation, which means you had to have that particular formula prepared.

This pattern applies to all enemies that can be considered challenging even if they did not inflict the particular status effects I mentioned. Even the less troublesome enemies that still presented a challenge relied on a very specific formula to be defeated by a specific party. To be defeated by anything other than luck that is, which is always an option because of the highly variable rolls, so you can adapt by reloading “on the spot”, but then you are not really relying on your different tactical approach, just the game’s randomness.

So you do not really have much in the way of tactics. You solve the vast majority of your problems by preparing adequately ( by having the right consumables, by being rested at the right times with a couple of types of “must have” spells available, the right buffs. etc). And isn’t this approach to combat just as formulaic as DA:O ?

Or perhaps even a lot more formulaic than DA:O because the way BG:2 encourages strategic preparation, means the need for a long series of trial and error until you find the formula?

That is do you overcome the challenges more due to knowing your character’s potential and weaknesses well, and the combat system in terms of tactics… when in combat or just before its start… or more due to the fact that by repeated trial and error, by going back and reloading to a time before the battle ( sometimes long before) you find one of the very few formulas available to win the battle or get the right amount of the needed consumables, or both? And when you do find this formula you move on until the next tough encounter that most likely is going to take another series of trial of error to find the right “tactical” approach.



Which means in the first play through of BG2 the real challenges that exist will be overcome by a constant back and forth, in the second play through with a similar party there will be little to no challenge and the adaptation in combat will be about reloading because you got bad rolls on that particular attempt of using the proven formula. Is this a good system or a good design in terms of rpg combat in the tactical sense? Or otherwise?


Now there is no doubt that a good measure of trial and error is part of many good rpg titles, of course within reason it is part of the appeal of pc rpg’s in general, and not just when it comes to combat. But doesn’t BG2 as a combat centric game take the need for the player to engage in trial and error too far?


In my opinion its exaggerated focus on trial and error and back and forth also extends to other aspects of BG2, its part of the overall design but I am not going into that since this is already a wall of text.


DA:O could use more of many things, more options or more interesting options in combat is certainly one of them, better spell and ability balance another. But if you consider how an ideal combat heavy RPG should be designed couldn’t BG2 benefit from the design choices and approaches made in DA:O when it comes to combat? Would you choose a balanced system with spell preparation and many limited use spells basing yourself on BG2’s system or a balanced system with mana and fewer but always available spells that could be combined, that may be risky for reasons other than area of effect, and that cannot just be spammed in sequence due to charging counters as in DA:O’s system?

Now I certainly noticed BG2 is not just very popular here but almost holy. And that certain directions bioware is taking are seen as a step backward, I have my problems with DA:O as well, they seem to be a bit different than those of the posters in this thread. My biggest problem was that DA:O cast of NPC followers was something that bioware focused way too much in ( not to mention “features” like the love bar and the presents), I had little trouble with the way NPC followers were presented in the KOTOR’s for example, but bioware really went crazy with the importance and attention it gave to all NPC followers.


I think that a lot of that effort should have been spent in other aspects of the game ( like interaction with NPC’s for example) even if DA:O’s overall writing quality is clearly better than BG2’s.

I am a pc rpg fan and I certainly appreciate many of the classics and oldschool titles. It just happens that among the classics BG2, although far from a crap game, does not shine very brightly for me. On the other hand if found that DA:O overall provided a more enjoyable, and engaging playing experience. I know this is all more than a bit subjective but discussing different views on the topics are what forums are for. And since I am probably the only one here with this point of view regarding BG2 and DA:O, I guess it makes sense to try to explain why I see things that way.

 

[Cynic]

Okay, I agree with the premise of the thread title completely. With DA2, Bioware became a dev I was interested in to one I don't give a shit about anymore. There's a lot of debate going on in here about BG2 vs DA1, and my opinion is, how the fuck can you say DA1 is better? Are you retarded? Of course it's not better, but to me it was still a very fun and enjoyable experience in a similar vein. I pretty much agree 100% with vault dweller's review of DA1, I think he was a bit too kind to DA2 but pointed out every one of my many gripes with the game.

Laidlaw is a fucktard. His vision of evolution is just flat out wrong. With him behind the next game, you can be sure it will get even more hatred unless they just fess up and call it an action rpg from the start. If they shake up the team, fire his stupid ass and get someone who can actually make a game, they might be okay, but I doubt it will happen. If TOR is fail then the company will split, I am sure of it. It's about time actually, there is talent at the company but they have a severe identity crisis, they simply can't decide what the fuck it is they want to make, and therefore are making some middle ground bullshit that isn't really anything.

 

[Manticore]

yep they are terrible.

 

[Volourn]

"With him behind the next game, you can be sure it will get even more hatred unless they just fess up and call it an action rpg from the start."

Technically, it *was* labeled as an action rpg. As was DA1. It also depends what site you go to.

 

[Bigot_]

virtual vice

what in the world

made you think



it would be a good


idea

to

format your post

like this

i mean

really


do you expect



anyone

to

read


this

kind

of shit?

edit: partially on topic

In my view tactics are about adapting to the situation when in combat, that is not related to decisions you make sometime prior to combat, but in combat.

GOOD combat systems are just as much about strategy as they are about tactics. DA:O failed hard at the former and did a lackluster job at the latter.

That is why I favor DA:O in the sense the options you make in terms of spell or abilities for your character’s should all be available to you during combat.

"I don't like having to think ahead so I don't squander my limited resources, thus I want games to give me unlimited resources instead"

with restrictions in place only to prevent spamming or being more careful about timing and sequence which I think is the case of the combat design approach in DA:O.

See: Streamlining, dumbing the fuck down

In this system and unlike BG2’s system, tactical depth can be increased directly and in a more organic fashion by increasing the number of options, and by making many of those options have risks and drawbacks, or possible combinations that produce new effects. Granted the latter and more interesting aspects is something DA:O only barely touched upon, that is clear, but in general is it not a good approach?

No, dumbing down is never a good approach.

As mentioned in DA:O all spells remain potentially useful in almost all situations

Imagine playing starcraft if every unit was equally useful against every other unit
Does this sound like a good fucking idea to you

MMOG’s are formulaic no doubt, some more than others, but isn’t BG2 combat and spell systems and its classes just as formulaic as the DA:O equivalents?

Some formulas are better than others

The thing is DA:O’s approach favors tactical decisions more than BG2’s approach to casters

Nuke 1 or Nuke 2? Effective spells 1-15 or 16-30?? OH THE DECISIONS

So are the systems of spell selection for a wizard or even a sorcerer in BG:2 the better approach in terms of tactics? Or is spell selection in BG:2 really more about strategy, that is mostly about preparation for combat itself, regulated by the possibility to rest, the way enemies are positioned in the map, and occasionally the way the maps are built?

I think you're starting to confuse "RPG" with "RTS"

In challenging encounters in BG2, ( which I think are far from being as frequent as some people in this thread claim,) you need to encounter a formula to counter a specific status effect or powerful attacks from an enemy, but mostly to counter status effects, to prevent them, to remove them or avoid them by being fast and effective enough.

Are you implying there's something wrong with that?
Is there a problem with having to come up with a specific solution to a specific problem rather than mashing one of your several awesome win buttons?

These play a much smaller role in DA:O, and in comparison that is a good thing

Less strategy = Good thing?

For example the more troublesome foes in BG2 were the ones that could made you lose control of party members, there were others things to worry about in difficult encounters, but these particular effects left little room for the player to react, and they encouraged a series of reloads, the reloads were not really about changing your approach tactically, because your true weakness was inadequate preparation, which means you had to have that particular formula prepared.

So what you're saying is that if you can't walk into an encounter blind and just stomp everything silly on your first try, there's a problem?
Jesus fucking christ


I can't do this anymore, my head is starting to hurt.
Your entire fucking post boils down to you not understanding that strategic depth is just as if not more important than tactical depth, and that a game leaning toward the former rather than the latter doesn't mean the game is flawed so much as you not having the brain capacity to understand the concept of preparation and macromanagement.

 

[Cynic]

"With him behind the next game, you can be sure it will get even more hatred unless they just fess up and call it an action rpg from the start."

Technically, it *was* labeled as an action rpg. As was DA1. It also depends what site you go to.

Bullshit.

The game is marketed as an RPG, is reviewed as an RPG and is sold as an RPG. Everywhere. Not one review (except Vault Dweller's) stated it was an action RPG. Everyone calls it an RPG, Bioware softly said it can be "played like an action rpg" while still clinging to calling JUST an RPG. Bioware were too scared that they couldn't scam PC gamers with pre orders if they called it an A-RPG straight up, so they told half truths and fucked them.

 

[Virtual Vice]

"Jesus fucking christ
I can't do this anymore, my head is starting to hurt.
Your entire fucking post boils down to you not understanding that strategic depth is just as if not more important than tactical depth, and that a game leaning toward the former rather than the latter doesn't mean the game is flawed so much as you not having the brain capacity to understand the concept of preparation and macromanagement."

Bigot_

I see what you mean, I guess it boils down to me honestly preferring a focus on tactics according to my definition than on strategy and preparation, at least the way BG2 focused on it. And trying to explain that in a long winded post about why I preferred DA:O's focus. I think I understand the concept of preparation and macromanagement in BG2 in general well enough ( I played the fucking game, although I might have "played it wrong"), I just dont care for it much.

You prefer one approach ( or design philosophy or whatever) I prefer the other. Not that there couldn't be an combat heavy rpg that developed both aspects equally well, but its about BG2 and DA:O. And its all very subjective it seems....nothing more to say.