Dragon Age: Origins, Awakening & DA2 : Othor Games

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:35 am

"Yes" with a "but"

And there is a third option if you take both Bethany and Anders with you.

Hmm.... I can guess, so I think that option is out.

Dammit, I hate Anders.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:29 pm

I don't understand what is it in this game that casues such strong reactions. I haven't seen a [censored]storm this big since Bethesda desecrated Fallout. And i think this is bigger.

I think it's a combination of things: bits of the story are missing; skills and companion armour choices are rather limiting; and it was far too rushed. They may have got away with one or even two of these things, but all of them in combination have left a lot of people feeling a bit irked.

Personally I haven't let my own irkment get in the way of enjoying the game, and it has been a lot of fun. But I wish they'd taken a bit more time over it.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:51 am

Dragon Age 2 being rushed is the main problem with the game. Heck if Bioware didn't rush the game, didn't have all the bugs/Glitches in it and if Auto Attack was in the game I would still have Dragon Age 2. Hopefully this is a lesson that Bioware can learn but I have a bad feeling that if Mass Effect 3 tanks like Dragon Age 2 did Bioware has even bigger problems. I don't see that happening but more people will be skeptical in buying a Bioware Product because of what Happened with Dragon Age 2. I know I'm one of those people.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:05 pm

Health topics would have a decent devil's advocate....and clearly I am no Bioware fan that's why I am posting on Beth's forum not Bioware's :wink_smile:

Can you elaborate?

So far in my experience, the game feels a bit more balanced than DAO.

Aside from the fact that Nightmare mode on DAO was simply too easy because you could spam healing potions,

Potion spamming is a old real time video RPG issue, thus I wouldn't consider it a "con" for any game.

there are other areas where DA2 feels more balanced, for example, each of the DA2 companions has some drawbacks that makes party build decisions more difficult.

Bethany has healing, but no Revive and no access to the Primal CCC offensive spells.
Merril is a great offensive mage (with blood magic ability as well), but she has no healing spells.
Anders has both healing, revive and access to all the Primal and Elemental CCC offensive spells, but he has no blood magic.
Fenris is an excellent tank, but he takes more damage than a S&S character.
Aveline takes less damage but creates less STAGGERED enemies without the Sunder skill from the 2H tree.
Isabela has no ranged attack.
Varric has no "assassinate" or melee attacks.
Carver is annoying enough that you don't want to take him anywhere - also he takes more damage because he cannot wear a shield.

No companion have Blood magic.

Bethany is a crappy clone of Anders, as Carver to Fenris.

Danlish Pariah is simply crap without micro-management; having Entropy is great, but not when you have to trade Creation tree for it (Aura/AOE vs single target). Merril's friend bonus only works if Hawkes use Blood magic, and rival bonus is equal if not worst than Anders. She also have to be romanced to get all armour upgrade.

Anders' friendly bonus works on all class, and can stack with the right weapons. While lack of Entropy or Blood magic like skill, Elemental and Primal is more than enough and his own specialization is simply good.

Fenris a melee AOE damage monster, and with Lithrium Ghost he can take all kind of magical punishment but the thrice cursed blood ring thingy that dreads the whole party anyways.

Avelin can tank and tank only, unless you prefer to control her over Hawke. Not to mention she have many active modes but no good stamina regen skill.

Isabella have one small AOE only, and like Avelin, no good stamina regen skill.

Varric doesn't have (decent) melee attack means he would actually try to maintain distance. Binaca is so powerful you don't ever need to worry about his weapon, and with Marksmen specialization she is just as punishing as skills in dagger tree without need of stamina.

Another area that feels more balanced is attribute allocation. In order to wear the best armor, I have to put points into 2 attributes, which makes the decision more difficult. Otherwise, I would focus more on the attributes resulting in the highest dps, or constitution for blood mages, for example. In DAO, I would have my mages max out Magic and completely ignore all other stats, because I could spam cheap lyrium and health potions.

For me, it simply kills the possibility for a skill combination or creative use/builds. Blood Magic is a joke, Rogue's damage is so high it tune the game level down one or two, and Warrior is the only class that cannot focus against elite/boss, and just couldn't pull off all their moves without lots of spread critters. Not to mention how cunning is both offensive and defensive in multiplier fashion while constitution and willpower is linear and may not matter is many situation.

Potion cool down have nothing to do with it.

In DAO, when playing as a Mage it was pretty easy to reach god-like nuke powers with your own spell combos and devastating AoE attacks. If you look at your end game "total damage" stats you will find mage damage orders of magnitude higher than the damage stats for any rogues or warriors. In DA2, Rogues can deliver insanely high crit damage (200k plus), but only when set up with exactly the right cross class combos and debuffs. They are certainly not as overpowered as mages in DAO.

In raw numbers, maybe not; but in proportion, they are, if not worst. They can by themselves deliver damage that the other two class have no hope to reach, and can only die of bad luck. Even against the dread blood ring from enemy blood mage rouge simply have more ways to escape it (possiblely doing damage), let alone interrupts (and doing damage) that also have many other use with better on/off casting.

In my subjective, personal opinion, playing as a Rogue and 2H warrior in DA2 is just as fun as playing a mage.

Maybe, but combat end way faster with a Rogue; sometimes I can even get (multiple) "out of combat regen" while other two struggle in a combat marathon.

Also the huge importance of cross class combos means that you will miss out if don't have at least one of each class in your party and develop the builds to favor CCCs. Since combat is more difficult with more lengthy potion and spell cooldowns, I find myself actively controling each character, pausing and micromanaging every single action, while in DAO, occasionally I would use tactics. So I'm enjoying playing all of the character classes simultaneously.

That, my friend, sounds like the combat/companion system doesn't work and Bioware need the magic "pause" to fix it. But again, when I am playing my Rouge, I only use it when I am frustrated by the erratic targeting system, or save my companion from AOE attack.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:54 am

Merills Companion Spec is Blood Magic.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:02 pm

@valkebus

I don't see any point in debating the merits of this game on a subjective level.

A few of these details that make DA2 a bit more challenging and make party and character build decisions more difficult ultimately make the game more balanced and enjoyable in my subjective opinion.

If I understand correctly, some of these very same details make the game less enjoyable in your view and even broken perhaps. Nothing wrong with that - lots of people have different reactions.

Overall, I really liked the game and if it were not for the poorly executed side quests where random strangers give you gold, I believe I would have enjoyed it more than DAO. I agree that there were a number of bugs and the recycled area maps were lame, but neither of those have really bothered me so far during my first playthrough.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:53 am

I have heard that Dragon Age 2 svcked from a fair amount of people, but it sounds to me like they were expecting a complete 100% alike sequel of the first one. I looked some Gameplay up and it looks like they sort of combined there Mass Effect style with Dragon Age's lore.

So I was wondering what you guys think of it? Are any of the things that make DA1 and DA2 different drastically tragically awful, or is just like comparing Morrowind to Oblivion?

I like it, both games have merit, they're different. I don't care if it's not exactly like origins, I anjoy the game for what it is. Origins had a very slow pace at times, too slow in some areas and that hurt the game. DA2's pace isn't perfect, but it's better. The story is more personal and not as overdone as the one in Origins and the combat is much, much more enjoyable in my opinion.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:50 am

Merills Companion Spec is Blood Magic.

It's call Danlish Pariah and quite different to Blood Magic tree

BootySweat: pretty much, everything you like about DA2 is a turn off for me. And you should comeback and post how you feel about the main quest after you finish it.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:17 am

Foreshadowing events creates a more dramatic effect. DA2 can be skipped if and only if DA3 has nothing to do with a mage/templar war, which is most likely going to be the main focus of DA3. I predict that during this war, a blight is going to start and people are going to be to blind to see it. There is a lot of potential in Dragon Age, there are so many unexplained things left to cover. DA2 may seem like a rushed piece of crap to a lot of people, but I think once DA3 it released people will understand the purpose of DA2. Now off the topic of DA2 being a mere set up that should've been a DAO expansion. I think Sandal is going to be big in the future game. I won't go as far as to say he is the maker in disguise like some people think, but he may be a threat or a powerful ally.

Even if the Mage-Templar war is important in DA3, DA2 still has little importance. It doesn't explain what started that whole conflict in the first place, it doesn't show its actual effects, it just dumps it in through a couple of lines of exposition. We know as much about it at the end of DA2 as we do at the beginning. To add insult to injury, the entire story is set up in a way to explain how it started, except that it ultimately doesn't. At all. How did an explosion of violence in one worthless city-state spark a continent-wide rebellion? One can't say "A led to B, and Z happened," the whole picture needs to be given, because as it is, the whole thing is not remotely plausible. In the end, Hawke and his story comes across as a glorified red herring.

With that mind, your prediction for the plot of DA3 doesn't sound like it needs DA2 anyway, and is itself just a repetition of DAO's.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:38 pm

I'd agree with that summation, xetirox.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:57 pm

That's what BWs dlc's are for, they use them now to explain the story so you have to buy them to get the full picture. Look at ME2

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:18 am

Indeed, it's pretty saddening. XD

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:24 am

Agree, Kirkwall is even less significant than Falkland.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:59 am

Even if the Mage-Templar war is important in DA3, DA2 still has little importance. It doesn't explain what started that whole conflict in the first place, it doesn't show its actual effects, it just dumps it in through a couple of lines of exposition. We know as much about it at the end of DA2 as we do at the beginning. To add insult to injury, the entire story is set up in a way to explain how it started, except that it ultimately doesn't. At all. How did an explosion of violence in one worthless city-state spark a continent-wide rebellion? One can't say "A led to B, and Z happened," the whole picture needs to be given, because as it is, the whole thing is not remotely plausible. In the end, Hawke and his story comes across as a glorified red herring.

With that mind, your prediction for the plot of DA3 doesn't sound like it needs DA2 anyway, and is itself just a repetition of DAO's.

Really you don't know what started the war. Are you joking? Don't you remember what Anders did? Or did you not finish DA2 or something. It is clear what started it for the sake of people who didn't beat the game yet here is the answer contained in spoilers.

Spoiler

Anders blew up the chantry, Meredith invoked the right of annulment on mages who didn't do anything. They rebelled, Orsino and Meredith both die.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:46 pm

Really you don't know what started the war. Are you joking? Don't you remember what Anders did? Or did you not finish DA2 or something. It is clear what started it for the sake of people who didn't beat the game yet here is the answer contained in spoilers.

Spoiler

Anders blew up the chantry, Meredith invoked the right of annulment on mages who didn't do anything. They rebelled, Orsino and Meredith both die.

Spoiler

But as I said, how did that one incident cause all the Circles across Thedas to rebel? The Rite of Annulment has been invoked before in the past. It didn't spark this kind of catastrophe before. Hell, the Rite can be carried out successfully in Origins without a hitch, it doesn't cause mages the globe over to flip out. Do you mean to tell me that all of those Circles were primarily populated by Libertarians and Isolationists ready to overthrow the Chantry's yoke once and for all (and that the Chantry apologetic Loyalists or more moderate Aequitarians have no presence at all)? Or that all of the Templars are as harsh and iron-fisted as Kirkwall's (hint: as DAO indicated, they're not)? And that despite the Circles all being separate, with no means of contacting each other, they all see fit to rebel at the same time? And that they've ALL succeeded?

No, none of it makes any sense. The only way it could is if something else was at play, something larger. And among all the other so-called "foreshadowings," there's no such hint of a larger force being at work here.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:50 am

Again, even "ironfist" Meredith aint so bad before the Act 3. Not to mention how Anders-Justice ain't liberating the mages out of goodness of his heart anyways.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:14 am

Spoiler

But as I said, how did that one incident cause all the Circles across Thedas to rebel? The Rite of Annulment has been invoked before in the past. It didn't spark this kind of catastrophe before. Hell, the Rite can be carried out successfully in Origins without a hitch, it doesn't cause mages the globe over to flip out. Do you mean to tell me that all of those Circles were primarily populated by Libertarians and Isolationists ready to overthrow the Chantry's yoke once and for all (and that the Chantry apologetic Loyalists or more moderate Aequitarians have no presence at all)? Or that all of the Templars are as harsh and iron-fisted as Kirkwall's (hint: as DAO indicated, they're not)? And that despite the Circles all being separate, with no means of contacting each other, they all see fit to rebel at the same time? And that they've ALL succeeded?

No, none of it makes any sense. The only way it could is if something else was at play, something larger. And among all the other so-called "foreshadowings," there's no such hint of a larger force being at work here.

I'm pulling this out of my ass, tell me if it works.

Spoiler

Let's first assume the chantry was already starting to suffer a crisis of legitimacy. Now, when Anders destroys the chantry at Kirkwall, that's a symbol for the faithful. The Mages are out to get THEM, the mages have declared war, and they will cast down the Maker or die trying. The rebellion by the mages of Kirkwall gives hope to the mages of the circle (the city turning into a war zone being a piece of knowledge that spread far faster than Templar efforts to contain it), who believe they have a chance at casting down the Templars. The Templars crack down massively on the circles, or try to, as templar forces throughout thedas are drained in order to crack down on Kirkwall and reassert control after the Knight commander's death and the slaughter of much of the Templar infrastructure. WIth Templar ranks at most circles lowered, the Circles begin attacking, either to protect themselves against rites of annulment or in active rebellion. The weakened templars are unable to survive the intial attacks, and the fact that numerous attacks are occuring in a short amount of time means that the Templars quickly lose control of the situation. The Circles are able to become independent due to this, and now everything's going to hell for the Chantry.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:43 am

I'm pulling this out of my ass, tell me if it works.

Spoiler

Let's first assume the chantry was already starting to suffer a crisis of legitimacy. Now, when Anders destroys the chantry at Kirkwall, that's a symbol for the faithful. The Mages are out to get THEM, the mages have declared war, and they will cast down the Maker or die trying. The rebellion by the mages of Kirkwall gives hope to the mages of the circle (the city turning into a war zone being a piece of knowledge that spread far faster than Templar efforts to contain it), who believe they have a chance at casting down the Templars. The Templars crack down massively on the circles, or try to, as templar forces throughout thedas are drained in order to crack down on Kirkwall and reassert control after the Knight commander's death and the slaughter of much of the Templar infrastructure. WIth Templar ranks at most circles lowered, the Circles begin attacking, either to protect themselves against rites of annulment or in active rebellion. The weakened templars are unable to survive the intial attacks, and the fact that numerous attacks are occuring in a short amount of time means that the Templars quickly lose control of the situation. The Circles are able to become independent due to this, and now everything's going to hell for the Chantry.

Spoiler

Problem is is that the Chantry isn't suffering any such crisis of legitimacy. As far as we can see, it's still strong and holds a lot of influence, and Kirkwall's isn't particularly significant. Not to mention it's unrealistic to think that all mages would be instilled with hope of liberty and desires to revolt from that incident, because as we can see in Origins, they're divided up into several fraternities that each contain different viewpoints; for every wannabe rebel we see, there was someone in full or partial support of the system. Ditto for Templars, they're not universally mage-hating zealots (Gregoire in particular, though strict, is evenhanded and fair, and even Cullen has his limits). The Templars are huge as well, with members stationed in every country the Chantry has a hand in. I don't know how large a force they would need to send in to reclaim Kirkwall, but it honestly cannot be large enough to spread them thin across Thedas, and especially in Orlais, where the Chantry is most powerful. Mages, despite their capabilities, are still ultimately a minority in both the world and in the city-state.

And even if that was what was going on...DA2 still needed to do a better job at displaying the general political climate to give us an idea on how and why the Kirkwall incident led to this.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:18 am

Spoiler

Problem is is that the Chantry isn't suffering any such crisis of legitimacy. As far as we can see, it's still strong and holds a lot of influence, and Kirkwall's isn't particularly significant. Not to mention it's unrealistic to think that all mages would be instilled with hope of liberty and desires to revolt from that incident, because as we can see in Origins, they're divided up into several fraternities that each contain different viewpoints; for every wannabe rebel we see, there was someone in full or partial support of the system. Ditto for Templars, they're not universally mage-hating zealots (Gregoire in particular, though strict, is evenhanded and fair, and even Cullen has his limits). The Templars are huge as well, with members stationed in every country the Chantry has a hand in. I don't know how large a force they would need to send in to reclaim Kirkwall, but it honestly cannot be large enough to spread them thin across Thedas, and especially in Orlais, where the Chantry is most powerful. Mages, despite their capabilities, are still ultimately a minority in both the world and in the city-state.

And even if that was what was going on...DA2 still needed to do a better job at displaying the general political climate to give us an idea on how and why the Kirkwall incident led to this.

Well I tried. You know,

Spoiler

an invasion of the free marches by the qunari would have made more sense, considering that their religion can demand military action from them in order to be in compliance with the Qun.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:46 pm

I thought it was Mass Effect 2 was where people started to feel doubts with Bioware (or it was when EA bought the Company?)

But now is Dragon Age 2?

I personally gonna buy ME3 thought , despite ME2 and the pure shooter and the big mistake of removing inventory

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:09 am

I hope DA2 has good combat and the dialogue isn't cliche or plain cruddy. I do not care if it or isn't a duplication of DAO. I really do not even care about the plot as long as the dialogue is done well. I just wish there were still games that used mostly text dialogue so that writers would be able to fit in more content with greater depth, but that is not going to happen... stupid 'progress'!

EDIT: Mass Effect was a pretty good RPG even if it wasn't the 'character development' style that people are accustomed to. Although being limited to a specific person in a set series of events limits possibilities. I think Bioware substituted diversity in the main character for interaction with the supporting characters. I wish they would put both into ME3. ME3 may be epic if they do, or it will end up being another 'almost' great sequel.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:30 am

O hai. I just came by to http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj4q1ouqFv1qcoe5zo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1302047534&Signature=mwZTZMJVKYK8RaZMOF2%2F4NTAE%2Fk%3D. (MAY BE A SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED DA2.)

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:35 am

XD lolz

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:25 pm

I thought it was Mass Effect 2 was where people started to feel doubts with Bioware (or it was when EA bought the Company?)

But now is Dragon Age 2?

I personally gonna buy ME3 thought , despite ME2 and the pure shooter and the big mistake of removing inventory

Me2 was the start. it made a few people leave BW (they only liked ME) others just ignored ME and went to DA, others kept playing. Now DA2 is falling apart nd people are leaving that too, all they have left is ME (which you may already hate) and To which will probablly go belly up soon becuase its competing with WoW.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:47 am

Me2 was the start. it made a few people leave BW (they only liked ME) others just ignored ME and went to DA, others kept playing. Now DA2 is falling apart nd people are leaving that too, all they have left is ME (which you may already hate) and To which will probablly go belly up soon becuase its competing with WoW.

Ok I think some of you guys/gals are overreacting a bit (read: "lot") about the state of BioWare's games. DA2 didn't lose the inventory like ME2 did, it just got simplified. Granted, I squirmed a bit when I realised that I can't change party members' armour, but I quickly forgot about that. Now that I'm playing DA:O again I miss 'move to junk' SO MUCH THAT IT HURTS ARGH.

Anyway, http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/084/6/5/csi__kirkwall_by_soccerdemon-d3cfseu.jpg.