Seriously, I felt that this game was a major letdown from DA:O. Most keenly because I replayed DA:O and all the DLC to get together a save game for DA 2. Which was totally ignored because Anders died in my save game. Which sort of led me to wonder what the point was of being able to import a save if they're going to ignore what happened in it.
If the point of carrying over a save is to continue on with that story, and they don't actually do that, then it's a false advertisement and I am not going to actually buy that game :/
Slarg232 wrote:If the point of carrying over a save is to continue on with that story, and they don't actually do that, then it's a false advertisement and I am not going to actually buy that game :/
It does "continue on with that story", actually.
The thing is you do not play as "The Grey Warden". Rather, you play as "The Champion"--whose tale just happens to be overlapping with The Grey Warden's.
The actions of the Grey Warden affect how the game environment overall is.
And by the by:
Spoiler:
Anders died in my saved game as well. But it's explained fairly well through conversing with him that the only reason he's back...is because Justice is possessing him.
Slarg232 wrote:If the point of carrying over a save is to continue on with that story, and they don't actually do that, then it's a false advertisement and I am not going to actually buy that game :/
It does "continue on with that story", actually.
The thing is you do not play as "The Grey Warden". Rather, you play as "The Champion"--whose tale just happens to be overlapping with The Grey Warden's.
The actions of the Grey Warden affect how the game environment overall is.
And by the by:
Spoiler:
Anders died in my saved game as well. But it's explained fairly well through conversing with him that the only reason he's back...is because Justice is possessing him.
Um, Kan, minor detail:
Spoiler:
It's made very clear that spirits can only do their thing just as you die in DA:O (see the Keep DLC). Anders had been dead for a while when I found him in DA:A...
Yeah, that's true. The way Wynn talks about it though it sounds like it has to be done while they're alive for the being to be sentient. Though it still conflicts with my story heavily. Being that I played a mage warden that got the circle freed and got anders killed and didn't recruit Justice
Honestly, I was underwhelmed, but I think its because I didn't play half the game.
I ignored most of the side-quests, and apparently they are much more important to the main quests.
I was let down at first, but now I understand. I'm going to replay again, as a Warrior instead of a Mage, and do every single quest I come by.
The "import save" thing was just some minor things. Like, if you put Alistair on the throne, you'll meet him, but if you put Anora on the throne, you'll meet her.
I'm having the opposite experience: playing and really enjoying DA2 despite feeling tremendously let down by DA:O. It's not anything close to being a TES game, but it's heads and shoulders better than the first Dragon Age. Combat is much, much better although graphics are still seriously flawed. The characters are a few shades less soap-opera-esque, which might disappoint some of your drama llamas out there.
I'm disappointed that Sir Pounce A Lot didn't make it back, only a brief reference :(
I would have liked to see more characters carried over from DAO, even though I know it's a different country or whatever.
Another disapointment was Fenris being a DLC. Should have just included him from the start, but they plan out their DLCs for maximum profitableness so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I'm mostly running around with anders, aveline and isabella. It's funny when the girls stat arguing
Actually...I got the signature edition for the same price
They were upgrading preorders to signature edition (at no charge) from the normal edition for quite a few months on Amazon.
The only reason you're seeing it for "$20 more" or thereabouts right now is that it sold out, and is only available through people trying to make a fast buck.
In any case, I don't know if I'm into the game enough to buy item/character DLC (certainly not an archer) but I would be up for a Awakening-like higher level mini-campaign for ~$30.
Most of the items were 'eh' but a few are absurdly good, like 'Fadeshear'--which is a sword with bonus damage v. Demons/Darkspawn and levels up as the wielder does. Avillene can two-shot Ogres with it at level 14
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh!
And Sebastian? Actually a pretty cool character. His 'Noble Archer' schtick is definitely unique. He gets something equivalent to that 'combo chain' for Rogues--but with his bow.
I'm playing as a knife Rogue the first run through and it's been quite fun. If you want some amusement, look for a weapon with the 'Messy Kills' stat and prepare to see red
The only bugs I've had so far was a single neverending load, but it happened right after an autosave so no big deal
VikingScott wrote:So I'm considering getting this. Played and completed DA:O and DA:O awakening.
Whats sort of thing carries over? Minor details such as who's king/queen and who survived Vigil's keep or what city got burned to the ground?
Because although DA:O wasn't a masterpiece I was happy with it.
Who's king and queen, a few extra quests based on decisions from Awakening, and one small item from the Keep DLC, Blood Dragon Armor, a few misc references in Dialog, if the Warden lives or dies. The Mage boon ending of DA:O got retconned. ALL endings of Awakening got retconned. (the ending that you get is not one that you can get in game).
DA2 is a different game. Some wags on the Bioware boards have started calling the console version 'God of Dragon Age', due to the over the top gore (think Ninja Scroll) and need to constantly hit the attack button in some copies.
Manchu wrote:I am playing as a rogue for the first run and LOVE IT! Female two-hander is probably next.
Have you encountered any bugs on your playthrough?
I've had two neverending loads and a repeating cutscene so far (nearing end of Act I).
There's a couple quests that cannot be completed at times, depending on your actions, and a rather vicious debate on the Lily Killer quest being broken or just sick.
I went through two hander first. I agree with calling it God of Dragon Age from that playthrough, because I'd set up combos to explode dozens of faceless mooks at once.
My neverending loads were both after autosaves as well -- so there's a pattern emerging!
Who are you running with?
I usually take Bethany (although, I think Anders would probably be a better choice but made some bad leveling decisions with him early on), Merril, and Aveline.
Bethany dies if you take her in the Deep Roads, and well...I took her
I usually use:
Anders, Aveline, and Fenris/Sebastian.
Anders is geared up to be a 'supporter' with awesome heals, freeze capability, etc to help out either Aveline and Sebastian/Fenris/Varric with "Brittle".
I've geared my Rogue up to be able to exploit the hell out of Aveline "Staggering" people and it works great.
Aveline, in turn, synergizes like crazy from my Rogue Disorienting people.
VikingScott wrote:So I'm considering getting this. Played and completed DA:O and DA:O awakening.
Whats sort of thing carries over? Minor details such as who's king/queen and who survived Vigil's keep or what city got burned to the ground?
Because although DA:O wasn't a masterpiece I was happy with it.
Who's king and queen, a few extra quests based on decisions from Awakening, and one small item from the Keep DLC, Blood Dragon Armor, a few misc references in Dialog, if the Warden lives or dies. The Mage boon ending of DA:O got retconned. ALL endings of Awakening got retconned. (the ending that you get is not one that you can get in game).
DA2 is a different game. Some wags on the Bioware boards have started calling the console version 'God of Dragon Age', due to the over the top gore (think Ninja Scroll) and need to constantly hit the attack button in some copies.
I know it's a different game and that you play as a human called Hawke. ( I think...)
Sucks that my efforts in the previous game like giving the circle independance and burning Amaranthine count for nothing. So is the warden ending just he goes after Morrigan even if he refused her offer? Damn.
Bethany dies if you take her in the Deep Roads, and well...I took her
I usually use:
Anders, Aveline, and Fenris/Sebastian.
Anders is geared up to be a 'supporter' with awesome heals, freeze capability, etc to help out either Aveline and Sebastian/Fenris/Varric with "Brittle".
I've geared my Rogue up to be able to exploit the hell out of Aveline "Staggering" people and it works great.
Aveline, in turn, synergizes like crazy from my Rogue Disorienting people.
It's absurd how fast some things die
Actually, Bethany will survive if you take anders with you also.
Spoiler:
but she becomes a grey warden and has to leave the group for a while anyway.
Lord Harrab, I have to ask, wth is that icon? Is that a battle sister?
Viking Scott, No, I meant it's quite a different game. Combat, inventory, etc have all been changed or tweaked (or removed) to a greater or lesser degree.
Tip: when you get to the giant rock wraith, if you haven't already, if you need to time your heals and attacks to his pattern. Otherwise you get wiped quite easily on most settings. Make sure to use Varric to kill the adds he spawns asap or they will gang bang your whole party.
I hate most of my party. Except for Varric and Daisy, those two are fun together. I also like my sister, but the game doesn't seem to like that all too much.
Mhm, taking my time this time, I realize just how much I skipped in my first playthrough.
Seriously, I felt let down when I "rushed" through it the first time at the end. I was like "No, no, this can't be the end" but I missed so much of the game.
I seriously recommend researching this game and the general story and details about it before playing it. I just felt lost in certain situations, like when I was trying to get Isabella to move in with me (which she never does) and you don't complete her romance until the very, very end.
Things like that I felt like I did something wrong, but I really did everything right.
All of you saying that the game sucks, or its bad because its not like the original, are overly critical, and drama queens. This game is a huge success over the original.
The "professional" reviews were all printed, listen closely hear, the day or the day after the game was made. It is literally impossible to actually complete this game in two days. There is an immense amount of side quests for you to take advantage of, you just have to make sure you find and do all of them in that act before the game "time skips" you.
BaronIveagh wrote:Lord Harrab, I have to ask, wth is that icon? Is that a battle sister?
Viking Scott, No, I meant it's quite a different game. Combat, inventory, etc have all been changed or tweaked (or removed) to a greater or lesser degree.
Tip: when you get to the giant rock wraith, if you haven't already, if you need to time your heals and attacks to his pattern. Otherwise you get wiped quite easily on most settings. Make sure to use Varric to kill the adds he spawns asap or they will gang bang your whole party.
Yes, its an icon bearing sister of battle. a bit of a break from my IG girls, but she's still Imperial so thats all that matters.
On topic: i though that fighting
Spoiler:
The Arishok in the keep
was the final boss, imagine my surprise when the game kept going.
yeah I'm doing every single quest I come across. I guess it helps that I got the hint book so I know which quests are for the main plot so I try to do all the side and companion quests first. I just started act 3 last night and now I have a bazillion new quests to do.
One thing I do miss though is darkspawn.. they were all over the first game and there aren't too many in this one.. I dunno, maybe they'll come back toward the end. Seems like the main enemy in DA2 is a bunch of theves and slavers and thugs.
Though, I'd give it 9, I would review it if I was an employee if I really liked the game, even if it was made by my employer.
I don't see the problem here.
The point was that, the ethical thing to do is mention that you're an employee. It's also the law.
The "ethical thing"? Hah!
The "ethical thing to do" is not to waste time sleuthing one individual posting high rated scores and find out who the toolbags who just sign up that week and give a 0/10.
But hey. It's far more 'ethical' apparently to eStalk someone like they did.
Kanluwen wrote:
The "ethical thing"? Hah!
The "ethical thing to do" is not to waste time sleuthing one individual posting high rated scores and find out who the toolbags who just sign up that week and give a 0/10.
But hey. It's far more 'ethical' apparently to eStalk someone like they did.
Well, first of all, Kan, as one of the people that just signed up this week, though, admittedly, I gave it a 4, they can feel free to find out who I am all they like.
Second, Escapist reports that apparently this wasn't the only Bioware staffer to, possibly, be caught now. Where there's one roach, there are more roaches. Particularly when Bioware had expressed concerns abotu how low thier Metacritic scores were previous to this.
Third, it's a violation of Federal Trade Commission rules. You know, making it technically a crime.
EA's official response, from the head of their PR department, was to the effect that employees slanting reviews was normal and acceptable, according to GameReactor.
Kanluwen wrote:
The "ethical thing"? Hah!
The "ethical thing to do" is not to waste time sleuthing one individual posting high rated scores and find out who the toolbags who just sign up that week and give a 0/10.
But hey. It's far more 'ethical' apparently to eStalk someone like they did.
Well, first of all, Kan, as one of the people that just signed up this week, though, admittedly, I gave it a 4, they can feel free to find out who I am all they like.
Go back and reread that article you posted; most specifically the links they give. There's one in particular that I'm going to repost here.
I don't really care who you are--this is stalking. And what's worse, they were enough of a douchebag to post the information publicly. That's unfethingacceptable. And why did they do it? "Because it's the highest rated user review of Dragon Age 2 on Metacritic".
That's stupid. All they should have done was point out that it "might be an impropriety" or that "this user's reviews are suspect because they might have a link to the company".
I do not understand the disrespect the Internet has bred for people's personal information. I don't give a flying feth what they "did to you"--you don't post their fething information publicly.
Second, Escapist reports that apparently this wasn't the only Bioware staffer to, possibly, be caught now. Where there's one roach, there are more roaches. Particularly when Bioware had expressed concerns about how low thier Metacritic scores were previous to this.
"Roaches" is a strong term. I don't understand what the feth the fact that they work for the company has to do with anything.
Do the janitors who work for BioWare have to make that clear when they put up reviews? How about the lunchladies?
Third, it's a violation of Federal Trade Commission rules. You know, making it technically a crime.
EA's official response, from the head of their PR department, was to the effect that employees slanting reviews was normal and acceptable, according to GameReactor.
Find me a Federal Trade Commission ruling saying that individuals who work for a company, with no ties to the product in question, have to report who they are when they're using a personal opinion website like Metacritic. Is it a good thing? Probably not. But quite frankly, even if they'd posted "This is XXXX, I'm an employee of BioWare but this is my personal review"--people would be crying up a fethstorm.
This is much different than where we were seeing things like "professional" reviewers being paid off by the company. This is people who possibly had no connection whatsoever to the project, other than working at BioWare, putting up their review of it.
Manchu wrote:That's a werid perspective, Kan.
No, it's really not. If people are going to piss and moan about 'ethics', then they'd damned well better be in a situation where they're no casting rocks from a glass house.
I don't consider it 'ethical' to post someone's personal information on the Internet. I certainly don't consider it 'ethical' to post someone's personal information in a venue like Reddit.
The main story is kind of... non-existant. It's just a mass collection of side quests lines. Characters are weaker than in DAO, combat has been gutted in favor of being fast paced, and there are numerous glitches me and my friend have already come across. The final quests for both Anders and Merril can glitch in awkward ways, and I've found other quests occasionally don't trigger the events their supposed to forcing you to leave and reload the area. I'm also suffering the sound glitch where dialogue is not executing at the appropriate level. Tactics slots also do not execute properly. The default ones work fine. Attempting custom tactics doesn't forcing a player to micromanage every party member in combat to take advantage of the new class combos. Not that you need it. Only two maybe three fights are actually all that hard. Most of them can be breezed through with ease.
I left the game thinking that I'm not buying another Bioware game. I didn't like ME2, and DA2 took out a lot of the soul and character of DAO in favor of "stream lining." Plus the stories were horrible for both (which was a hallmark for Bioware for me, as repetitive as their stories and characters may be). DA2 especially fails to explain how the events of the game are so disasterous to all of Thedas (if you've paid attention to the lore) or why on earth anyone would want Hawk to solve the problem. Hawk isn't much of a hero. He's more of a poor sap stuck in situations he can't control. The only heroic thing he actually managed to do happens in Act 2. I was also greatly annoyed by how Bioware throws around the DAO characters for sport.
It wasn't all bad though. I was very impressed by the side quests. Many of them have interesting outcomes and really do a good job of showing unintended consequences. I also like how the party members interact with each other more on their own without the PC being there. EDIT: A certain event towards the end also wins most epic moment of gaming 2011.
I call one step forward two steps back aka Masseffect2ification. I think people who really, really, loved DAO Aare less likely to like DA2. I'm also willing to bet there will be a platform split between PC and consoles.
Kanluwen wrote:
I don't really care who you are--this is stalking. And what's worse, they were enough of a douchebag to post the information publicly. That's unfethingacceptable. And why did they do it? "Because it's the highest rated user review of Dragon Age 2 on Metacritic".
That's stupid. All they should have done was point out that it "might be an impropriety" or that "this user's reviews are suspect because they might have a link to the company".
Kan, this is the internet. Without evidence, most people would have claimed he was a liar and that there was no proof that anything was taking place. So, the guy did the logical thing, and created a record that could be examined and varified. And, in all honesty, it's good that he did, because this means that there is evidence that can be acted on.
Kanluwen wrote:
"Roaches" is a strong term. I don't understand what the feth the fact that they work for the company has to do with anything.
Do the janitors who work for BioWare have to make that clear when they put up reviews? How about the lunchladies?
Under the law, yes, though they don't have to say what they do there. The reason is that they have a vested financial incentive that the product does well.
Under the FTC Publishing Guidelines governing testimonials and endorsements, "bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."
Kanluwen wrote:
Find me a Federal Trade Commission ruling saying that individuals who work for a company, with no ties to the product in question, have to report who they are when they're using a personal opinion website like Metacritic. Is it a good thing? Probably not. But quite frankly, even if they'd posted "This is XXXX, I'm an employee of BioWare but this is my personal review"--people would be crying up a fethstorm.
People would bitch, yes, but it would be legal. The reason this is newsworthy is that they tried to conceal this, rather then say 'I'm Bioware Bill and I think it's a good game and here's why'. Further, the head of Development for Dragon Age ii, the other person caught so far, could hardly be said to have no connection to Dragon Age II.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's really not. If people are going to piss and moan about 'ethics', then they'd damned well better be in a situation where they're no casting rocks from a glass house.
I don't consider it 'ethical' to post someone's personal information on the Internet. I certainly don't consider it 'ethical' to post someone's personal information in a venue like Reddit.
If there's a problem,
Kan, I might point out that, in all honesty, all the Redit user did was link three sites together containing stuff the person being looked into had posted themselves. If I put my name on Facebook and a bunch of pictures of me, where I live, and who I work for, and call that account BaronIveagh, and then go on another forum under the same name and talk gak or do soemthing illegal, who's fault is it that someone puts BaronIveagh on one site together with BaronIveagh on another site? Particularly when whatever I might have done casts a shadow on my entire company's credibility.
Kanluwen wrote:
I don't really care who you are--this is stalking. And what's worse, they were enough of a douchebag to post the information publicly. That's unfethingacceptable. And why did they do it? "Because it's the highest rated user review of Dragon Age 2 on Metacritic".
That's stupid. All they should have done was point out that it "might be an impropriety" or that "this user's reviews are suspect because they might have a link to the company".
Kan, this is the internet. Without evidence, most people would have claimed he was a liar and that there was no proof that anything was taking place. So, the guy did the logical thing, and created a record that could be examined and varified. And, in all honesty, it's good that he did, because this means that there is evidence that can be acted on.
Bullgak.
Bull, bull, bull, bull, bull.
This was a poorly excused action on the part of a spiteful little twit. He could have been reasonable and mature, alerting Metacritic as to his suspicions and giving them the evidence--which would have led to what we saw, the review being removed.
But no. He wanted drama. He posted it all over the Internet and came out like he's some kind of 'hero' for stalking someone.
But hey, this is the Internet. Apparently it's acceptable to plaster people's personal information all over the place.
Kanluwen wrote:
"Roaches" is a strong term. I don't understand what the feth the fact that they work for the company has to do with anything.
Do the janitors who work for BioWare have to make that clear when they put up reviews? How about the lunchladies?
Under the law, yes, though they don't have to say what they do there. The reason is that they have a vested financial incentive that the product does well.
Under the FTC Publishing Guidelines governing testimonials and endorsements, "bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."
I'm sorry, since when is Metacritic a "blogger" site?
It's not. It's user reviews.
The "FTC Publishing Guidelines" have no hold over Metacritics, and to assume that they do is ridiculous.
Kanluwen wrote:
Find me a Federal Trade Commission ruling saying that individuals who work for a company, with no ties to the product in question, have to report who they are when they're using a personal opinion website like Metacritic. Is it a good thing? Probably not. But quite frankly, even if they'd posted "This is XXXX, I'm an employee of BioWare but this is my personal review"--people would be crying up a fethstorm.
People would bitch, yes, but it would be legal. The reason this is newsworthy is that they tried to conceal this, rather then say 'I'm Bioware Bill and I think it's a good game and here's why'. Further, the head of Development for Dragon Age ii, the other person caught so far, could hardly be said to have no connection to Dragon Age II.
Who the feth says he was trying to "conceal this"?
I mean, seriously. This is the same thing that happens any bloody time that GW messes something up or they post the wrong information in the "What's New Today" post.
Stop assuming malice when there's likely none there.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's really not. If people are going to piss and moan about 'ethics', then they'd damned well better be in a situation where they're no casting rocks from a glass house.
I don't consider it 'ethical' to post someone's personal information on the Internet. I certainly don't consider it 'ethical' to post someone's personal information in a venue like Reddit.
If there's a problem,
Kan, I might point out that, in all honesty, all the Redit user did was link three sites together containing stuff the person being looked into had posted themselves. If I put my name on Facebook and a bunch of pictures of me, where I live, and who I work for, and call that account BaronIveagh, and then go on another forum under the same name and talk gak or do something illegal, who's fault is it that someone puts BaronIveagh on one site together with BaronIveagh on another site? Particularly when whatever I might have done casts a shadow on my entire company's credibility.
I don't give a flying feth that he "linked three sites together containing stuff the person being looked into had posted themselves".
He posted information,publicly, that otherwise would not have been tied together.
Your example is flawed and it's a half-assed justification for what I like to call the "4chan syndrome". People who feel they've been 'wronged' on the Internet somehow think it's acceptable that they put their perceived "abuser's" information out there for everyone to see.
I felt that while I really enjoyed the DA2 gameplay especially as a Mage, (mages are much more fun and they play a major part in the story), the plot was what let me down.
I felt too much like it was a haphazard collection of quests with no real plot or goal to work towards. I forgot half-way through Act 1 why I was doing all these odd jobs for! Unlike in Origins (a game I absolutely loved), there was no real looming evil threat or ultimate goal, and I really felt like I was just grinding like in an MMO.
While there have been some definite cool moments, the companions were fun and interesting, though they had less conversations I found, and I never thought it was an "Alistair, me, Morrigan, Leliana and nobody else ever" sort of thing. Merrill (the Welsh Elf lady who joins your party) is adorable.
So, all in all, the gameplay plusses and the plot let-downs made it all balance out in my books.
Kanluwen, the chap in question plastered his own information around the net. All the "twit" in question had to do was assemble the results of a few google searches. I agree that he was probably aiming for a "gotcha moment" but that's hardly an internet phenomenon. Please cf. newspapers and television. In a free society (in terms of market and government), "gotcha moments" sell not only in terms of $$$ but also as a form of partiotism. You might even say it's constitutional, if you give separation of powers some reflection.
Kanluwen, the chap in question plastered his own information around the net. All the "twit" in question had to do was assemble the results of a few google searches. I agree that he was probably aiming for a "gotcha moment" but that's hardly an internet phenomenon. Please cf. newspapers and television. In a free society (in terms of market and government), "gotcha moments" sell not only in terms of $$$ but also as a form of partiotism. You might even say it's constitutional, if you give separation of powers some reflection.
I googled the guy. I didn't get anywhere near the same information that the poster did.
So I'm calling BS. And I'm also saying that can we not fething act as if it's some kind of 'heroic' act like Baron's trying to paint it to be?
This isn't 4chan. Have some fething respect for other people's privacy and leave the drama crap there.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Kan, this is the internet. Without evidence, most people would have claimed he was a liar and that there was no proof that anything was taking place. So, the guy did the logical thing, and created a record that could be examined and varified. And, in all honesty, it's good that he did, because this means that there is evidence that can be acted on.
Bullgak.
Bull, bull, bull, bull, bull.
You're gonna tell me, on Dakka, of all places, that 'pics or it didn't happen' isn't how the internet works?
Kanluwen wrote:
But no. He wanted drama. He posted it all over the Internet and came out like he's some kind of 'hero' for stalking someone.
But hey, this is the Internet. Apparently it's acceptable to plaster people's personal information all over the place.
Kan, people plaster it all over the internet themselves. Otherwise Google would be illegal.
AS far as the drama quoteint, can't say, never met him. Accusations that Bioware was rallying people to try and change the Metacritic rating had been flying for hours at the point that this came out, maybe he want to prove they were true? It was all over at least one of the Russian bioware fansites. And, look, since he brought the information forward, MORE bioware employees are being outted for it.
Kanluwen wrote:
I'm sorry, since when is Metacritic a "blogger" site?
It's not. It's user reviews.
The "FTC Publishing Guidelines" have no hold over Metacritics, and to assume that they do is ridiculous.
It does have a hold over the actions of Bioware/EA and it's employees, as a publicly traded company. By posting there in this manner, this Bioware employee has broken the law. It also violates SEC rules regarding reviews.
I used to enforce some of these, Kan, as a government auditor and later when I worked for a casino gaming company internally enforcing things like this. We fired people all the time for this sort of violation.
Kanluwen wrote:
I don't give a flying feth that he "linked three sites together containing stuff the person being looked into had posted themselves".
He posted information,publicly, that otherwise would not have been tied together.
Your example is flawed and it's a half-assed justification for what I like to call the "4chan syndrome". People who feel they've been 'wronged' on the Internet somehow think it's acceptable that they put their perceived "abuser's" information out there for everyone to see.
Kan, if you don't want people to know things about you on the internet, don't put them on the internet. It's that simple. Is publicly divulging that information wrong? Under *normal* circumstances, i would agree. However, in this case, as it involves the commission of a crime, and one that has serious implications for the customer base, the public has a right to know.
Kanluwen wrote:
I googled the guy. I didn't get anywhere near the same information that the poster did.
So I'm calling BS. And I'm also saying that can we not fething act as if it's some kind of 'heroic' act like Baron's trying to paint it to be?
This isn't 4chan. Have some fething respect for other people's privacy and leave the drama crap there.
Kan, as quite a few sites have mentioned, several sites did the same searches this guy did and got the same results. I did it myself yesterday and got the same result. I would not be surprised if information has started being pulled since this broke. Hell, EA's help site underwent five revisions to the section on 'Does Dragon Age 2 contain securom?' yesterday.
EDIT: I'll add that without these events, EA would never have confirmed that this is, in fact, their policy. From Kotaku: "Of course the people who make the game vote for their own game," a senior PR manager said. "That's how it works in the Oscars, that's how it works in the Grammy's and why I'm betting that Barack Obama voted for himself in the last election."
Yes, VikingScott, it seems the process Bioware did with ME1 & ME2 was profitable, so they did the same with Dragon Age. I would think that this is very much comparable.
I'm pretty sure the majority of people think that DA2 is a vast improvement over DA:O.
I've noticed that the reason that games that do this kind of thing, that change a lot from their predecessor, get a lot of negative reviews, but not a lot of positive reviews, despite that on any site other than a review site, the response is generally positive.
It seems like those that are unsatisfied think they're opinion means something more than someone who does like it, so they go on sites and give games low scores so they can feel like a Intarwebz Crusader.
Edit: I wanted to post this to just show some of my thoughts of the "reviews"
GameInformer wrote:On all platforms, Dragon Age II caters to an audience that didn’t connect with Origins, while alienating those who did. This may result in a better console experience, but considering that Dragon Age: Origins was a love letter to old-school PCRPGs, BioWare’s neglect of the sequel’s PC release is tragic. I appreciate the technical refinements, but improving the polish doesn’t do much good when the basics still need work.
Like, seriously, reviewers are so fething dramatic when a game doesn't meet their pinpoint expectations. Its tragic? Its a fething game, not the loss of a family member. The flaws of the PC version are very, very much exaggerated, its unbelievable. I've completed DA2 once, and am playing a second time to try and see what some of these guys are saying (including doing all the side quests) and I just don't find it.
With its third-person camera and button-mashing attacks, the combat system in Dragon Age II is designed with a controller in mind, but BioWare doesn’t offer native gamepad support, restricting you to mouse-and-keyboard controls on PC. This approach may have worked well in Origins, but it doesn’t transition well to the new system. Movement feels clumsy, and pausing to readjust the camera and select targets for your abilities just muddles the flow of combat.
Though, I would like Gamepad support so I could see if what they say is true, I can comment on the PC. Movement is far from clumsy, its the same as Origins, and you don't "pause to readjust the camera" anymore then you did in Origins.
These reviewers are pathetic, and I wonder if they have even completed the game yet.
So someone is being dramatic when they find a release 'tragic'? I thought the last Rambo movie was a tragedy (more for Stallone than Rambo), and I don't think it's being dramatic to say that. I actually like that paragraph from GI's review. It's spot on and states upfront something a lot of people feel. I don't agree with everything in the review, I didn't have movement problems, and I agree he's wrong about the camera, but you can tell the reviewer is really venting his frustrations. DA2 did away with many subtle details from the first some people liked. It's not pathetic to be upset about it.
Interweb reviews should be ignored, pretty much completely. They're all written by Bobby Nerdguys who have too much time on their hands and think their video game blog makes them important.
Download the demo, if you like the demo, you'll prolly like the game. If you buy the game and hate it, sell it on ebay while it's still worth something. Problem solved
VikingScott wrote:Would it be wise to compare the differences in DA:O AND DA2 to the differences between ME to ME2?
Same sort of processes I guess.
With the streamlining and such?
If this comparison makes sense.
I dunno, in Mass Effect 2, the gameplay was altered rastically (for the better IMHO, but not everyone feels that way), but you still had the ultimate goal, the Collectors and the Reapers were still out there and you had to stop them. It made for an awesome sequel where you prepared for a suicide mission you might not come back from.
DA2, on the other hand, has no Reaper-lookalike. You barely fight the darkspawn, so I'd say "random highwaymen" is the most commonly fought enemy. The main plot evolves so slowly that you only really realize what the main over-arching idea thread is by Act 3. Kinda late by then, like only after 24 hours of gameplay you have a (still mildly vague) idea of what you're fighting for. Plot lines and quest choices come back to bite you later, buit in some occasions it's been so long since the quest that I have no motivation to go back and help some of these people.
Not to mention the multiple enemy wavesin EVERY fight that ruin most battle plans...I'll not get into that right now.
Anywyas, I don't find the ME -> ME2 comparable to the DA:O -> DA2 transition.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:So Manchu, I take it that despite a valiant resistance you bought DA2 anyways but like it better than DA:O?
Yes and yes -- although there was little resistance. The game is very good, especially compared to its clunky predecessor. If you're on a budget and RPGs aren't really your thing, I wouldn't say it's a "must buy." Otherwise, it's very entertaining.
:: DISCLOSURE:: Neither I nor any one I am affiliated with is employed by BioWare or any other subsidiary of Electronic Arts.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:So Manchu, I take it that despite a valiant resistance you bought DA2 anyways but like it better than DA:O?
Yes and yes -- although there was little resistance. The game is very good, especially compared to its clunky predecessor. If you're on a budget and RPGs aren't really your thing, I wouldn't say it's a "must buy." Otherwise, it's very entertaining.
:: DISCLOSURE:: Neither I nor any one I am affiliated with is employed by BioWare or any other subsidiary of Electronic Arts.
Riiight. I'll give the demo a whirl if I can put down AC Brotherhood for 5 seconds.
Necros wrote:Interweb reviews should be ignored, pretty much completely. They're all written by Bobby Nerdguys who have too much time on their hands and think their video game blog makes them important.
Reviewers in general are becoming less reliable. A lot of times inter company politics result in inaccurate scores, or in the case of the aforementioned review, personal bias can come through really easily. Honestly the only real way to figure out if you like a game is to play it and reviewers have slowly lost my faith in their ability to actually analyze a game's quality. General players have always been distracted from flaws by flashiness, but now it seems reviewers are pretty easily distracted too. Demo's so often are tailor made to include the best parts of a game, and aren't enough to show how bad they may or may not be. The DA2 demo won't reveal the horrible story line flaws in the game for example.
I'd say rent it, but you can't rent PC games If you have a 360 or a PS3 try it on that. But then, why get it on PC afterwards
Elector wrote:
VikingScott wrote:Would it be wise to compare the differences in DA:O AND DA2 to the differences between ME to ME2?
Same sort of processes I guess.
With the streamlining and such?
If this comparison makes sense.
I dunno, in Mass Effect 2, the gameplay was altered rastically (for the better IMHO, but not everyone feels that way), but you still had the ultimate goal, the Collectors and the Reapers were still out there and you had to stop them. It made for an awesome sequel where you prepared for a suicide mission you might not come back from.
DA2, on the other hand, has no Reaper-lookalike. You barely fight the darkspawn, so I'd say "random highwaymen" is the most commonly fought enemy. The main plot evolves so slowly that you only really realize what the main over-arching idea thread is by Act 3. Kinda late by then, like only after 24 hours of gameplay you have a (still mildly vague) idea of what you're fighting for. Plot lines and quest choices come back to bite you later, buit in some occasions it's been so long since the quest that I have no motivation to go back and help some of these people.
Not to mention the multiple enemy wavesin EVERY fight that ruin most battle plans...I'll not get into that right now.
Anywyas, I don't find the ME -> ME2 comparable to the DA:O -> DA2 transition.
Comparisons can be drawn, but not really direct comparisons. Both games saw their sequels streamlined to appeal to a wider audience, but in the process alienate what is probably a minority of players who really really (really) loved the games the way they were. Both saw improved characterization, simplified inventory, and a storyline that is very vague and really amounts to a collection of side quests (I do agree that ME2 at least had the overarching collector reaper threat to provide the story with some direction). The transitions have a lot in common.
I'd, really, really love to hear these "storyline flaws"
There is a threat at the start that you start hearing of once you get to Kirkwall, and its the Qunari. No, they don't go up and say "Yeah, the Qunari are gonna kill us, we gotta stop them", they don't know yet.
After you get off your ass and get rich from the Expedition, then you really start focusing on the threats. Anders cries about the Templars and Mages, and if you payed attention at all, then you would realize that something is going to happen with them, since many, many quests involve them throughout the game even before Act III.
So, there isn't a real looming threat until Act II, and there doesn't need to be at the start. It would have been boring if they would have just said "Yeah, darkspawn are attacking kirkwall for unknown reasons again. Looks like there is another Architect"
Just because there isn't a clear goal besides survive at the start of the game, doesn't mean its a storyline flaw.
I found that while there were a LOT of side quests during Act I, until you got the 50 gold you never had the main quests. Acts II and III were somewhat sharpwer in their goal, you still feel like the main plot advancements are rather dis-connected while the side quests pop out of the woodwork.
The Anders part I just figured was a character thing, that didn't really have a connection to the story (what if you didn't do the Justice quest I wonder? how would it all end?)
So, while it does come together, it's rather subtle, almost too subtle in its plot weaving. I loved how your decisions in some quests carried over in significance (the Lily-killler, Thrask etc) and drastically affect your play-through, but I would have preferred a great goal from the beginning to anchor my motivation and remind why I should care what happens to the people and the city.
Karon wrote:I'd, really, really love to hear these "storyline flaws"
I don't want to go into detail, as regardless of the quality, the ending was at least entertaining, and I'd rather not tempt anyone by putting in spoilers. YOu can find the flaws easily enough based on information in the Codex in DAO, and recognize quickly that the outcome of events in DA2 make very little sense. That and the storyline itself is relatively weak. Elector put his/her finger on it when saying that the story line lacks direction.
There is a threat at the start that you start hearing of once you get to Kirkwall, and its the Qunari. No, they don't go up and say "Yeah, the Qunari are gonna kill us, we gotta stop them", they don't know yet.
Spoiler:
The qunari are one of the biggest flaws in the main story line. The entirety of Act 2's main quest line is a wild card that has little to do with Act 1 and Act 3. It's only purpose is to make Hawke the Champion and to allow the events of Act 3 to happen, but this goal could have been achieved with a quest line more in line with the other two acts. The Qunari are really left field as it pertains to their involvement in the Act 2 story line. They would have worked as side quests, but their insertion into the main quest line is very haphazard.
EDIT:
Spoiler:
It also doesn't help that the side choosing decision at the end of the game is supposed to be hard, but is ironically easy considering that every other quest in DA2 involves a mage doing something bad. Every thing in DA2 proves the Templars right, regardless of a certain someone.
Just because there isn't a clear goal besides survive at the start of the game, doesn't mean its a storyline flaw.
The story line's primary flaw is weak structure and as Elector said, a lack of direction. It actually could have been really interesting if it had remained more focused on the events towards the end of the game, but instead, you spend the first ten to fourteen hours running errands to do a single forty minute story quest, followed by another three to four hours of errands and some story line quests unrelated to the story line of Act 1.
This saddens me greatly. I can agree with people who say Bioware is repetitive in their story lines, but at least Bioware was a master of story structure, progression, and development. DA2 lacks the quality I like in their past games. The story is, weak. They did a great job of keeping the suspense, keeping us guessing, but in the end, the story just doesn't feel very fulfilling, and it's outcome makes no sense when one examines Bioware's own lore from DAO.
You don't want to go into detail, because you don't want to tempt people with spoilers? Lol
The storyline is subtle, I agree, and possibly too subtle. Indeed, I felt betrayed at the end because I wasn't sure exactly what I was doing, but I thought about it a bit and you can barely call the side quests "side" quests. They are integral to do so you can understand what is going on a bit more around the city as a whole, and not feel like the game was too short.
The Qunari are just another variable. They are an alien race that inhabits the city to get this Relic, which ties in with Isabela.
All I hear you saying is "when you examine the lore" or "this doesn't make sense when you read the codex", etc.
Give me direct examples. The game isn't perfect, but its definitely one of the best games I've played in its genre since DA:O.
Because the story lacks direction doesn't mean it is flawed, I'll repeat. Its subtle, possibly too subtle, but its still there and you have to do "side" quests to fully understand it, as I am starting to realize as I go through again and complete every single quest I come across.
Edti: You're saying the Nazi Templars are right? That because that some mages happen to focus on blood magic out of survival, or that they killed a guy with magic, means all of them should be gotten rid of or imprisoned?
Some Templars are unjust, some force Tranquility on Mages for no reason besides he is paranoid prick. Many children in Afganistan choose to join a terrorist organization so they can provide for themselves or their family. They are branded as Terrorists for trying to survive in their unique situation.
So if a couple of guys who decide to blow up a building and kill thousands of people in the United States are Muslim, then all Muslims are terrorists?
Karon wrote:You don't want to go into detail, because you don't want to tempt people with spoilers? Lol
Hey, as much as I hate the story, a certain event towards the end of the game is still epic. The shock value delivered is awesome. Possibly because the story up to that point had been so amazingly subtle that something interesting finally happening is a complete head explosion.
All I hear you saying is "when you examine the lore" or "this doesn't make sense when you read the codex", etc.
Examine the outcome of events in DA2. Then, look at what we now about the national and political structures of the various nations of Thedas (as well as possible outcomes for DAO). Doing this is especially easy, because Thedas mirrors medieval Europe. The world on the brink of war makes no sense. That anyone wants Hawke to fix the problem makes even less sense.
I'll send you a full PM on it if you really want me to, but I has rules and one of them is not spoil the ending of anything for a least two years
Edti: You're saying the Nazi Templars are right? That because that some mages happen to focus on blood magic out of survival, or that they killed a guy with magic, means all of them should be gotten rid of or imprisoned?
It's not just some. Half of the side quests in the game involve mages, and almost all of them (and by almost I mean all but 2) end with blood magic and Tevinter Magisters doing horrible things. The games does little to show that the Templar's goal of controlling mages and preventing them from hurting people is flawed. Even the supposedly innocent mages you're suppose to be sympathizing with end up doing what every other mage that isn't you or your sister have been doing. EDIT: And the not all muslims are terrorists analogy can be applied as equally to Templars as it can be to the mages.
The reason there is so many Blood Mages in Kirkwall is because Mages are so heavily persecuted, and the Templars are so powerful. If they weren't such a big influence, and the power was balanced, there wouldn't be any need to resort to Blood Magic.
LordofHats wrote:
It's not just some. Half of the side quests in the game involve mages, and almost all of them (and by almost I mean all but 2) end with blood magic and Tevinter Magisters doing horrible things. The games does little to show that the Templar's goal of controlling mages and preventing them from hurting people is flawed. Even the supposedly innocent mages you're suppose to be sympathizing with end up doing what every other mage that isn't you or your sister have been doing. EDIT: And the not all muslims are terrorists analogy can be applied as equally to Templars as it can be to the mages.
Exactly, I felt a mild obligation to side with the mages while playing a mage, but they made it really hard by the end to not go all Templar all the time thanks to the mother incident and how
Spoiler:
every apostate you save becomes a blood mage and tries to kill you later.
While the only real Templar I disliked was the Tranquil Solution one, there were even some decent ones that I liked, such as Thrask.
I get the "don't punish the many for the crimes of the one" that's being argued, but when every mage save 3 or 4 is a blood mage
Spoiler:
including the first enchanter, and a mage companion,
you generally start blaming the many. And after Anders' actions....well, I started getting angry at the mages too.
When I say the plot is flawed, I am in no way saying it's a bad game, I just felt it's disappointments balanced the growth in gameplay to make neither a ZOMG AWESOME GAME like Origins, nor did it make it a bad game. I finished it earlier today, and I had aloads of fun, but by the end I was tired of the aimlessness.
Finally, Hawke and his siblings had its own plot issue. You barely knew them for more than 10 minutes of gameplay,
Spoiler:
one sibling dies,
and your supposed to feel really bad about it. We don't even get to speak to them before it happens! My motivation shouldn't need prodding to wake up, and that was its big fault.
You're saying that if you were being persecuted and being killed for no reason besides of how you were born, you wouldn't resort to Blood Magic? (Think Holocaust, but the Jews can't defend themselves, and the Nazi's are generally supported)
These mages have no choice in the matter. Its either be killed or defend themselves. Its just the public doesn't like Blood Magic because it does summon demons to power it.
Never, ever would I side with the Templars. I felt Anders was justified in what he did, there needed to be a catalyst event to set this off. It was going to happen sooner or later, and you really can't reason with the Templars at this point.
Karon wrote:You're saying that if you were being persecuted and being killed for no reason besides of how you were born, you wouldn't resort to Blood Magic? (Think Holocaust, but the Jews can't defend themselves, and the Nazi's are generally supported)
These mages have no choice in the matter. Its either be killed or defend themselves. Its just the public doesn't like Blood Magic because it does summon demons to power it.
They have plenty of choice. They don't need blood magic to be powerful. Resorting to blood magic only makes them look guilty, doesn't help their case, and continually proves the Templars right. I'm not saying I like the Templars. But DA2 shows a rather large discrepancy in the number of Mages who go too far (nearly all of them) contrasted to the number of Templars who go to far (only 1 really). I still sided with the Mages, but this conflict was more well balanced in DAO, where most of the mages were good, and the Templars were harsh but understandably so. In DA2, the Templars are much same, but all the mages keep turning to the dark side
I sided with the Mages because I understood the Mages' plights sand wouldn't wish their near-slavery on anyone (I wanted the Templars and Mages to work together), but that doesn't mean I wasn't personally ticked off by every mage I meet attacking me or doing horrible things to me, my family or people I am mildly associated with.
I got this yesterday, and have played a few hours into it so far between classes.
Quite enjoying it, although I've been tempted to start again so I can have a balanced party with my favourite charcters.
The questing to achieve the sum to enter the Deep Roads does seem to not show a great bad guy, but is rather comparable to retrieving the money to get to Spellhold in BG2. The only major difference is the enemy doesn't seem to be as big, nasty and continually overshadowing.
I finally finished it last night. I made a point to try and do as many quests as I could, in the end it took me around 50 hours. Now I can finally get some of my life back and start painting models again I did DA:O, ME2 and DA2 back to back... I need a break
I agree they didn't do a good job leading up to the climax of the story.. it really felt like 3 different stories instead of one big one.
Spoiler:
Part 1 you're going on a deep roads adventure, part 2 you're deaing with the qunari, part 3 you're dealing with the mages & templars. I would have rather see them all intertwined a lot better and if mage vs templar is the focus of the story there really should have been more about it added to the first 2 acts.
The cameos from DAO were nice, but I would have liked to see old characters more involved, like Flemeth for one who seems important at first, then she's gone and that's it.
Overall though it was very enjoyable. I'll definitely be playing through again sometime later, maybe after they put out a few more DLCs. Maybe I'll be a mage who hates everyone and sides with templars
Dunno if I'm gonna get Skrym... haven't played the other games and I like to get the whole story from the beginning.. and I don't wanna blow through 4 long (and lower tech) rpgs before I can get to the new one
Next on my list in a while will prolly be Killzone 3 haven't been following anything else right now.
But I have a necron battleforce and 1500 pts of little rats to paint before I'll buy another game (famous last words ) my model desk is dusty :(
Ha, I had clean forgotten about ME3. We just have "Holliday 2011" I think (may be out of date on this one) so I'm going to say Skyrim will be first -- in which case, I will have troiuble remembering ME3 this holiday, too!
Necros wrote:Dunno if I'm gonna get Skrym... haven't played the other games and I like to get the whole story from the beginning.. and I don't wanna blow through 4 long (and lower tech) rpgs before I can get to the new one
Next on my list in a while will prolly be Killzone 3 haven't been following anything else right now.
But I have a necron battleforce and 1500 pts of little rats to paint before I'll buy another game (famous last words ) my model desk is dusty :(
The stories are unrelated. You don't need to play previous ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Ha, I had clean forgotten about ME3. We just have "Holliday 2011" I think (may be out of date on this one) so I'm going to say Skyrim will be first -- in which case, I will have troiuble remembering ME3 this holiday, too!
Suprisingly one of the games I've never beaten is Oblivion. I was so impressed with it at first but then just sort of lost interest. I think it was the stupid scaling. It just made the leveling pointless.
As per KC, Each installment of TES is self-contained. Only geography and lore -- and the very occasional "easter egg"-like reference -- connects them. The only thing you really miss out on (besides awesome gameplay) is familiarizing yourself with the cosmology/ecology of the setting.
Not even, Morrowind has all fictional plants and animals whereas Oblivion contained mostly real things i.e. Dear and Aloe Vera. What do you mean by cosmology?
I love how none of the templars note you are mage when you fight alongside some of them, throwing fireballs and lightning bolts around all willy-nilly.
Elector wrote:I love how none of the templars note you are mage when you fight alongside some of them, throwing fireballs and lightning bolts around all willy-nilly.
I love how Meredith brings it up once and then never mentions it again
I actually like the new Qunari designs. The Elves are kind of creepy though. I mean, I used to walk into the alienage and think: "Well this is racist and all, but hey, at least they're obviously eating well!"
So much for that plus. Now I enter the alienage and try to figure out why on earth is everyone starving to death XD. I can get that they wanted to differentiate the races more. Elves were just shorter humans really. But now, they're just eerie to look at.
Elector wrote:I love how none of the templars note you are mage when you fight alongside some of them, throwing fireballs and lightning bolts around all willy-nilly.
LordofHats wrote:I actually like the new Qunari designs. The Elves are kind of creepy though. I mean, I used to walk into the alienage and think: "Well this is racist and all, but hey, at least they're obviously eating well!"
So much for that plus. Now I enter the alienage and try to figure out why on earth is everyone starving to death XD. I can get that they wanted to differentiate the races more. Elves were just shorter humans really. But now, they're just eerie to look at.
The 'new' Qunari designs aren't.
Sten made a mention in Origins that he was part of an abnormal bloodline of Qunari, and that they were only really tolerated because other races reacted better to them since they looked more 'normal' than the Qunari themselves do.
They're new in the sense that they didn't exist in DAO. All I really meant. And I doubt Bioware had decided to slap horns on the Qunari at the time of DAO. I actually doubt they ever intended to make a sequel.
EDIT: Sweet. Comics . Are there more? Surely there's enough laughable material in DA2 for an entire series.
LordofHats wrote:They're new in the sense that they didn't exist in DAO. All I really meant. And I doubt Bioware had decided to slap horns on the Qunari at the time of DAO. I actually doubt they ever intended to make a sequel.
EDIT: Sweet. Comics . Are there more? Surely there's enough laughable material in DA2 for an entire series.
I wish but they useally make comic strips on games and stuff relevent to games.
I'm sure they were working on or at least starting on DA2 even before DAO was released... it takes a long time to make games, ya don't just slap em together and hire some struggling actors to do some voices.
I'm sure DA3 is under heavy devlopment right now so they can release it next year. Seems like more and more games are copying off sports games and just putting out a new version every year or so so we keep forking over $60 plus another 50 or so in DLCs.. it's cheaper to wait till the new one comes out, and then buy the ultimate edition of the old one and get all the DLCs for free the DAO ultimate edition was also $50 new for me instead of $60 for new releases.
Finished the demo. It's definately a lot more fun to play and the action is flashier. What do you guys about having to press the A button (or some shape) for every attack now?
Necros wrote:I'm sure they were working on or at least starting on DA2 even before DAO was released... it takes a long time to make games, ya don't just slap em together and hire some struggling actors to do some voices.
I wouldn't be so sure. It's really just what I think, it's not like I have evidence or anything. DA2 just feels like it was sloppily thrown together, tested to the point that gameplay would run well enough, and then pushed out to stores. DAO felt like a game Bioware made because they really wanted to make it, not necessarily because they wanted another series to work on. Then EA found out it was a gold mine XD.
But like I said. Just what I think. There's probably evidence one way or the other somewhere.
I'm usually not a big fan of buton mashing since my old carpal tunnel thumbs get tired too quick, but I didn't mind it in DA2. But the demo for Gods of War had my hands all cramped up. It's probably because the fights were kinda quick and there was a lot of just walking around and questing to balance it out
) and four extra items, too.
