Dragon Age II: EA boogaloo

[AlucardNoir]

Yeah, that's why it's considered bad, hell that's why DAII is considered bad. DAII isn't really bad, the problem is that it's also not good and DA:O was good to great. Think of it like The Godfather III, it's a good movie, a great movie even... except it's the followup to The Godfather part's I and II, two of the best movies ever made. Hell, The Godfather II is considers such a good sequel and movie it's sometimes considered better then the first one in the trilogy. The Godfather part III is a good to great movie, but it's a sequel so you have to compare it the the first two and those are considered close to perfect... and IT isn't anywhere near that.

DA:I and DAII are good games, DA:I being better then DAII but they have to be compared to DA:O and that's a great game. ME:A is a good game, but it has to be compared to the ME trilogy. Even with the end BioWare stuck that trilogy with that's still a fairly good series. Good to great. ME:A is not a great game, it's a competent game, a decent game but when compared to the other games in the series it is found lacking. And you HAVE to compare it to the others. IF they would have made it a new IP it would have probably been received better. But after the end of ME3 people were not willing to give anything in that universe, let alone anything from EA and BioWare an easy pass.

After the ME3 ending and the trilogies wasted potential ME:A needed to be great, not good, not decent, not fine or OK, GREAT. It wasn't. After ME3's ending ME:A needed to redeem the series in the eyes of the players. IT didn't. It's hard to call it mediocre because it's a good game... it's just that it's a mediocre AAA game. IF it was a game from a small indie studio it would have been praised for all it achieved, but from a major AAA studio? from EA? in the same universe as the beloved - up to the final 10 minutes - Mass Effect trilogy?

When you're in the presence of GIANTS you don't need to be a DWARF to stand out.

[Rodan56]

Comparisson always is inevitable in a franchise. Most original properties can stand on their own just fine, but when they're in a franchise, it becomes tricky. You have to live to a legacy now and people are inevitably going to compare you. That's what happens with every Marvel movie even if they're starring different characters. They're made by the same studio, set in the same universe with the same overarching plot. You can't help but compare them to each other, even when they don't match up genre wise.

DA2 has the prolem of not being good enough. The individual parts can work, but the whole is what matters. If that doesn't engage you, then everything falls apart. The idea that nothing you do as Hawke matters is pervasive within the game itself, so... yeah, that's a problem.

ME:A had even more to live to in my opinion and it did fall short. Which is a shame, because I wanted at least some DLC to flesh things out. Specifically anything involving the Quarians who I missed having around. And the fact it seems they were removed for a DLC mission that never came into existence just reveals another problem that makes this whole thing an issue overall.

EA is a terrible publisher that injects really shitty practices into their games in order to increase further spenditure and long term profit. Every game series they touch ends up getting fucked over by the business philosophy of Electronic Arts. See the Command and Conquer franchise which went downhill fast when EA decided to milk it for all it was worth and push concepts and game mechanics that betrayed the core elements of that series. Honestly, DA2 suffered from the a similar push. They wanted to get it done quickly to strike while the iron was hot on the Dragon Age craze. They wanted it out there because they needed something to push for that year with ME2 wrapped. So EA does what they always do, they push up the release schedule and the game suffers because of it. That at the very least is the reason for why so many environments repeat. They didn't have time to do all of them.

[GandALF]

Even without EA people would still be disappointed. Because then Bioware would be experimenting and taking risks and still wouldn't be interested in satisfying anyone's nostalgic obsessions. It's like what Bob Dylan said: "just because you like my stuff doesn't mean I owe you anything".

[hammerofglass]

Personally I didn't like DA2 as a game. The combat is far too simple and repetitive, and our PC Hawke is both a pre-defined personality and an idiot. I actually do like the story though, and consider the fact that nothing Hawke does matters beyond making things worse a strength and nice change of pace compared to the usual Bioware narrative (and to be expected, because Hawke is an idiot). I also love the restrictions the framing device puts on it; certain things have to canonically happen because Cassandra knows about them, but our unreliable narrator Varric can spin any old yarn in the details.

Honestly though, you could skip it and miss nothing. The only part that matters is the Legacy DLC, and Varric summarizes the important part in two sentences in DAI. Even the mage rebellion doesn't properly start until Asunder, one of the spinoff novels, and the events in Kirkwall are almost entirely irrelevant to the actual causes.

[Draco Dracul]

BioWare has been going downhill for a while now. Anthem will be a failure and EA will close them in two or three years at the most. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anybody to loose their jobs but unless Anthem get's canceled BioWare will not celebrate it's 30th year.

Or unless Anthem becomes a huge financial success (which i doubt) i agree that they will indeed get shut down.
And if they get shut down, it will just be another company that EA has bought, that it has shut down.

And while it´s sad to see another great company getting shut down, we do have other companies waiting on the side line to take over their place.
Companies like
CDProject Red (their Witcher series has been a smash hit to say the least and their latest project based on the Cyperpunk franchise seems to have garnered a lot of hype)
Obsidian (Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny has really brought the old classics back into public's eye once more)
and Larian Studios (divinity original sin 1 and 2 have been praised both by the public and reviewers).

I admit, if I have the money and a slot opens up, I'd love to see Chuck tackle Witcher 3. Not the whole Witcher series, just Witcher 3 as one of it's strong points is that it does a fairly good job of getting you up to speed even if you're not familiar with the series. It would also be a nice contrast simply because it does a very good job of making Geralt both feel important and feel motivated.

[Gridlock]

Even without EA people would still be disappointed. Because then Bioware would be experimenting and taking risks and still wouldn't be interested in satisfying anyone's nostalgic obsessions. It's like what Bob Dylan said: "just because you like my stuff doesn't mean I owe you anything".

The whole just because you like my stuff doesn´t mean i owe you anything is okay, but the counter to that would be what comes around goes around.
And i think most fans are more than capable of accepting experimentation and risk taking, but at the same time you can only shit on the fans for so long, before it comes back to bite you.

As mention previously i am fine with the whole the game takes place over a period of 10 years, in a single city and we follow a ferelden refugee as he goes from being just another face among thousand to getting his own mansion and ending up becoming the champion of the city.

It doesn´t have to be the save the world each time, that can get dull too.

BUT at the same time Bioware also needs to know what makes their fans happy, what they are known for.
And some of the things are good story, with great charterers and decent game play.
And sure only catering to your existing fans doing nothing to bring in new ones, is a recipe for disaster too.
But as all things in life it´s a balancing act and if you keep pissing off your existing fanbase with one mediocre game after another you will eventually lose more fans than you gain.

And Bioware is certainly guilty of that.

One thing i felt DA:2 being guilty of was more or less ignoring or rewriting the events of DA:O and Awakening.
The whole Anders being bisexual and merging with Justice... okay how?? There was no signs in Awakening of him ever leaning that way and none of his or Justice´s endings in Awakening or his conversations with Justice ever hinted that merging with Anders was ever something considered.

Another thing i have a problem with in DA:2 is the way the story is told by Varric, sure he would know about his travels with Hawke in the deep roads, but most of the time he would have had no idea what Hawk really did.
Sure the whole spynetwork maybe, but most of the time he tells the story like he was there, which (at least in my playthrough) he wasn´t, so alot of details would be something he just wouldn´t know about.

The DLCs are also a problem, not that those three stroy DLC (in which i think Legacy is the best one) aren´t okay they are.
But the problem is more the timing when exactly are the last two (legacy and Mark of the Assassin) supposed to take place?
The only "logical" explanation would be that they took place in between the 3 acts, but there isn´t given any hint of it.
Because Act 2 you had the whole qunari oprising you don´t have time to go to a fancy party or some ancient temple in the middle of nowhere.
Same with Act 3 and the whole Templar mage rebellion, go away at that time and you are coming back to a city in ruins.
Problem with putting it in Act 1: 1: you are not important enough to be invited to a party and the dwarven mafia probably wouldn´t be able to find you as you where just one in a billion people.
2: Even IF you where and you went guess what Varric and Bartrand would leave without you.

Speaking of mage rebellion and Legacy, that was one of my biggest disappointments in DA:I.
DA:2 lead up to this huge civil war between the Mages and the Templars, and the chantry falling apart as one circle after another rebels.
It would be this huge fight... and it´s over in act 1.
You go in do a little hubbub and the civil war is over...replaced by the villain... from a DLC......................................
If you didn´t buy that particular DLC, you would have NO IDEA who this guy is or why he was so important.
why was DA:I better than DA:2 again??

[hammerofglass]

The DLCs are also a problem, not that those three stroy DLC (in which i think Legacy is the best one) aren´t okay they are.
But the problem is more the timing when exactly are the last two (legacy and Mark of the Assassin) supposed to take place?
The only "logical" explanation would be that they took place in between the 3 acts, but there isn´t given any hint of it.
Because Act 2 you had the whole qunari oprising you don´t have time to go to a fancy party or some ancient temple in the middle of nowhere.
Same with Act 3 and the whole Templar mage rebellion, go away at that time and you are coming back to a city in ruins.
Problem with putting it in Act 1: 1: you are not important enough to be invited to a party and the dwarven mafia probably wouldn´t be able to find you as you where just one in a billion people.

What's the third one? Those are the only two I know of. Or are you counting Sebastian's quest?

I always assumed these took place during one of those three year gaps where nothing much was happening so the story jumps forward. It fits with Cassandra accusing Varric of skipping them.

[Gridlock]

Counting Sebastian's quest, since it was technically DLC, day one DLC yes, but still DLC.
And yes you are right the gabs in between arcs are the only possible place it could be placed in.
Problem is that 1: That armor you recently got/in this year right now, is the one you are wearing when starting the quest same as all the other equipment.
Not the armor you used at the end of the previous arc or anything like that no this one.
That more or less says this is happening now in Arc 1 2 or 3.
And in the temple/legacy, your companions will literally mention how you got time for this since either the Qunari or Merideth is causing trouble in the city, once again putting it in either arc 1,2 or 3.

That´s another problem with DA:2 it literally feel like 3 separate stories, i think there is some cut content from the game, where Varric mentions that nothing really much happened in between arc 1,2 and 3.
But that´s cut content meaning it doesn´t count, since it wasn´t in the game and it really appeared as if they didn´t even try and tie the 3 arcs together.

[RobbyB1982]

I've said it before, but had Dragon Age II been "Dragon Age: Kirkwall" and treated as a lower budget quickly done sidestory that it was, something to fill the space between numbered titles rather than the actual sequel, people would have generally been a LOT more forgiving of it's unusual structure and being stuck in one location. Because hey, its a side story, not part 2.

This is almost certainly why DA3 was given a subtitle instead of a number, and MEA.

As far as Mass Effect, Andromeda's biggest problem was the entire story basically hinged around one plotline between two alien races, (that weren't particularly compelling) and then padded out the rest with completely trivial open world filler..... while the previous games had a dozen big plots going on. If the Krogan/Solarian conflict wasn't interesting to you, then maybe the Quarian/Geth stuff was. Or the Shadow Broker plot in the background. And the elusive man. And the reapers. And you got to learn about 20 different alien cultures.... Andromeda had two. "Peaceful hippies and the 100% evil with no nuance guys that eat them." The other races were minimized or even nonexistant. No Quarians, no Volus, no Hanar or Elcor...The rest was just... politics. Super tiny subplots on the ship you could skip entirely unless they were tied to a crewmate.

And on top of that, your crew roster was tiny. Two token boring humans, a krogan, an asari, a turian, (all races we've had partners for multiple times before) and the new thing. if you didn't like one or two of them your roster options were suuuuper limited... when Mass Effect 2 had 12 characters that's a huge step down. (ME3 only had 8... but most of the old characters popped up for a least one mission.. and they were limited by the fact that potentially almost every single old character could be dead.) So as a result of that, no variety in the interactions, and only a couple loyalty missions and... just not much there. (If we didn't have a Krogan to drag along, I probably wouldn't have gotten through the game.)

Did have a couple cool bits. The first time I fought a boss Architect that was a super amazing fight! ....that you then did another three or four times exactly the same way later in the game. Including for the final boss. LAME.

Another thing i have a problem with in DA:2 is the way the story is told by Varric, sure he would know about his travels with Hawke in the deep roads, but most of the time he would have had no idea what Hawk really did.

Well, I found Varric to be a great character immediately, so he basically never left my party (and he had a permanent slot in 3 as well.) But even without that, unless you *really* try to be awful to him, he and Hawke are really good friends, even when he didn't go on the actual missions he would have heard about them in detail a day or two later. ANd they were together for ten years.

[animalia]

Yeah, that's why it's considered bad, hell that's why DAII is considered bad. DAII isn't really bad, the problem is that it's also not good and DA:O was good to great. Think of it like The Godfather III, it's a good movie, a great movie even... except it's the followup to The Godfather part's I and II, two of the best movies ever made. Hell, The Godfather II is considers such a good sequel and movie it's sometimes considered better then the first one in the trilogy. The Godfather part III is a good to great movie, but it's a sequel so you have to compare it the the first two and those are considered close to perfect... and IT isn't anywhere near that.

DA:I and DAII are good games, DA:I being better then DAII but they have to be compared to DA:O and that's a great game. ME:A is a good game, but it has to be compared to the ME trilogy. Even with the end BioWare stuck that trilogy with that's still a fairly good series. Good to great. ME:A is not a great game, it's a competent game, a decent game but when compared to the other games in the series it is found lacking. And you HAVE to compare it to the others. IF they would have made it a new IP it would have probably been received better. But after the end of ME3 people were not willing to give anything in that universe, let alone anything from EA and BioWare an easy pass.

After the ME3 ending and the trilogies wasted potential ME:A needed to be great, not good, not decent, not fine or OK, GREAT. It wasn't. After ME3's ending ME:A needed to redeem the series in the eyes of the players. IT didn't. It's hard to call it mediocre because it's a good game... it's just that it's a mediocre AAA game. IF it was a game from a small indie studio it would have been praised for all it achieved, but from a major AAA studio? from EA? in the same universe as the beloved - up to the final 10 minutes - Mass Effect trilogy?

When you're in the presence of GIANTS you don't need to be a DWARF to stand out.

In other words people let their expectations reach impossible levels that even if the game HAD been the best thing ever (which to be fair it wasn't) it wouldn't have been able to reach?