|
-
Geoff Speare
United States
Bedford
Massachusetts
tee hee, that tickles!!!
-
I finished this a while back, but wasn't sure what to think. By now there are a lot of mixed reviews so it's hopefully no shock that this game is not what Mass Effect 2 was to Mass Effect 1.
It feels to me like the game needed 3-6 months more development to add some content and polish what was already there. There are a lot of great ideas in both the story and the game mechanics, but it doesn't feel like they were given their best opportunity to shine.
In short, I would recommend this game to people who loved Dragon Age: Origins enough that they are committed to the series, and to people who like this kind of game. Otherwise, it's not a bad game to play, but there are better ones out there. It's in that "B+ to B" range…which is a shame, because it could have been much higher.
My main points are listed below, with significance (doubleplusgood, etc.). They get a little nitpicky at the end, so don't be put off by the quantity of negative points. I don't go crazy on the spoilers but if you haven't finished the game you might want to skip this.
(++) Non-Epic storyline
I don't like that every fantasy game has to have a "save the world!!!" plot. It was nice to focus a bit more on "small stuff". The storyline was also generally good (not perfect, see below).
(++) I Had a Voice
For Dragon Age 2, they went the Mass Effect route and had your character speak in conversations. This was very nice. Although I can see the benefits to the Dragon Age: Origins route (multiple backgrounds, more story options), this helped me connect with the character and story a lot.
(++) Companions
The storylines, voice acting, and interactions between companions were absolutely top notch. There were many LOL moments just walking around town listening to my party talk amongst themselves. I did not feel like I had to pick certain people to get the good conversations (although Varric was definitely a favorite); regardless of who I was with, they had good things to say.
(++) Repeated Locations
The game is set in and around the city of Kirkwall, and occurs over a period of time years. In each act, you return to the same areas of Kirkwall (docks, Hightown, Lowtown, etc.). This is really nice, as it gives you a sense of continuity and familiarity which helped me to connect with the story.
If the game had more map-based tactics, this familiarity would have been even better (knowing shortcuts, lookout/sniper spots. etc.), but it's not that kind of game. Also, in the later acts it would have been nice to have a little bit of "window dressing" to show the advance of time (either showing the effects of some of the earlier plot points, or just showing that things do change over years).
(+) Companion Homes
In Dragon Age 2, each companion has their own home, and you can go talk to them there (which is where you get their side quests). I really liked this; it made them feel more like people
(+) Gruesome Combats
The fights were definitely over the top violent, with people exploding into chunks or just mist all the time. I'm not generally a huge fan of this, but somehow it worked for this game. Perhaps the fact that you weren't as zoomed in as you are with a first-person shooter (where this level of violence tends to show up) made the difference. It was also useful -- in Dragon Age: Origins, a foe would die and start to fall, but I wouldn't realize he was dead and just keep hitting him for a bit. 
(--) Repeated Locations
Repeating locations at the macro level (i.e., sections of town) is good. Repeating locations at the micro level (i.e., dungeons) is BAD. At one point I did three completely separate side quests in a row, each involving its own set of secret conspirators. All three were using the exact same dungeon map! (I imagined an SNL-style skit where they negotiate who gets to use the dungeon when…"but we have an important sacrifice Wednesday night!") It got really, really old. This is one of the things that a few extra months of development could have been used to fix.
(--) Enemy spawns
In Dragon Age: Origins, pretty much every foe was placed on the map prior to combat. There were skills (Stealth and Survival) that could be used to spot enemies in advance and plan out your fight (or even avoid it).
Not so in Dragon Age 2. The standard pattern for a combat is:
1) 1st wave of foes appear ahead of you
2) Kill most of them
3) 2nd wave of foes appear either behind you or all around you
4) Kill most of them
5) repeat
This made a joke of tactical placement, as your "rear" characters would *always* be right where the 2nd wave showed up. It got to the point where I would send my main character (rogue) forward until the wave was almost dead, then run back toward my mage to anticipate the 2nd wave appearing. And "appearing" is what I mean -- while some foes (undead, street gangs) had animations to sort of explain their appearance (coming out of the ground; rappelling or climbing down from rooftops), effectively everyone was appearing out of nowhere. It was silly -- and more importantly, it took away a major tactical aspect of the game.
(-) Inventory / Items
Having most items usable only by Hawke was really annoying. I got very sick of finding useless stuff (starting with pre-order items!) which could not be used because I was the wrong class.
Also, it seemed like each act of the game had a "best" armor set, which made my armor choices less meaningful as well. I would have preferred more meaningful options.
(-) Ending and "Epilogue"
(I played as a mage-lover but a badass, so it's possible that these comments don't apply to other endings.)
The ending of the game was OK, but had a few problems that made it feel not quite right.
Firstly, the third act as a whole. Meredith is clearly a problem (or the mages are, I guess), but you don't really get much chance to directly do anything about it. I felt like I wanted to confront Meredith the whole time but couldn't until the final battle when it becomes, well, somewhat less subtle about how much of a problem she is. It felt less interactive than the rest of the story.
Secondly, Anders' 9/11 moment. It seemed (and I'd love to be proven wrong here) like there was no way to stop it from happening. I did not like being connected to an event like that (and in fact, was forced to more or less endorse it). On one hand, it's a problem that I'm being forced to sign up for something I didn't want to be involved with. On the other hand, it's a good sign that I'm getting that attached to events in the game.
And then, the mysterious epilogue. This seemed like a huge letdown. It's pretty unclear what the Seeker was looking for, or what Varric's version of the story did to change her mind or her quest. It seemed to me like her actions/dialog would have been pretty much the same no matter what Varric had said about the Champion.
So, as far as I can tell, the Seekers are collecting information on champions (the Warden, the Champion) who do great deeds and then disappear. In both cases, the disappearing part happens off camera so we have no idea if it's significant, even though in both cases it's our character doing the disappearing. In Dragon Age 2 in particular, it seemed like there was room to make some of this playable. Instead of staying "the Champion left Kirkwall, all his companions (except love interest) left him, he disappeared", I would have liked to play some of that out. I guess that's a tribute to the level of connection I have to the characters.
Again, this seems like something that a bit more development could have helped. Maybe this is their area for DLC to fill in the blanks.
Oh, and totally gratuitous placement of Sandahl and Bodahn right before the last fight. Sheesh!
(-) Continuity from Dragon Age: Origins
From a plot perspective, this game could have carried over nothing from Origins and it would have been no different. It was nice from a setting perspective to have characters and references to the first game, but they were so incidental (for the most part, *coughAnderscough*) that it was a bit annoying.
(-) MMO Combat Style
I may be in the minority, but I don't particularly like the MMO concept of "threat". It's a great solution for an MMO where response times make precise positioning of characters problematic, but in a single player game it feels very artificial. Rather than manipulate game stats about who an enemy is mad at, I'd rather position my characters and let the NPCs make "intelligent" choices about who to attack. (If an NPC turns his back on a fighter he gets smacked, but that may be worth it to get to the mage.) It does not seem realistic for the bad guys to whale on the defensive fighter, while someone else is stabbing them in the back repeatedly. Because this type of combat is so common, it's easy to reproduce. I'd rather see something more realistic.
(-) Hi, How Are You? *STAB*
Killing minions seems to be the main method of social interaction in this game. There were several side quests where a dispute between Hawke and some faction was only resolved after Hawke killed dozens of that faction's followers. Somehow, though, those deaths didn't matter -- the leaders would make peace as if nothing had happened. I know combat is the main course of this game, but there was a major disconnect between the level of violence and it's impact on NPCs. I could almost see the "Society Party" quest where you have to kill a couple rooms of butlers and servants before sitting down for tea and crumpets as if nothing had happened.
===
So, that's Dragon Age 2. Coming up, maybe some Mass Effect 2: Arrival DLC, and definitely a lot of iPad stuff...
|
|
