Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

BioWare's sequel to Dragon Age Origins was just announced.

The release date is set at March 2011, for PC, PS3 and X360. The first trailer will see the light of day on August 17th.


BioWare had this to say on the game in general:



and on the story:


Very much looking forward to this game as I loved Origins, hopefuly they will move on to other parts of the world instead of revisiting Ferelden, like what the Elder Scrolls do.

Source: http://epicbattleaxe.com/dragon-age-2-officially-announced-details-emerge/

Looking forward to this, and can't wait to see what they do with the gameplay changes. While i had expected a continution of the first game character I am fine with a game about somone else, aslong as the stuff fro mthe first game shapes the aspects of the world.

Hm, so I assume the Origin stories are being taken out as well?

Yea you play a human named Hawke from a set city

I'm getting a kind of Shepard vibe from Hawke, like Biowares trying to pull that off again. Cool name though.

they are

Visiting the DA2 forums revealed that a lot of people speculate that Hawke is Morrigan's child, however if choices from DA:O will carry over, what happens if you chose to not let Morrigan get laid?

would the childreally be considered a survivor of the blight being born after it was over though?

You're correct, some more skimming found a BioWare post saying it's not the child of Morrigan, so nvm my previous post.

Someone made a thread about what is known so far from BioWare representatives on the forum; http://social.bioware.com/forum/Dragon-Age-2/Dragon-Age-2-General-Discussion/What-do-we-KNOW-so-far-3064634-1.html

Finally we have a fully voiced character.

I see a bunch of dickheads whining about how everyone is afraid of change because they want to play as their own character instead of Hawke in the second game.

It isn't about change; it's about resolving one story before starting the next. If they do that, i'll happily buy #2. If not, i dunno...

Originally posted by Phanteros
Finally we have a fully voiced character.

Ditto. I dislike the soulless shells that are create-your-own-characters.

I suspect you can create your own character.

Dragon Age had that. Same with Mass Effect.

They better get someone who can make the dialogue sound as hilarious as male Commander Shepard.

Preferably also a goofy ass smile.

I just bought Origins four days ago and it's just plain awesome. Now that I know there will be a sequel, Im even more excited. Hope Shale gets ported into the sequel, I like having that golem around.

What I hope gets fixed is the dialouge options. I see options with the word "(Persuade)" in them and that makes me think I earned enough cunning points but when I select it, the characters act all negative-like. In the sequel, if I earn enough cunning points, then the persuade option will open kinda like how if you're good or bad enough in Mass Effect, optional dialouges get highlated in blue or red meaning you can select it without people telling what you don't want to hear. Also, for the love of the Maker, won't Bioware make the protagonist talk? I find it rather ridiculous that in character custimization, there are voice options but the protagonist barely speaks.

You need moar then cunning points to be good at persuasion.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
You need moar then cunning points to be good at persuasion.

Such as?

Uh.

Cranking up your Persuasion talent? =/

Seriously, persuasion breaks the game. It makes you comparable with ****ing Hitler in terms of charisma.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Cranking up your Persuasion talent? =/

Seriously, persuasion breaks the game. It makes you comparable with ****ing Hitler in terms of charisma.

I'm just trying to find a way to get the Lady of the Forest to let me kill the elves and have the Werewolves join the fight against the Darkspawn.

Uh, what?

Go look up how on the interwebz.

Hitler was one of the most charismatic people in history.

The moar joo know

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Go look up how on the interwebz.

Hitler was one of the most charismatic people in history.

The moar joo know

Martin Luther King was charismatic. Are you saying that he too is like Hitler?

You're retarded.

I said the persuasion in the games makes you comparable with Hitler in terms of charisma, not like Hitler.

Hitler killed himself and his country lost and was all ****ed up.

Maybe you should exnay on the persuasion pointsay Nemesis.

ha.

Prove he killed himself.

Losing a war does not lessen Hitler's charisma in any way.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Prove he killed himself.

I have secret video tapes!



Not even. If he was ossumly charismatic he would have just used jedi mind trick type of shit on the nations' leaders to convince them to surrender. He failed.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I have secret video tapes!



Not even. If he was ossumly charismatic he would have just used jedi mind trick type of shit on the nations' leaders to convince them to surrender. He failed.

Scans.

Not true. Martin Luther King lost his war, does he have shitty charisma?

wait wut

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Scans.

Then they would no longer be secret!



Only if you count The Battle of Roscoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaxploitation

6-wqmnJrOFM

WAIT WAT WAS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD AGAIN haermm

I have the feeling this thread will be closed due to derailment. NemeBro is at fault here.

What?

Ep_OTLZOQsU

http://kotaku.com/5614842/dragon-age-2-debut-trailer-looks-slick-pre+rendered

Looks boring tbh, lol.

It's really gay that their changing the game to make you personally the uber badass while everyone else is just like, there. Like... Mass Effect.

I always liked the fact that in DA:O you calling the shots but you weren't really the main character. It was more like you were just a cog in a well oiled machine. Some of your team mates could be stronger or more useful than you, didn't suck up to you, etc. I never liked the fact that in ME2 you were pretty much more useful than any of your team mates and everything was about you all the time.

So yeah, apparently Flemeth will be in your party.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
So yeah, apparently Flemeth will be in your party.

seriously?

Apparently.

I take it that Flemeth will join you only if you side with her in Origins or will she still join you even though you tried to kill her?

Prolly either, considering Hawke had nothing to do with her in Origins ( presumably ).

Also, Morrigan confirms killing Flemeth does not truly destroy her, so if you killed her in Origins, would likely not impede her from appearing.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Looks boring tbh, lol.

It's really gay that their changing the game to make you personally the uber badass while everyone else is just like, there. Like... Mass Effect.

I always liked the fact that in DA:O you calling the shots but you weren't really the main character. It was more like you were just a cog in a well oiled machine. Some of your team mates could be stronger or more useful than you, didn't suck up to you, etc. I never liked the fact that in ME2 you were pretty much more useful than any of your team mates and everything was about you all the time. In DA: O I could literally solo the entire game by myself, and rape the Archdemon without getting hurt once.

Granted I was an Arcane Warrior, but still.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Prolly either, considering Hawke had nothing to do with her in Origins ( presumably ).

Also, Morrigan confirms killing Flemeth does not truly destroy her, so if you killed her in Origins, would likely not impede her from appearing.

I said "tried." I knew what Morrigan said before I went to go meet Flemeth.

I wonder how powerful Flemeth will be when she joins the party. I'd like to see her transform into a dragon and pwn the Darkspawn or whichever foe I face. That would be interesting although I bet there's going to be PIS where Flemeth has a limit and not reveal her full potential. I hope that doesn't actually happen 'cause gimping people from their abilities can really suck although this wouldn't be the first time

Or some bullshit like she dies and reincarnates or something in a weak body.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Or some bullshit like she dies and reincarnates or something in a weak body.

Since we can port our saves from Origins into the sequel, I wonder that if you sided with Flemeth and fibbed to Morrigan that she died, Flemeth would posess her later on and she won't have to be ressurected in a form that's weak. That would work so much better.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Since we can port our saves from Origins into the sequel, I wonder that if you sided with Flemeth and fibbed to Morrigan that she died, Flemeth would posess her later on and she won't have to be ressurected in a form that's weak. That would work so much better.


Where did you see or read this? There are no imports.

Originally posted by Shancus
Where did you see or read this? There are no imports.

You can import saves even into the Origins DLC, Awakening, so why would Bioware not have us import saves into the sequel as well? Also, I could've sworn it was mentioned in an article from Kotaku somewhere.

You import your save from DAO and Awakenings, but you don't import your chatacter. Probably going to be stuff like who the Dwarven king is and such...

Most changes will probably be small but it still provides a cool backline for the story.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Most changes will probably be small but it still provides a cool backline for the story.

Dobut it will be much of anything if at all past a mention here and there. Seems like they moved away from Felerden to avoid the entire thing after all

8Xx0pU-B_yA

reviving thread. people probably already watch this.

Would watch but am listening to Beat a Nail with Your Hammer, and refuse to pause it to watch the vid.

Looked pretty cool.

Hawke reminds me of Guts from Berserk.

7zg478Ui-jc

Leaked gameplay.

Did Koei make this game?

hmm..i don't know that im as excited about this game as i was the first. The gameplay looks very dumbed down, andpart of the reason i loved DA:O was the traditional approach it took to party and combat, yes it was somewhat slow, but that was to be expected and it wasnt a fault.

New gameplay looks better than the old, imo.


It's a wait and see for me.

It's a good thing the combat system has been changed for console users. If I wanted to play what felt like a computer game, I would've played Dragon Age on Windows and not on the Xbox 360.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
If I wanted to play what felt like a computer game, I would've played Dragon Age on Windows and not on the Xbox 360.

Yea, that would have been a good idea.

sWbIFihAzW4

3NNRxBSVS_w

You know what would've been more win? If that armor gave mage Hawke the spell to conjure Necromoprhs to attack your enemies. Necromancy FTW

I played the demo earlier on the 360. I was... not impressed with the combat. At all.

I played it on PC... Still undecided tbh...

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I played the demo earlier on the 360. I was... not impressed with the combat. At all.

Still better than the combat in Origins at least.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Still better than the combat in Origins at least.

God no.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I played the demo earlier on the 360. I was... not impressed with the combat. At all.

Meh, I haven't tried the demo but the reason I usually like Bioware games is rarely the action. It's the story, character interaction and dialogue.

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/02/angry-joe-plays-dragon-age-ii/

I don't know, the combat looks fun to me. The Rogue seems to be incredibly underpowered though. It took them about 10x longer to kill that Ogre than the other classes. That kinda sucks. Though as they pointed out, he does look veeeery badass.

Originally posted by -Pr-
God no.

It's worse... I better try out this demo. I may have to cancel my preorder.

Originally posted by ares834
It's worse... I better try out this demo. I may have to cancel my preorder.
It's just a different style, you actually control their basic attacks in this one, other than that it's not insanely different by any means.

What exactly is wrong with the combat in DA2? I think you're all overreacting.

Probably. I have a bias against shitty gameplay, it's true.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
What exactly is wrong with the combat in DA2? I think you're all overreacting.

There's nothing "wrong" with it, really; it's just different to an extent in that it's faster paced and you fight more enemies at a time (at least sometimes). some people preferred the old style. like me.

i'm still undecided.

Fiddling with the demo I liked the new combat. Felt more involved. It's a lot more exaggerated though, feels more like Diablo or something than Dragon Age.

New combat>Old combat.

Old combat was slow and clunky, at least, on console, because I don't have enough internet access to warrant buying PC games.

Other than being faster-paced and more action-oriented, the combat has not changed a great deal.

It might just be, then, that the combat on console sucks in general. I played the original on the PC, never played it on the 360.

Originally posted by -Pr-
God no.

Hehe! I've played the demo a few times now twice with a mage and once with a warrior and I have to say the biggest problem I had was getting over the new interface. Combat is a slight improvement especially for the warrior with its ability to close the distance in a flash.

But ironically, even though I played a warrior in DA:O I find myself more inclined to play the mage this time, I blame the promo vids and the melee-like abilities of the mage, plus it looks to me like the mage will be overpowered this time without the auto combat of DA:O.

Mages were insane in the Origins too, that's really nothing new. They just had the most boring opening of any other class or race.

Originally posted by Allankles
Hehe! I've played the demo a few times now twice with a mage and once with a warrior and I have to say the biggest problem I had was getting over the new interface. Combat is a slight improvement especially for the warrior with its ability to close the distance in a flash.

But ironically, even though I played a warrior in DA:O I find myself more inclined to play the mage this time, I blame the promo vids and the melee-like abilities of the mage, plus it looks to me like the mage will be overpowered this time without the auto combat of DA:O. The mage was by far the most overpowered class in Origins.

A mage with both Arcane Warrior and Bloodmage as specializations broke the game.

Hell, Arcane Warrior alone broke the game.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The mage was by far the most overpowered class in Origins.

A mage with both Arcane Warrior and Bloodmage as specializations broke the game.

Hell, Arcane Warrior alone broke the game. This is true, AW made a better tank than any warrior tank, did more dps than any rogue DPS, etc etc.

I downloaded the PC version of the demo. Omg, the game plays sooooo much better. Combat feels a thousand times better. It also looks pretty damn nice, even on medium graphics setting.

You guys on the console are missing out, unfortunately.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The mage was by far the most overpowered class in Origins.

A mage with both Arcane Warrior and Bloodmage as specializations broke the game.

Hell, Arcane Warrior alone broke the game.
It sucks that there is no Arcane Warrior in this game. Sure it may have been OP, but it was completely BA!

I havent played the demo yet, but I'm going to get the game anyway!

So what class are you guys going to use first? I'm undecided between warrior and Mage.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The mage was by far the most overpowered class in Origins.

A mage with both Arcane Warrior and Bloodmage as specializations broke the game.

Hell, Arcane Warrior alone broke the game.

I kinda liked my OP Arcane Warrior

Yeah do not get me wrong, loved Arcane Warrior lol.

Will prolly make a mage first.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The mage was by far the most overpowered class in Origins.

A mage with both Arcane Warrior and Bloodmage as specializations broke the game.

Hell, Arcane Warrior alone broke the game.

Never went beyond the intro levels of my mage play through, so I didn't pick up on that, I was basing this on my default mage party member Wynne, who was more a buffering mage than a destructive one.

Also two of my full play through characters were also Templars, so I tended to experience less of the destructive side of magic.

Arcane Warrior is not a destructive mage.

He is by far the best tank in the game. You simply cannot die with all the buffs.

Blood Mage accentuated that strength by increasing the necessity for a decent constitution, and giving you borked ass spells like Blood Wound.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Arcane Warrior is not a destructive mage.

He is by far the best tank in the game. You simply cannot die with all the buffs.

Blood Mage accentuated that strength by increasing the necessity for a decent constitution, and giving you borked ass spells like Blood Wound.

Playing the demo made me wonder about how to build a strong mage who also wore decent armor, couldn't stand the robe you get in the final part of the demo.

This is going to be one of the few times I buy a strategy guide.

I think I'm going to start of as a mage, and prob buy a strategy guide. The last guide I bought was for Fallout 3

I enjoyed Dragon Age Origins a lot, played the main game for about 77 hours, and then later got Awakening. Nevertheless, I wasn't really interested in Dragon Age 2, enjoyed the first one a lot, but wasn't yearning for a sequel.

But then I tried the demo, loved it. Combat was a hell of a lot better, the fighting animations were highly improved. And I really enjoy the more Mass Effectian dialogue sequences. So I guess it's back on the map for me.

Also, it seems being good at the beginning will make sure that Bethany survives, while she dies at the evil choices (or maybe it's a sex thing, I played the demo as evil male, and Bethany died, while as good female made the brother die), either way, I prefer Bethany and want her alive in the main game.

It's based off class. If you're a mage then Bethany dies, if youre a warrior or a rogue Carver dies. Notice that in the exaggerated version if you're a mage Carver's helping you and if you're the others Bethanys with you. It's to make your party balanced or something I guess.

Originally posted by Morridini
I enjoyed Dragon Age Origins a lot, played the main game for about 77 hours, and then later got Awakening. Nevertheless, I wasn't really interested in Dragon Age 2, enjoyed the first one a lot, but wasn't yearning for a sequel.

But then I tried the demo, loved it. Combat was a hell of a lot better, the fighting animations were highly improved. And I really enjoy the more Mass Effectian dialogue sequences. So I guess it's back on the map for me.

Also, it seems being good at the beginning will make sure that Bethany survives, while she dies at the evil choices (or maybe it's a sex thing, I played the demo as evil male, and Bethany died, while as good female made the brother die), either way, I prefer Bethany and want her alive in the main game.

I got Dragon Age Origins late in the game, but I also enjoyed the game. Awakening was also pretty good. I saw the trailer for Dragon Age 2 and began to get excited for the it. Until I found out that you can be only a human, I was confused how your actions in the first game would transfer to the sequel. I'm still looking forward to the sequel though, its coming soon!

But your decisions from DAO won't do anything in this game will it? As this takes place in a different continent at the same time.

Originally posted by Nephthys
It's based off class. If you're a mage then Bethany dies, if youre a warrior or a rogue Carver dies. Notice that in the exaggerated version if you're a mage Carver's helping you and if you're the others Bethanys with you. It's to make your party balanced or something I guess.

But, but....noo!

I liked Bethany, but I want to kick-ass like he does in the trailer and at the end of the fake beginning. Ripping stuff apart with magic hands.... Darn it.

Originally posted by Morridini
But your decisions from DAO won't do anything in this game will it? As this takes place in a different continent at the same time.

From what I've read your choices in DAO will influence the story in DAO, is Alister king or is it the girl, did Loghain die or did he survive, did Morrigan get the child with you or Alister, who became king of the dwarfes etc. etc.

Originally posted by Utrigita
From what I've read your choices in DAO will influence the story in DAO, is Alister king or is it the girl, did Loghain die or did he survive, did Morrigan get the child with you or Alister, who became king of the dwarfes etc. etc.

That makes the game more intersting for me, I want to see how my choices changed the world

Originally posted by Morridini
But your decisions from DAO won't do anything in this game will it? As this takes place in a different continent at the same time.



But, but....noo!

I liked Bethany, but I want to kick-ass like he does in the trailer and at the end of the fake beginning. Ripping stuff apart with magic hands.... Darn it.
Does this all take place during the same time? I know the beginning does, but it looks like there's a significant time gap in the game, as you've become a legend. I imagine part of this game is going to take place quite awhile after the arch demon is defeated.

Yes, the game spans a period of 10 years.

So over how long a period did Origins + Awakening span? There was quite a lot of traveling here and there, and even though we only spent a couple of hours at eahc place, I'm sure quite some time passed ingame.

I don't know but I don't think it was very long.

I would say 6 months to a year.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I don't know but I don't think it was very long.

I would say 6 months to a year.

Sounds right.

Wow I wonder how many hours I will spend on this game? I spent quite a few hours on Origins and that was only 6 months to a year, so Dragon Age 2 will take a small chunk of my life

I wouldn't be surprised if Dragon Age 2 is shorter than the first. Notably shorter too.

There was a lot of filler in the first. A lot of quests that had very big tunnels to traverse.

I for one expect around the same use of time on this one as the previous one.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I wouldn't be surprised if Dragon Age 2 is shorter than the first. Notably shorter too.

There was a lot of filler in the first. A lot of quests that had very big tunnels to traverse. You mean The Fade and the Deep Roads?

Hated those places.

Oh god. Yeah, I hated the Fade level as well. Although it was kind of an interesting spin on things.

There exists a mod that's sole purpose is letting you skip the Fade.

Never before have I been so envious of PC gamers.

Yeah, those two parts were brutally long.

The Dwarven area and the Mage area took 5 hours or longer for me. Funny that the eleven area took like an hour.

PC Gamer gave Dragon Age 2 94% and said it was one of the best RPG's out there.

Tried the demo, I really liked the improvements in the game. Combat feels better and I like how the conversations went the Mass Effect route.

Got it on Steam and looking forward to playing it.

Originally posted by NemeBro
There exists a mod that's sole purpose is letting you skip the Fade.

Never before have I been so envious of PC gamers.

There also exist a Mod that (as incredible as it sounds) enhances Blood Magic and one that makes Shapeshifting very lethal (http://www.dragonagenexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=91 read and weep)

Originally posted by NemeBro
There exists a mod that's sole purpose is letting you skip the Fade.

Never before have I been so envious of PC gamers.

i've used it. tis awesome. you even get all the str/dex etc points you would have gotten from it too.

Just beat the game and... Wow! I had a blast!

I greatly preffered this one's story, and the ending was amazing. I wals also far more attached to the character Hawke than I ever was to the Grey Warden.

The game sounds awesome but there's something about it that doesn't make me feel as hyped as I was for Dragon Age Origins. Wonder what it is.

Probably the 2 behind the name.

i've been trying to get into this but just can't. just played for an hour and i really tried engaging myself in the game and the story and the action but i don't just can't find the appeal for me..

i tried giving origins a chance too but i just couldn't get into it. and i don't know what it is because i like games like this, like mass effect 1 and 2 with 2 being my favorite game.

i'll give it another try tommorow.

This game has alot more in common with the ME than Origins IMO. Also the story really doesn't pick up untill the 2nd Act. And by the 3rd Act.... It's going full steam!

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/03/dragon-age-ii-angry-review/

Good points. Well made.

Lots of negative reviews on the Bioware website:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6413491/69

This game seems to have had some really, really bad design choices in it. You can only give your main character new equipment (is it just armour?). WTF, seriously? Thats just ****ing stupid.

You can equip your character the way you like (Weapon, rings, necklace, gloves, boots, armor, belt) and your team you can provide with weapons, belt, rings and necklace. You can also upgrade your characters by attaining material from vendors and some bosses, upgrading their static equipment (Equipment that increase in power alongside levels)

If you find upgrades and rune them, your teams gear is frequently at or above Hawke's gear level. Why it is a bad thing, I do not know. These characters chose to join you, I do not see why they should not choose what to wear. If you max friendship, their equipment will change further.

In a way, this is far better than any other way. Because of their static armor, that upgrade automatically according to level and not by switching it yourself, even the characters you do not use will have their gear up to speed. Characters can and will leave you depending on choices: I much rather find myself after that with characters whose armor still keep up, than out of date because I have not used the character. This allow you to switch more freely, without having to worry about what gear they have.

I can give you a lot of reasons not to play the game, but I also can give you a lot of reasons to do so. In the end however, it is best if you try it out for yourself.

Your username is the best username in the forum. You are now my favourite guy.

I will sonic rainboom to that

Will also say that you should not care what the masses and media says about a game. Some naysayers of Dragon Age 2 bring up really good points, that can not be argued or refused. Other bring up problems that are not so much a problem as a result of too high expectations: Not unlikely unrealistic expectations. EA put time pressure on BioWare, and only so much good can come out of it then. Not saying that makes it less bad, but it gives another perspective.

I played Dragon Age 2 with skepticism because of the haste it was released in, and my skepticism was unfortunately met by my fears for this sequel. And despite all the things you find yourself complaining at as you play the game, bottom line is that it's still a great game. Better than most RPG out there. It just can not compete with the first one, and if you compare it to the first one, there is just one outcome: Low rating.

Great game. It's no Dragon Age: Origins, but it's great.

I prefer it to Dragon Age: Origins.

Dragon Age was always meant to be a sort of dark, Low Fantasy series, which I don't think Origins conveyed nearly as well as 2.

I know a lot of people were complaining that you had to press the attack button every time you wanted to attack. Not sure why that's a problem for some people. Allows for better control of a character. They can attack the number of times I want them to, and then stop and do other things quickly and easily.

The skills and abilities were a lot better this time around, I thought. Fighting was a lot more fast paced. Though I'm not sure why some enemies would spontaneously explode when I poke them with a dagger. It's not like it ruins, or even hurts the game in any way for me, but it does seem a little over the top.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Mass Effect dialog option. True it's nice to have Hawke have a voice so talking to people seems a little more natural. But it DOES take away a bit of the customization aspect of the character. Like it or not, there are some things that Hawke will be that you can't change. Dragon Age Origins didn't have the ability to make a 100% original character either, but it was closer than DA2 was.

I also didn't much like that you could really only be nice, mean, or smart mouthed. I mean, for one of my specific characters, there are times when I want to be neutral, but I don't want to be a cocky about it. It doesn't fit the character I was going for.

The character armor thing seemed a little lazy too. It might make more sense, technically, for a character to choose their own clothes, but it's a video game. I'm not choosing their clothes for them. I'm choosing to have them choose what clothes they want. It's nice to have original looking characters and everything, but they could have given us the option to change their outfits a little more than they did. It got annoying to throw away 70% of the equipment I picked up.

Okay, I'm done ranting now. I actually really liked the game a lot. Probably more that Origins in the end I think.

I liked this game a lot, I just wished it had more gameplay. The fighting, and skills and abilities upgrades was good to me. I liked the Mass Effect dialog option too. I didn't like the fact that if I chose The first or second Hawke Preset than I couldn't change any small thing like the skin tone. Overall the game was great.

Just finished it.

It's a good game, not as good as the first. They took what made the first annoying but took it to a complete extreme.

I commented before but I feel this game would of been really good as a open world type atmosphere similar to Assassins Creed. It was annoying to go back and forth to different areas constantly and considering the game took place in a city throughout the 30 hours I played it, I never really took it as a city. I felt it was a bunch of maps combined by loading screens.

The ending was kind of whack. I followed an branch of the storyline for entire game and at the end, I was like, "man I feel bad I went with these guys". Also, a bit annoying about some of the quest bugs I encountered.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Just finished it.

It's a good game, not as good as the first. They took what made the first annoying but took it to a complete extreme.

I commented before but I feel this game would of been really good as a open world type atmosphere similar to Assassins Creed. It was annoying to go back and forth to different areas constantly and considering the game took place in a city throughout the 30 hours I played it, I never really took it as a city. I felt it was a bunch of maps combined by loading screens.

The ending was kind of whack. I followed an branch of the storyline for entire game and at the end, I was like, "man I feel bad I went with these guys". Also, a bit annoying about some of the quest bugs I encountered.

I thought they could have done a better job with picking sides for the ending and through the game. I mean, you have one side which is obviously evil. Had they made it a little less clear, it would have been a much harder choice to make. There ARE points to be made about both sides, and had they given each of them their due, it would have been a harder choice. Neither side should have been "bad", it should have been up to the player to weigh both sides of the argument and decide who to side with.

I do not agree with "obviously evil". I could really relate to both sides, all throughout the game. Neither side had unfounded principles and both had valid points, as well as reasons to why you should not join them

I assume you consider allegiance to the mages the obvious choice? To me, the most heartwarming and the easier choice is not always the better choice. Just because it is easier to feel sorry for one side, does not mean the other side can not be right

Originally posted by Rainbow Dash
I do not agree with "obviously evil". I could really relate to both sides, all throughout the game. Neither side had unfounded principles and both had valid points, as well as reasons to why you should not join them

I assume you consider allegiance to the mages the obvious choice? To me, the most heartwarming and the easier choice is not always the better choice. Just because it is easier to feel sorry for one side, does not mean the other side can not be right

I know, but had they made the other side less blood thirsty, and crazy, and instead made them more logical, or gave their viewpoint more credit, it would have been better.

through the whole game, night commander Meridith was acting crazy. The mages really did have it bad in this case. Plus, even if you DID understand the templars point of view, the act of having them decide to massacre every single mage turned their side evil right then and there. An argument CAN still be made for their side, but it's be pretty hard to argue for someone who demands that hundreds if not thousands of people be mercilessly slaughtered in order to get rid of a few bad apples. That, and they ordered it because of the actions of someone outside of the circle! If they didn't have that, and replaced insaino meridith with a more logical, if strict, knight commander, the decision would have been much harder. It was much more easy to see the mages point of view than it was the templars. Also, you were always surrounded by mages. Especially Anders. It might have been a good idea to have a templar companion to get both sides of the argument.

The reasoning behind many of the templar philosophies is mages being under frequent risk of being corrupted by entities of the fade. All it takes is one demon, the wrong one, and the world is done for. Archdemons, lying dwarves, Lyrium-high swordsmen and Witches of the Wild can sing all they want. One minor slip-up by a mage, or by templars surveying a mage, and the world is changed forever and not for the better.

They make the hard choices. Some of them might not even sleep at night, but they keep the world safe.

Neither side is "in the right."

While Meredith is more obviously evil than Orsino, Orsino is just as bad as her, if not worse. Think about this, what did Meredith really do before Act 3 to draw your ire? Things were strict for mages, but it was mostly Act 3 where things got REALLY bad. And Meredith has the excuse of her mind being corrupted by her pure Lyrium sword. Compare this to Orsino. You could almost understand him resorting to Blood Magic at first, but then it becomes obvious he has been supporting a damn Blood Mage serial killer for years. Him name-dropping Quentin made it obvious that he was "O," the person supplying Quentin with research materials. So the Circle HAS in fact been sheltering and supporting dangerous maleficarum as Meredith suspected, and Orsino is partly responsible for the death of Hawke's mother. Oh, and if you join the templars, he kills the mages he claimed he wanted to protect so he could become a Harvester. Nice guy. Another key tip-off was Orsino's staff, the three-headed dragon symbol was common among Blood Mage lairs even in Origins.

Granted, not everyone in the Circle is an evil mage, but the same is true for the Templars.

Meredith and Orsino are both corrupt figures, certainly, but not all templars or mages are evil. Hell, Cullen, the Knight-Captain who wanted to Anull the Circle in Origins, even turned his sword against her, seeing how far-gone she is. Yet even if you join the templars, you can spare some mages who are not dangerous, meaning you can choose to only kill Maleficarum.

So yeah, neither "side" is obviously evil, only their leaders definately are. Oh, and this game certainly does a better job of conveying "greyness," considering the Darkspawn were definately, if not evil, a threat that HAD to be stopped.



Edit: Oh, before I forget.

Anders does NOT count as being a legitimate presenter of a pro-mage argument.

Anders is everything people fear about mages, it was clear from at least Act 2 he was insane. He committed a terrorist act, killing numerous innocent people and lighting Kirkwall on fire, all to start a war in Fereldan.

The Circle exists for a reason. When it doesn't, you get the Tevinter Imperium.

Originally posted by Rainbow Dash
The reasoning behind many of the templar philosophies is mages being under frequent risk of being corrupted by entities of the fade. All it takes is one demon, the wrong one, and the world is done for. Archdemons, lying dwarves, Lyrium-high swordsmen and Witches of the Wild can sing all they want. One minor slip-up by a mage, or by templars surveying a mage, and the world is changed forever and not for the better.

They make the hard choices. Some of them might not even sleep at night, but they keep the world safe.

I know. I'm not saying they don't have valid points supporting their side. I'm saying the game could have done a better job at portraying that. And besides, the ending I brought up is still evil.


Originally posted by NemeBro
Neither side is "in the right."

While Meredith is more obviously evil than Orsino, Orsino is just as bad as her, if not worse. Think about this, what did Meredith really do before Act 3 to draw your ire? Things were strict for mages, but it was mostly Act 3 where things got REALLY bad. And Meredith has the excuse of her mind being corrupted by her pure Lyrium sword. Compare this to Orsino. You could almost understand him resorting to Blood Magic at first, but then it becomes obvious he has been supporting a damn Blood Mage serial killer for years. Him name-dropping Quentin made it obvious that he was "O," the person supplying Quentin with research materials. So the Circle HAS in fact been sheltering and supporting dangerous maleficarum as Meredith suspected, and Orsino is partly responsible for the death of Hawke's mother. Oh, and if you join the templars, he kills the mages he claimed he wanted to protect so he could become a Harvester. Nice guy. Another key tip-off was Orsino's staff, the three-headed dragon symbol was common among Blood Mage lairs even in Origins.

Granted, not everyone in the Circle is an evil mage, but the same is true for the Templars.

Meredith and Orsino are both corrupt figures, certainly, but not all templars or mages are evil. Hell, Cullen, the Knight-Captain who wanted to Anull the Circle in Origins, even turned his sword against her, seeing how far-gone she is. Yet even if you join the templars, you can spare some mages who are not dangerous, meaning you can choose to only kill Maleficarum.

So yeah, neither "side" is obviously evil, only their leaders definately are. Oh, and this game certainly does a better job of conveying "greyness," considering the Darkspawn were definately, if not evil, a threat that HAD to be stopped.



Edit: Oh, before I forget.

Anders does NOT count as being a legitimate presenter of a pro-mage argument.

Anders is everything people fear about mages, it was clear from at least Act 2 he was insane. He committed a terrorist act, killing numerous innocent people and lighting Kirkwall on fire, all to start a war in Fereldan.

The Circle exists for a reason. When it doesn't, you get the Tevinter Imperium.

Yeah, but Orsino never said, "let's slaughter every mage because one of them is bad." I have no doubt Orsino isn't a good guy, but the templars were still the ones who were all for a mass murder of tons of innocent people.

Like I said, had Merideth been replaced with someone who wasn't completely crazy, and had they not decided to massacre tons of people, their view points would have gotten a better rap, and as such, would have made it a more reasonable choice.

They should have spent more time evenly supporting both sides of the argument. As it is. None of your companions hold a templar point of view, as far as I know.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yeah, but Orsino never said, "let's slaughter every mage because one of them is bad." I have no doubt Orsino isn't a good guy, but the templars were still the ones who were all for a mass murder of tons of innocent people.

Like I said, had Merideth been replaced with someone who wasn't completely crazy, and had they not decided to massacre tons of people, their view points would have gotten a better rap, and as such, would have made it a more reasonable choice.

They should have spent more time evenly supporting both sides of the argument. As it is. None of your companions hold a templar point of view, as far as I know. No because Orsino was far less obvious about it, yet it was still there. Also, note the fact that a LOT of the mages you meet, ARE in fact evil Blood Mages. You fight much more evil mages than you do evil templars. Now, while this can partially be blamed on Meredith for squeezing them so hard, the mages are also at fault. Also, stop blaming it on the templars, and only the templars. The templars are perfectly willing to let Hawke who sided with the mages go on the grounds that Meredith was bonkers, so you cannot demonise the entire faction based on the will of their leader.

Look at it from their point of view. A mage just annihilated the chantry and set the city on fire. Now, while Meredith certainly was just looking for an excuse to take out the Circle of Magi, not every templar was there, all they knew was that a mage just attacked Kirkwall. Seriously, neither side is "good," but neither is purely evil, which is the point. And to be fair to the templars, mages ARE in fact dangerous. Sure, fear of mages sometimes gets out of hand, but it is justified. The power of a single Abomination can lay waste to cities.

Actually, uh, Carver, your brother, joins the templars if you did not take him to the Deep Roads lol. Also, there are in fact likeable templar characters in the game. Ser Thrask and Emeric, for instance. But outside of your party, how many likeable mages are there? Grace is a backstabbing bitchwhore abomination, Quentin killed yer mum, Orsino funded the research of said mum killer, and stuff. Hell, even INSIDE your party, Anders' bitching about mages holds little weight when you realise he's insane.

Keep in mind that I did in fact side with the mages, and it seems the more "good" choice at first, but both sides have some serious faults.

Originally posted by NemeBro
No because Orsino was far less obvious about it, yet it was still there. Also, note the fact that a LOT of the mages you meet, ARE in fact evil Blood Mages. You fight much more evil mages than you do evil templars. Now, while this can partially be blamed on Meredith for squeezing them so hard, the mages are also at fault. Also, stop blaming it on the templars, and only the templars. The templars are perfectly willing to let Hawke who sided with the mages go on the grounds that Meredith was bonkers, so you cannot demonise the entire faction based on the will of their leader.

Look at it from their point of view. A mage just annihilated the chantry and set the city on fire. Now, while Meredith certainly was just looking for an excuse to take out the Circle of Magi, not every templar was there, all they knew was that a mage just attacked Kirkwall. Seriously, neither side is "good," but neither is purely evil, which is the point. And to be fair to the templars, mages ARE in fact dangerous. Sure, fear of mages sometimes gets out of hand, but it is justified. The power of a single Abomination can lay waste to cities.

Actually, uh, Carver, your brother, joins the templars if you did not take him to the Deep Roads lol. Also, there are in fact likeable templar characters in the game. Ser Thrask and Emeric, for instance. But outside of your party, how many likeable mages are there? Grace is a backstabbing bitchwhore abomination, Quentin killed yer mum, Orsino funded the research of said mum killer, and stuff. Hell, even INSIDE your party, Anders' bitching about mages holds little weight when you realise he's insane.

Keep in mind that I did in fact side with the mages, and it seems the more "good" choice at first, but both sides have some serious faults.

This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it. This is a spoiler with nothing in it.

Originally posted by NemeBro
No because Orsino was far less obvious about it, yet it was still there. Also, note the fact that a LOT of the mages you meet, ARE in fact evil Blood Mages. You fight much more evil mages than you do evil templars. Now, while this can partially be blamed on Meredith for squeezing them so hard, the mages are also at fault. Also, stop blaming it on the templars, and only the templars. The templars are perfectly willing to let Hawke who sided with the mages go on the grounds that Meredith was bonkers, so you cannot demonise the entire faction based on the will of their leader.

Look at it from their point of view. A mage just annihilated the chantry and set the city on fire. Now, while Meredith certainly was just looking for an excuse to take out the Circle of Magi, not every templar was there, all they knew was that a mage just attacked Kirkwall. Seriously, neither side is "good," but neither is purely evil, which is the point. And to be fair to the templars, mages ARE in fact dangerous. Sure, fear of mages sometimes gets out of hand, but it is justified. The power of a single Abomination can lay waste to cities.

Actually, uh, Carver, your brother, joins the templars if you did not take him to the Deep Roads lol. Also, there are in fact likeable templar characters in the game. Ser Thrask and Emeric, for instance. But outside of your party, how many likeable mages are there? Grace is a backstabbing bitchwhore abomination, Quentin killed yer mum, Orsino funded the research of said mum killer, and stuff. Hell, even INSIDE your party, Anders' bitching about mages holds little weight when you realise he's insane.

Keep in mind that I did in fact side with the mages, and it seems the more "good" choice at first, but both sides have some serious faults.

I'm not saying all templars are bad. But they ARE going to follow Meridith's orders, which are bad. In the end, it's still a choice between siding with the side that is going to slaughter innocent people, or siding with the innocent people trying to avoid being slaughtered. Not a real hard choice there.

Sure, you can sit back and say "templars mistreat innocent people cause they might possibly do bad things if we don't mistreat them". Really, that's not even the point. My point is the game didn't present the two sides of the situation evenly. The templars were basically evil at the end. It doesn't matter that there are valid reasons to consider the templars point of view. Meridith just ordered tons of innocent people to be slaughtered. The other templars are going to follow her orders. The templars are actively trying to kill a lot of innocent people. End of story. Even if you supported more of a templar point of view up until now, you still can't support the slaughter of innocent people without being the bad guy.

Thrask and Emerik where nice templars, but they weren't good voices for the templar point of view. Mainly because they never really talked about it. Carver was a complete jerk the whole way through, and he never really came off as a "templar" sort of guy as much as he did "anti-mage".

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not saying all templars are bad. But they ARE going to follow Meridith's orders, which are bad. In the end, it's still a choice between siding with the side that is going to slaughter innocent people, or siding with the innocent people trying to avoid being slaughtered. Not a real hard choice there.

Sure, you can sit back and say "templars mistreat innocent people cause they might possibly do bad things if we don't mistreat them". Really, that's not even the point. My point is the game didn't present the two sides of the situation evenly. The templars were basically evil at the end. It doesn't matter that there are valid reasons to consider the templars point of view. Meridith just ordered tons of innocent people to be slaughtered. The other templars are going to follow her orders. The templars are actively trying to kill a lot of innocent people. End of story. Even if you supported more of a templar point of view up until now, you still can't support the slaughter of innocent people without being the bad guy.

Thrask and Emerik where nice templars, but they weren't good voices for the templar point of view. Mainly because they never really talked about it. Carver was a complete jerk the whole way through, and he never really came off as a "templar" sort of guy as much as he did "anti-mage".

Anders destroyed the Chantry. I think they gave mages a pretty bad name there as well, especially since he claimed to represent their best interest

Originally posted by Rainbow Dash
Anders destroyed the Chantry. I think they gave mages a pretty bad name there as well, especially since he claimed to represent their best interest

But that was one mage. There was also that templar that wanted to make every single mage tranquil. Both sides have good and bad. That's not really the point. You don't kill hundreds to thousands of innocent people just because one of them did something bad. That is what we call an evil decision. Thus, siding with this decision becomes the bad choice.

And again, the templar point of view was never presented well. It's greatest spokesperson was a mad woman. Anders, though he went crazy at the end, DID make good points in defending mages beforehand.

Also Anders was an Apostate Mage and was not a member of the Circle of Magi that Meredith and the Templars were going to kill. They were killing people over a crime someone else (unrelated to them) had committed.

Yeah, the Templars were Lawful Evil.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Just finished it.

It's a good game, not as good as the first. They took what made the first annoying but took it to a complete extreme.

I commented before but I feel this game would of been really good as a open world type atmosphere similar to Assassins Creed. It was annoying to go back and forth to different areas constantly and considering the game took place in a city throughout the 30 hours I played it, I never really took it as a city. I felt it was a bunch of maps combined by loading screens.

The ending was kind of whack. I followed an branch of the storyline for entire game and at the end, I was like, "man I feel bad I went with these guys". Also, a bit annoying about some of the quest bugs I encountered.

It should have been more sand box like ala Assassins Creed, especially since the whole game takes place in one city. I guess the excuse is that they're dealing with a much more involved experience in terms of player choice and character interaction, but the city was too sectioned up. They missed a bit of an opportunity there.

I don't think there is a difference between what Assassins Creed divided up its main missions and Dragon Age 2. Even the side quests are similar.

But I do think your right about the city being sectioned off. It ruined any sort of feeling a city would have. It just didn't work that well. Having the city completely open world (where you can see Hightown/Lowtown) would make the story feel much more connected.

Beat this game a while ago.


And I enjoyed it just as much as Origins, with the gameplay being undoubtedly superior to Origin's. While I did enjoy the story better in Origins, Dragon Age 2's was still excellent.


Also, Dragon Age 2 is so much more grim dark. Which is good.

To me this game paled in comparison to the original but still a huge fan of the series and will definitely scoop up any dlc.

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/117/1178033p1.html

Bumpedy bump.

So I'm finally playing this now (got it as an early bday present), and after a gruelling campaign of playing Origins and the DLC (seriously, **** you Golems of Amgarrak), I managed to import a save in to DA2 that had all my decisions saved.

So far, I'm liking it, but I'm considering nabbing some DLC for it.

Are there any "must haves" DLC wise?

I didn't play any of the DLC.

I didn't mind DA2. I really enjoyed how the story took place in one city. It was different than Origins and the story aspect could of been great.

But I felt the game lacked execution.

I'm a massive fan of the first game; it's arguably my favourite ever RPG. I can see some positives in this game which make it enjoyable to play, but it doesn't compare to its predecessor, imo.

I've only read a Lets Play of it and the game came off as pretty pants. Its probably not that bad, the gameplay looks good, but the story and certain quests looked really bad.

The first game was epic as hell though.

From what I've seen so far:

Pros:

-Fun combat mechanics. Magic abilities look impressive, and no matter what class you play, you feel like a badass, which imo is important.
-The characters actually have layers to them. I didn't expect to care about Aveline or Isabela or Merille (though I still can't listen to her without seeing the girl from Torchwood, dat welsh accent etc), and yet it's done so subtly and so well that even a facial expression makes you think twice.
-Melee combat as a mage. It might be simply executed and have almost no variety, but being able to whack someone in the head with a staff is great imo.
-The general plot, while not very epic imo, is well-enough written that it's entertaining.
-Varric. As good as any Dragon Age companion imo.

Now, the cons:

-Everything is streamlined as ****. There's only one type of health and mana potion. You only get to choose your PC's armor; your companions just get "upgrades". They can still equip any weapons/pendants/rings though.
-Repetitive environments. I have to go to the Wounded Coast again? Really? That's what, four times now? I've played MMOs. I'm a veteran of the "get all the side quests, then do them 3-4 at a time as they all happen in the same place" system. In this game, it doesn't work like that; it's kept separate to keep you going back.
-Can only play as a human. I get that for the purposes of the story that it's how it has to be, but they should have made the story accommodate such things imo.

But yeah, so far it's fun. I'm enjoying it. Also, Isabela's rack... Holy crap.

Yeah, the repetitive environments is a major weakness of the game. If they were all varied, I think the game would get much less flak.

PR is right the characters are top notch. The story as well in my opinion. It's not epic as Origins but there is a lot of mystery and intrigue in the game that make a much different experience than Origins. But it's still good.

I like how the game is not epic. Why does every RPG need to be epic in scope? It works because the characters are well done and I really enjoyed the scope of the story. Having it take place over years is a very cool idea and could of opened a few interesting twists in the plot.

But it was executed incorrectly. To make a story feel worthwhile and that your decisions affect the world, the world needs to change. During the story, Kirkwell goes through a lot of shit but the world is exactly the same. That homeless elf is still in the same spot, the banners are exactly the same, the houses are all the same.

What they should of done is changed the environments to reflect what you have done. If you killed somebody during a story element, maybe have a few crosses where he fell. If a building burns down, have a different shack there. If you let somebody live and let somebody die, reflect that in the atmosphere. Big wasted potential in my opinion.

Overall, it's a good game, it's just not as good as Origins and it was a big let down because Bioware makes very good games. But I understood what they were doing and I'm happy they tried something different.

I don't think it has to necessarily be epic; just that after Origins, which was so huge, it was a pretty big disparity, was all.

I've only had one jump so far, but as I understand it, i'm on the last quest before the next one (im about to pay for the deep roads expedition).

Yeah, it was.

I just think it would be noticeable if DA2 was done well.