Dragon Age 2

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

Spoiler:
allegiance to the mages

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

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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."

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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

Spoiler:
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."

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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

Spoiler:
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".

Spoiler:
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

Spoiler:
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

Spoiler:
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.

Spoiler:
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.