I will remain skeptical until the game is actually released and I have read some player reviews and watched some Let's Play video's. Won't be one of the sheep mindlessly following the herd on this one.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud Or, alternatively, the people excited about the game are just liking what they see.
Always want to have the last word and subtly announce your opinion, eh? Well, I don't mind others being excited about this. It's become an apparent thing in gamer culture as off lately, this habit of buying a game which was so bad, ther was an outrage. But as soon as the next game is announced, they're there again, drooling and hopping around from excitement, waiting till they can get outraged again. I don't get that attitude. For me, the logical thing is that if a game was bad, to become careful with the next release instead of throwing my money away on what could be another fail. I'm a student, my finances aren't infinite. I want my money's worth. And the past has learned me to especially be careful with fickle game producers like the current Bioware. Please go on drooling. I don't mind. I'll just wait here on the sidelines. Patience is a virtue, and one that often gets rewarded by reading outraged reviews while I still have those 60 bucks sitting safely in my wallet.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud The smugness radiating off you is palpable. You're approaching this from the point of view that Dragon Age II was somehow objectively bad, that nobody was satisfied with their purchase. I bought the game and enjoyed it thoroughly despite a few things like the much-too-fast two-handed weapon animations and the Berserker's wanton consumption of Stamina rendering it virtually worthless as a specialization. I voiced those concerns, but I am otherwise quite content.
Always want to have the last word and subtly announce your opinion, eh? Well, I don't mind others being excited about this. It's become an apparent thing in gamer culture as off lately, this habit of buying a game which was so bad, ther was an outrage.
I didn't think the game was bad. At all. In fact, quite the contrary, it was much, much better than Dragon Age 1. Schneidend may not agree with the last part, but as he points out, he likes the game too. Lots of people like the game.
You didn't like it. That does not make it objectively bad. It means that you didn't like it. Do you not understand the difference between your personal opinion and verifiable fact?
It's a verifiable fact that it had reused locations, silly animations, the extremely hideous dialogue wheel, boring fights with unending waves of enemies appearing from thin air, ridiculous characters and so on and so forth. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
I for one would be very curious/interested (legitimately, not trolling) in learning why there seems to be such a decent sized following out there who finds DA2 to be superior to DA1, because I can't possibly fathom on any level why someone would think that way o.o I like to consider myself very open minded and capable of seeing things from other perspectives, but I just can't see how DA2 is superior to DA1 from any perspective
It's a verifiable fact that it had reused locations, silly animations, the extremely hideous dialogue wheel, boring fights with unending waves of enemies appearing from thin air, ridiculous characters and so on and so forth. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Duck! Kill it with fire and serve it up for dinner!
I agree with all points. I only played the game once and couldn't stand replaying it after that. I was so excited about it to, and it was followed by nothing but dissapointment
It's a verifiable fact that it had reused locations, silly animations, the extremely hideous dialogue wheel, boring fights with unending waves of enemies appearing from thin air, ridiculous characters and so on and so forth. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
I didn't mind the reused locations given that it was a planned urban environment (designed intentionally with evil magical geometry, no less) and all took place in the same city and region over the course of ten years, so locations becoming re-infested with baddies made sense. The characters even lampshade the reuse of hideouts and warehouses in-game. DAO also had its fair share of boring fights with stupid amounts of enemies, so neither game is innocent in this regard.
The animations for two-handed weapons and the stabbing with non-sword one-handed weapons weren't great. I've said as much on multiple accounts.
I liked the dialogue wheel just fine.
I'm not sure what you mean by ridiculous characters. More ridiculous than a sentient sociopath golem or a loopy Ranger pointing a hamster at people to gauge their morality? Hardly.
Again, we're talking about purely subjective stuff, here. Where you found cons, I found pros, etc.
I for one would be very curious/interested (legitimately, not trolling) in learning why there seems to be such a decent sized following out there who finds DA2 to be superior to DA1, because I can't possibly fathom on any level why someone would think that way o.o I like to consider myself very open minded and capable of seeing things from other perspectives, but I just can't see how DA2 is superior to DA1 from any perspective
Personally, I've wanted a more character-driven story RPG for a long time. DA2 was really the first to make the offering that I've played. NWN2's Storm of Zehir expansion looked promising in this regard, but it was so buggy when it first came out I could not play it. I have yet to revisit and patch it, so DA2's the only game in town so far. The combat itself, animations aside, felt much improved, with more nuanced character building thanks to less linear talent trees. The cross-class combo system kept Rogues and Warriors a bit more engaged in strategizing and ordering moves alongside their Mage counterparts. My favorite specialization, the Reaver, became even more fun to play, although my other favorite, the Berserker, became less useful. Having a fully-voiced protagonist is also something I enjoy. The DA2 cast also featured an awesome wisecracking sidekick dwarf, a sexy black pirate queen, and an Amazonian warrior woman with adorable freckles, all of whom I very much liked.
@Schneidend I for one found the combat system/setup to be more - unrealistic and uninteresting to me =/ For a petty reason perhaps, but I cannot stand Final Fantasy type games where weapons the size of small houses can be swung around with the ease of a butter knife. DA:O, all of the weapons felt realistically weighted and slowed the characters down in respect to their size. Especially *moan* SHIELD BASH! lol
But you do have my interest on the character development side of things, especially when you mentioned Storm of Zehir. I played SoZ, never finished it, but I loved the Icewind Dale-esque ability to create more than a single character, which is what I (at first) thought you meant by "character driven story RPG". Sadly, I don't believe that is the case. If DA2 gave me the option to make multiple characters for my party I definitely could have overlooked the other things that bothered me about it.
I definitely respect your interest in the game, I just hope I can understand more clearly why that is. Maybe I am indeed missing something? DA:O is one of my all-time favorite "modern" RPGs, though, and giving that you are limited to a 3 character party and can only design one yourself, that's saying something (if you know me at least :P).
silly animations, the extremely hideous dialogue wheel, boring fights with unending waves of enemies appearing from thin air, ridiculous characters and so on and so forth.
Everything else there is your personal, subjective, non-factual opinion and I disagree with it. Do you understand the difference between your opinion and a fact?
@Varwulf Like I said, the animations didn't appeal to me, either. I also much preferred the weightiness of DAO's animations. DAI seems to be bringing them back to that flavorful state.
By character-driven, I mean that the story is mostly pushed forward by the characters rather than by big things happening (i.e. Baldur's Gate's iron shortage or Neverwinter Nights 2's sacking of your village) and the characters reacting to them.
Character building is fairly linear in DAO. For instance, Warriors that want to be good with two-handed weeapons have their two-handed grouping, and each set of talents is entirely sequential. DA2 gives multiple trees within the same class that can be used by either of the melee classes. Even each tree isn't entirely linear, although they enforced a bit of linearity within the same tree by requiring a certain number of points to be invested in the tree for some talents. Some were less severe than others.
I for one would be very curious/interested (legitimately, not trolling) in learning why there seems to be such a decent sized following out there who finds DA2 to be superior to DA1, because I can't possibly fathom on any level why someone would think that way o.o I like to consider myself very open minded and capable of seeing things from other perspectives, but I just can't see how DA2 is superior to DA1 from any perspective
Thanks for asking, it's refreshing to see someone curious rather than hostile. Here's five reasons, an arbitrary number because otherwise this post would be three or four times longer.
1) I really, really liked how you could develop your character through the attitude system, which not only influenced what you said, but how people reacted to you, what your reputation was before people even met you, how other party members bantered about you, and so forth. You could establish a lot of very subtle nuances about your character (my own Hawke was consistantly portrayed as trying to avoid confrontations, which came up in places I didn't pick a dialogue for it, to name one example), and I found at least the predominantly female/charming playthrough I did to include a lot of very funny lines.
2) There was a LOT more interplay between party members in DA2, and it was much more complex and intricate. There is, for instance, actual dialogue for former lovers of Hawke to have snarky conversations with the current lover of Hawke, should that have happened in your game.
3) The replacement of a "disapproval/dislike" system with "rivalry". This is a great development, because it removes the incentive to babysit characters and only take them along for certain plot choices they'll like, or just leaving them out altogether because they won't like your character. In DA2, NPCs will still come to respect your character as a great hero even if they personally disagree with you, meaning your relationships with them (and romances) have a great deal more possibilities. There is no downside to full rivalry; you still get bennies and they won't desert you (because they still respect you), but your relationship is totally different, offering much greater roleplay possibilities.
4) Combat is much more fast-paced and exciting than it was in DA:O, and your NPCs are less likely to get themselves turned into chunky salsa if you stop paying attention to them for five seconds (babysitting Sten was both unfun and seemed profoundly wrong). There are also more viable options, while DA:O included a lot of fun-sounding but pretty useless ones (like shapeshifting).
5) The redesign of elves and Qunari (technically just the species that most Qunari are, of course) to actually look like something different than humans, since they aren't supposed to be humans.
BONUS REASONS:
6) Varric.
7) Varric.
8) Great voice acting, especially Varric.
9) Varric.
10) The only real downside of DAII is that you can't romance Varric. Despite the fact I'm straight and have never liked a dwarf in much of anything, I would so totally romance the hell out of Varric. But he still exists, so it's a net plus.
@Schneidend Oh I will definitely agree with you about the linear leveling setup in DA:O. I wasn't overly impressed with the leveling system, to be honest. I guess because I spent such little time leveling up compared to playing the game, it wasn't something I really noticed before.
My mistake too on what you meant by character-driven storyline. I do see what you mean. I do think the "realist" in me likes a story that your characters react to, rather than have a lot of control over because it feels more like real life, but I do get what you mean, I do like it too when the character is more of the focus rather than the events taking place. I might give DA2 another looking at in the future, but for now my job saps so much of my free-time I have (literally) 50 games sitting on Steam or elsewhere that I haven't even got around to installing and even taking a look at yet. I have a feeling DA2 might be put on the back burner until I retire, become rich, or get fired, whatever happens first--lol...
@Ayiekie 1) Admittedly, the attitude system DOES sound pretty cool compared to the somewhat more linear system in DA:O. I'll give you that, and it is something I'd certainly like to play with some more.
2) It sounds to me like the difference between BG2 and BG1 in that regard. Also intriguing.
3) I have to admit when I heard of the "rivalry system" I immediately thought of some of the newer NASCAR games out there that have a similar system (even though I like racing games, this does make me chuckle because I don't exactly think of racing games and RPGs being on the same intellectual plane xD), but as you described I do see how it could be an interesting system to play around with. Again, I might need to give DA2 a better looking at some day, perhaps when I am 80 and retired, or dead :P
4) I do think my experience with the combat in DA2 (I only played a couple hours) left me feeling somewhat unenthusiastic, I guess. Maybe I just am not much for the faster paced combat? I really liked the pace and feel of the combat in DA:O.
5) I will definitely have to look more closely at this, I didn't get to see Elves or Qunari on my limited playthrough. That is something that does seem like it would certainly add to the experience, to me.
6) Agreed lol, at first I was turned off by the idea of being "narrated" by the dwarf, but the way they played it out was pretty clever and I did like it. One thing that I found I liked more than DA:O, in a way.
7) ^
8) ^
9) ^
10) I know what you mean, in other games I've often found myself playing out of character in order to romance a character I wouldn't otherwise be interested in BECAUSE they had some very interesting quirk or quality to them that was just - yeah :P Nuff said, lol
Yeah, the combat system is a personal preference thing. I liked that it was kinetic and exciting and always moving, and the relative lack of babysitting all the NPCs it had compared to DA:O. Luring enemies into a bunch, freezing them and then Rain Of Doom-ing them was very good fun for me.
Others don't like it; I'd say DA:O was more tactical, and if that works for you there's nothing wrong with that. I like tactical combat in some games (I play a lot of strategy games), but didn't like DA:O's for various reasons (it's one reason I've never managed to get through the game).
Though, let's not kid ourselves (not addressing you here, but others who've complained), DA:O was just as unrealistic as DA2 for combat. All that fighting 15-foot-tall ogres and jumping on them and stabbing them in the face and whatnot is just as ridiculous as DA2's Buster Swords and staff-fu. It's just a more conventionally Western form of ludicrously unrealistic and thus more in some people's comfort zone.
Oh, let me add one more little thing about DA2 I really appreciated - that if you make Hawke non-white, her family member's design changes to be non-white as well (and not just skin colour; asian!Carver has a different hairdo and face to white!Carver, for example). It's such a little thing, but so great and helps cement Hawke and his/her family as yours.
I still think the original BG characters are way more unique than a wimpy waifu anime elf, a brooding Final Fantasy elf and an STD on legs. Oh well, guess I'm old-fashioned. But better be old-fashioned and have some actual gaming standards and values than to be satisfied by every flashy toy EAware throws at me. We'll see how Inquisition turns out. I for one am still not one ounce interested in it, nor EAware in general.
Dragon Age 2 wasn't great, but it wasn't the worst game I played that year by a long shot. In fact, I'd call The Witcher a worse game than Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age at least has memorable and interesting characters in it.
I can't see myself not buying Dragon Age 3, unless something catastrophic happens to it. Bioware-haters are numerous and over-zealous these days, and they get a lot of the attention. Which takes away from the fact that Bioware still make solid RPGs (albeit with the visible tendrils of EA in them nowadays). It's become very hipster-ish to hate on Bioware and call The Witcher the greatest thing evar.
Dragon Age 2 wasn't great, but it wasn't the worst game I played that year by a long shot. In fact, I'd call The Witcher a worse game than Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age at least has memorable and interesting characters in it.
I can't see myself not buying Dragon Age 3, unless something catastrophic happens to it. Bioware-haters are numerous and over-zealous these days, and they get a lot of the attention. Which takes away from the fact that Bioware still make solid RPGs (albeit with the visible tendrils of EA in them nowadays). It's become very hipster-ish to hate on Bioware and call The Witcher the greatest thing evar.
and the tendrils of EA are very noticeable. I LOVED bioware, that love led me to Baldur's Gate even when I missed it in my youth. I wouldn't be here if I didn't at one point love Mass Effect and Dragon Age, so no I am not some hipster who is out to just hate Bioware because that is what everyone is doing. In fact most of us have been set off on this anti EAWare campaign for some reason or another. I asked in a poll some time ago when they were done with Bioware, or even if they still like them. Funny enough Dragon Age 2 somehow did better than Mass Effect in that poll, but the hate choices in general outweighed the other options greatly.
the point is that Bioware is no longer Bioware. They are an EA company using their name. They have lost most of their staff and even the doctors, and the only person left that I can look at in Bioware as a good man who hasn't had a part in all that was done is Patrick Weekes, who even admitted to us that Walters and Hudson were the only ones behind the ending. Even if they declined the statement, it is obvious they are covering it up.
I am sure that @Kitteh_ON_A_Cloud, myself, and other Bioware haters would get the game if it turns out to be good. But right now we must remain skeptical when looking at Bioware's recent games. I was able to let them go on Dragon Age 2, I was nearly as into it as Mass Effect but when they messed up Mass Effect 3 there were no second chances there for me. I do it because I like the series that they made, so maybe they should be glad that I am hating on them. It shows that they made something good enough for me to fight for it.
I still think the original BG characters are way more unique than a wimpy waifu anime elf, a brooding Final Fantasy elf and an STD on legs. Oh well, guess I'm old-fashioned. But better be old-fashioned and have some actual gaming standards and values than to be satisfied by every flashy toy EAware throws at me. We'll see how Inquisition turns out. I for one am still not one ounce interested in it, nor EAware in general.
I'm curious to know what prompted that post. Did you feel you had not made it sufficiently clear that you disliked DA2 and that some doubt still remained? Does it physically pain you if this thread lies fallow for a week? Is it some sort of ritual magic? Are you engaging in a stealth attack on my sanity by trying to make to reconcile "I for one am still not one ounce interested in it" with the like thirty posts you've made about it?
I am sure that @Kitteh_ON_A_Cloud, myself, and other Bioware haters would get the game if it turns out to be good. But right now we must remain skeptical when looking at Bioware's recent games. I was able to let them go on Dragon Age 2, I was nearly as into it as Mass Effect but when they messed up Mass Effect 3 there were no second chances there for me.
Yeah, I don't get that either. Because I liked Mass Effect 3, and think the ending they pandered to with fans is far inferior to the ending they replaced. Nothing wrong with Mass Effect 3 as a game, it just didn't pander to what the hardcore fans wanted, so they revolted.
That's my view on it anyway. Rushed production schedules and invasive DLC is the only thing which is negatively affecting Bioware, and the former seems to be changing under the new EA regime. So still hope for them yet.
I still think the original BG characters are way more unique than a wimpy waifu anime elf, a brooding Final Fantasy elf and an STD on legs. Oh well, guess I'm old-fashioned. But better be old-fashioned and have some actual gaming standards and values than to be satisfied by every flashy toy EAware throws at me. We'll see how Inquisition turns out. I for one am still not one ounce interested in it, nor EAware in general.
Your opinion is entirely subjective. It does not reflect you having higher "values" or others having lower "standards." Don't try to elevate your personal preferences to some loftier old guard that's right about everything. It's transparent, insulting, and just makes you look foolish and smug.
I actually didn't think DA2 was HORRIBLE; the plot was silly, but I liked the characters and the gameplay decently enough. But I DID end up feeling like I should have waited for some word of mouth I trusted, since I ended up feeling like it wasn't worth an early purchase. I don't plan to make the same mistake for DA3. I'll buy it early if I hear good things about it from people I trust, otherwise... well, everything goes on sale EVENTUALLY.
I still think the original BG characters are way more unique than a wimpy waifu anime elf, a brooding Final Fantasy elf and an STD on legs. Oh well, guess I'm old-fashioned. But better be old-fashioned and have some actual gaming standards and values than to be satisfied by every flashy toy EAware throws at me. We'll see how Inquisition turns out. I for one am still not one ounce interested in it, nor EAware in general.
I'm curious to know what prompted that post. Did you feel you had not made it sufficiently clear that you disliked DA2 and that some doubt still remained? Does it physically pain you if this thread lies fallow for a week? Is it some sort of ritual magic? Are you engaging in a stealth attack on my sanity by trying to make to reconcile "I for one am still not one ounce interested in it" with the like thirty posts you've made about it?
Never have I stated that my opinion is superior to anyone else's but I get the feeling from both you and @Schneidende that you two are both pissed off because I happen to not like Dragon Age 2 as much as both of you and am not afraid of taking a step back and criticising it. I'm not a foolish hater of Bioware myself. I just have been following the current Bioware (EAware by now) for years, and in my opinion there were a lot of things they did wrong, typical EA practices obviously noticable in their current games. Such as the 'everyone's bisexual in DA 2 because we're too afraid to upset the gays/lesbians out there by having some characters NOT be bang-able' thing. But let's not get deeper into that, as it's already been discussed and it just leads nowhere. Please lay down the condescending tone too. I'm sorry for not being in love with this game as much as you are.
No, I'm just wondering why you felt the need to randomly post that you hated it, after the thread had been dead for a few days, more or less prompted by nothing. I don't really care that you hated it, Kitteh. I mean, what difference does it make? I mean, it'd be nice if you didn't think you hating the game justifies you telling anyone who liked it that they're awful and have bad taste and like animu waifus and the numerous other things you've said in this thread, but ultimately it neither picks my pocket or punches my nose that you don't like the game.
You're wrong, though, about the gay/lesbian thing. Well, you're wrong because your reasoning on why most of the romances were open to both genders is objectionable and awful, but aside from that, you're factually wrong because only females can romance Sebastian.
I still think the original BG characters are way more unique than a wimpy waifu anime elf, a brooding Final Fantasy elf and an STD on legs.
You're right, BG doesn't have wimpy anime elves
or brooding Final Fantasy elves
or STDs on legs at all.
Bravo, you've impressed us all with your factual and objective knowledge, and thanks to you, we fans of DA2 have seen the light and acknowledge that it's a horrible, horrible game. Your existence is hereby validated. Whatever will you do with all your free time now that the battle is over?
Comments
Excellent, then I have no complaints!
Or, alternatively, the people excited about the game are just liking what they see.
The smugness radiating off you is palpable. You're approaching this from the point of view that Dragon Age II was somehow objectively bad, that nobody was satisfied with their purchase. I bought the game and enjoyed it thoroughly despite a few things like the much-too-fast two-handed weapon animations and the Berserker's wanton consumption of Stamina rendering it virtually worthless as a specialization. I voiced those concerns, but I am otherwise quite content.
You didn't like it. That does not make it objectively bad. It means that you didn't like it. Do you not understand the difference between your personal opinion and verifiable fact?
I agree with all points. I only played the game once and couldn't stand replaying it after that. I was so excited about it to, and it was followed by nothing but dissapointment
The animations for two-handed weapons and the stabbing with non-sword one-handed weapons weren't great. I've said as much on multiple accounts.
I liked the dialogue wheel just fine.
I'm not sure what you mean by ridiculous characters. More ridiculous than a sentient sociopath golem or a loopy Ranger pointing a hamster at people to gauge their morality? Hardly.
Again, we're talking about purely subjective stuff, here. Where you found cons, I found pros, etc. Personally, I've wanted a more character-driven story RPG for a long time. DA2 was really the first to make the offering that I've played. NWN2's Storm of Zehir expansion looked promising in this regard, but it was so buggy when it first came out I could not play it. I have yet to revisit and patch it, so DA2's the only game in town so far. The combat itself, animations aside, felt much improved, with more nuanced character building thanks to less linear talent trees. The cross-class combo system kept Rogues and Warriors a bit more engaged in strategizing and ordering moves alongside their Mage counterparts. My favorite specialization, the Reaver, became even more fun to play, although my other favorite, the Berserker, became less useful. Having a fully-voiced protagonist is also something I enjoy. The DA2 cast also featured an awesome wisecracking sidekick dwarf, a sexy black pirate queen, and an Amazonian warrior woman with adorable freckles, all of whom I very much liked.
I for one found the combat system/setup to be more - unrealistic and uninteresting to me =/ For a petty reason perhaps, but I cannot stand Final Fantasy type games where weapons the size of small houses can be swung around with the ease of a butter knife. DA:O, all of the weapons felt realistically weighted and slowed the characters down in respect to their size. Especially *moan* SHIELD BASH! lol
But you do have my interest on the character development side of things, especially when you mentioned Storm of Zehir. I played SoZ, never finished it, but I loved the Icewind Dale-esque ability to create more than a single character, which is what I (at first) thought you meant by "character driven story RPG". Sadly, I don't believe that is the case. If DA2 gave me the option to make multiple characters for my party I definitely could have overlooked the other things that bothered me about it.
I definitely respect your interest in the game, I just hope I can understand more clearly why that is. Maybe I am indeed missing something? DA:O is one of my all-time favorite "modern" RPGs, though, and giving that you are limited to a 3 character party and can only design one yourself, that's saying something (if you know me at least :P).
Like I said, the animations didn't appeal to me, either. I also much preferred the weightiness of DAO's animations. DAI seems to be bringing them back to that flavorful state.
By character-driven, I mean that the story is mostly pushed forward by the characters rather than by big things happening (i.e. Baldur's Gate's iron shortage or Neverwinter Nights 2's sacking of your village) and the characters reacting to them.
Character building is fairly linear in DAO. For instance, Warriors that want to be good with two-handed weeapons have their two-handed grouping, and each set of talents is entirely sequential. DA2 gives multiple trees within the same class that can be used by either of the melee classes. Even each tree isn't entirely linear, although they enforced a bit of linearity within the same tree by requiring a certain number of points to be invested in the tree for some talents. Some were less severe than others.
1) I really, really liked how you could develop your character through the attitude system, which not only influenced what you said, but how people reacted to you, what your reputation was before people even met you, how other party members bantered about you, and so forth. You could establish a lot of very subtle nuances about your character (my own Hawke was consistantly portrayed as trying to avoid confrontations, which came up in places I didn't pick a dialogue for it, to name one example), and I found at least the predominantly female/charming playthrough I did to include a lot of very funny lines.
2) There was a LOT more interplay between party members in DA2, and it was much more complex and intricate. There is, for instance, actual dialogue for former lovers of Hawke to have snarky conversations with the current lover of Hawke, should that have happened in your game.
3) The replacement of a "disapproval/dislike" system with "rivalry". This is a great development, because it removes the incentive to babysit characters and only take them along for certain plot choices they'll like, or just leaving them out altogether because they won't like your character. In DA2, NPCs will still come to respect your character as a great hero even if they personally disagree with you, meaning your relationships with them (and romances) have a great deal more possibilities. There is no downside to full rivalry; you still get bennies and they won't desert you (because they still respect you), but your relationship is totally different, offering much greater roleplay possibilities.
4) Combat is much more fast-paced and exciting than it was in DA:O, and your NPCs are less likely to get themselves turned into chunky salsa if you stop paying attention to them for five seconds (babysitting Sten was both unfun and seemed profoundly wrong). There are also more viable options, while DA:O included a lot of fun-sounding but pretty useless ones (like shapeshifting).
5) The redesign of elves and Qunari (technically just the species that most Qunari are, of course) to actually look like something different than humans, since they aren't supposed to be humans.
BONUS REASONS:
6) Varric.
7) Varric.
8) Great voice acting, especially Varric.
9) Varric.
10) The only real downside of DAII is that you can't romance Varric. Despite the fact I'm straight and have never liked a dwarf in much of anything, I would so totally romance the hell out of Varric. But he still exists, so it's a net plus.
Oh I will definitely agree with you about the linear leveling setup in DA:O. I wasn't overly impressed with the leveling system, to be honest. I guess because I spent such little time leveling up compared to playing the game, it wasn't something I really noticed before.
My mistake too on what you meant by character-driven storyline. I do see what you mean. I do think the "realist" in me likes a story that your characters react to, rather than have a lot of control over because it feels more like real life, but I do get what you mean, I do like it too when the character is more of the focus rather than the events taking place. I might give DA2 another looking at in the future, but for now my job saps so much of my free-time I have (literally) 50 games sitting on Steam or elsewhere that I haven't even got around to installing and even taking a look at yet. I have a feeling DA2 might be put on the back burner until I retire, become rich, or get fired, whatever happens first--lol...
@Ayiekie
1) Admittedly, the attitude system DOES sound pretty cool compared to the somewhat more linear system in DA:O. I'll give you that, and it is something I'd certainly like to play with some more.
2) It sounds to me like the difference between BG2 and BG1 in that regard. Also intriguing.
3) I have to admit when I heard of the "rivalry system" I immediately thought of some of the newer NASCAR games out there that have a similar system (even though I like racing games, this does make me chuckle because I don't exactly think of racing games and RPGs being on the same intellectual plane xD), but as you described I do see how it could be an interesting system to play around with. Again, I might need to give DA2 a better looking at some day, perhaps when I am 80 and retired, or dead :P
4) I do think my experience with the combat in DA2 (I only played a couple hours) left me feeling somewhat unenthusiastic, I guess. Maybe I just am not much for the faster paced combat? I really liked the pace and feel of the combat in DA:O.
5) I will definitely have to look more closely at this, I didn't get to see Elves or Qunari on my limited playthrough. That is something that does seem like it would certainly add to the experience, to me.
6) Agreed lol, at first I was turned off by the idea of being "narrated" by the dwarf, but the way they played it out was pretty clever and I did like it. One thing that I found I liked more than DA:O, in a way.
7) ^
8) ^
9) ^
10) I know what you mean, in other games I've often found myself playing out of character in order to romance a character I wouldn't otherwise be interested in BECAUSE they had some very interesting quirk or quality to them that was just - yeah :P Nuff said, lol
Others don't like it; I'd say DA:O was more tactical, and if that works for you there's nothing wrong with that. I like tactical combat in some games (I play a lot of strategy games), but didn't like DA:O's for various reasons (it's one reason I've never managed to get through the game).
Though, let's not kid ourselves (not addressing you here, but others who've complained), DA:O was just as unrealistic as DA2 for combat. All that fighting 15-foot-tall ogres and jumping on them and stabbing them in the face and whatnot is just as ridiculous as DA2's Buster Swords and staff-fu. It's just a more conventionally Western form of ludicrously unrealistic and thus more in some people's comfort zone.
Oh, let me add one more little thing about DA2 I really appreciated - that if you make Hawke non-white, her family member's design changes to be non-white as well (and not just skin colour; asian!Carver has a different hairdo and face to white!Carver, for example). It's such a little thing, but so great and helps cement Hawke and his/her family as yours.
I can't see myself not buying Dragon Age 3, unless something catastrophic happens to it. Bioware-haters are numerous and over-zealous these days, and they get a lot of the attention. Which takes away from the fact that Bioware still make solid RPGs (albeit with the visible tendrils of EA in them nowadays). It's become very hipster-ish to hate on Bioware and call The Witcher the greatest thing evar.
the point is that Bioware is no longer Bioware. They are an EA company using their name. They have lost most of their staff and even the doctors, and the only person left that I can look at in Bioware as a good man who hasn't had a part in all that was done is Patrick Weekes, who even admitted to us that Walters and Hudson were the only ones behind the ending. Even if they declined the statement, it is obvious they are covering it up.
I am sure that @Kitteh_ON_A_Cloud, myself, and other Bioware haters would get the game if it turns out to be good. But right now we must remain skeptical when looking at Bioware's recent games. I was able to let them go on Dragon Age 2, I was nearly as into it as Mass Effect but when they messed up Mass Effect 3 there were no second chances there for me. I do it because I like the series that they made, so maybe they should be glad that I am hating on them. It shows that they made something good enough for me to fight for it.
That's my view on it anyway. Rushed production schedules and invasive DLC is the only thing which is negatively affecting Bioware, and the former seems to be changing under the new EA regime. So still hope for them yet.
You're wrong, though, about the gay/lesbian thing. Well, you're wrong because your reasoning on why most of the romances were open to both genders is objectionable and awful, but aside from that, you're factually wrong because only females can romance Sebastian.
or brooding Final Fantasy elves
or STDs on legs at all.
Bravo, you've impressed us all with your factual and objective knowledge, and thanks to you, we fans of DA2 have seen the light and acknowledge that it's a horrible, horrible game. Your existence is hereby validated. Whatever will you do with all your free time now that the battle is over?