So, I picked this up the day of release and have played through to Act 2 so far.

Its a gorgeous game in many ways, and the story telling seems to be top notch.


That said, I've noticed a disturbing trend with Bioware in that sequels to popular, successful games with plenty of sandboxy play and interesting complexity are...

less sandboxy and less complex.

Mass Effect 2 was a gorgeous game with a well told story (with flaws, yes), but even stand alone you wouldn't call it a "Sandbox' or describe any portion of game play to be particularly complex.  By itself, hardly a sin, until you compare it to the first game.

So too, if not nearly as bad, with Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age wasn't actually all that sandbox, really, but 2 is less so.  You have less equipment options, fewer character choices, fewer alternate paths by a massive factor, and less options in the relationship system.

In DA 1, for example, you had... Seven.. possible origins (Human noble, human mage, dwarf noble or lowborn, city elf, dalish elf, elf mage). In DA 2 you have.... 1.  (you can play a mage, but unlike DA 1, this has no impact on your origin/intro story).  

They've stripped out the skill system. I'm torn on this, as the skill system was somewhat poorly implemented before. They've also changed the ability system (Trees now, more 'tax' options that are merely upgrades to existing options) and, in a fit of 'removing player options' have removed things like 'duel wielding warrior' as options.

I'd say they simplified it, but it feels a bit like it was dumbed down instead.  The inability to properly equip your NPC assistants is... annoying, that gear's general effectiveness is tied to your personal level is a nuisance (and on that not, I'm reasonably certain that the monsters now scale to some degree to the party rather than being fixed.  Fights do not seem measurably easier at level 12 than they did at level 1, I merely have a few more options available to me.)

Insult to injury: I can't shake the feeling that the 'monsters' don't fight 'fair' either.  I'm getting a real 4E vibe here, with human mages teleporting around the battle field, not available to PC mages (ditto 'assassins'), difficulty assigned by Hit Point inflation and so forth.   DA 1  you could see an enemy spell caster preppign the big spell and walk over to him and whack on him (like his buddies would do to you) to delay/interrupt the casting of a Firestorm spell (which you also had access too). Now he just spams magic damage non-stop.

Its the little things that irritate most.

I'd still recommend it on its own merits, but if I get a hankering to replay Dragon Age, I'll stick to the first one.


However, so not to end on a sour note: I really do like the world building going on and the 'living world'.  WIthout playing teh same character/arc out, you are interacting with the world you lived in in DA 1, you meet some of the same characters in new circumstances that logically follow from where you left them in DA1 (and 1.5), without their taking piority in your game play.  Likewise, we move out of Ferelden and into the nearby (but unexplored in DA1) Marches, interact with the Qun, learn more about Trevinter and Antiva (and even a few new places that escape naming in my memory...), secondary plots and characters grow... all and all an excellent handling of an RPG francise... if only the game mechanics had gone the same route!

Far better than the first one.

Again too much dialog though.

And the points system for friend/rivalry (the relationship mechanic) is broken. What you receive doesn't reflect what just happened and seems to involve characters not involved at all.

Hate the new art direction (why are swords so fucking huge?).

Other than that, I haven't played enough of it to offer a solid opinion.  I probably won't enjoy the gameplay as much as the first, since I like overhead tactical type RPGs, and it seems paired down in 2, but from what I've heard the characters are more interesting.

Decided to wait for the special edition in a year or so so i dont have to piss about downloading dlc every few months like the first one...plus actually gives me time to buy a new console and finish the first aswell

It appears this game was rushed. Bound to only one location, including reused quest locations (generic cave, underground, building, etc).

Lost interest in the first one about half way through.   Bioware hasn't created a new game in decades.  Better graphics different story/settings.  But the reality is all their games play exactly the same beyond the gui/combat tweaks.  I know it's minor as that can be said about most games.  But Bioware is making RPG's.  

The only thing is there's no real Role Playing going on.  Your choice are arbitrary in only generating alternate CGI endings.  You can't for example break the game like you could in the Eldar Scrolls series.  You can't get off track, you can't explore.  They are about as much of an RPG experience as a Choose-Your-Own Adventure book is.

Yeah Bioware has become a chief supplier of over-hyped underdeveloped and money grabbing video games.   They used to be a company I'd buy games from virtually sight unseen.  Now  I won't even pick them up from the bargain bin.

So ummm yeah done ranting.

Aaaand the other shoe has dropped! Phew, for a minute, I thought it was in a parallel Star Trek-esque universe.

Seanchai

If you have a point to make, then do so without resorting to veiled arrogant comments.

Look, Bioware is controlled by EA, so we're going to have giant swords gibbing people in a blood-soaked spectacle.  The mechanics are going to be simpler/dumbed down, the options are going to decrease, the sandbox is going to be funneled into a railroad.   Welcome to computer-turned-console RPGing.

I have to give it to Bioware in that they still manage to create compelling stories and characters.

But when a console-centric publication like Game Informer is baffled as to why the game is so dumbed down, you may have gone a bit too far, even if your goal was to create better gameplay for console players.

Not that I have any problems with console games.  There are tons of great games out there.  The problem I have is that Western developers, even big ex-indie PC houses like Bioware and Epic, have this new trend of assuming their players are complete retards.  They also seem to be trying to water down previous designs from their time as PC developers, instead of trying to focus on creating more engaging console games.

So for me, it's not a matter of games being "ruined" because they were "consolified", for me it's a matter of getting pissed off because developers won't grow some balls and choose to either embrace home consoles, or PC, and design for the platform type they've chosen so that their games can be the best they can be.

More Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, less watered down Baldur's Gate.

DA2 isn't dumbed down from DAO at all.

DA was always a combat oriented game. It's problem is that it wants to be a deep rpg type game as well as hack and slash. ON the console it struggles with trying to be a team micromanagement affair but with only one character under control at any time. Until Bioware realise these contradictions there will always be problems.

Personally I wish they'd stop beating the player over the head with story/dialog and exposition. Show don't tell.