Dragon Age II is an epic fail

I, along with many others, waited with bated breath; with only an awesome trailer to tie us over until it came out and for the first time in my life I bought an advance copy and all the loot that came with that. Then it came out, and I played it, and I'm still reeling from the disappointment of it.

I'm sorry. I just can't hold it back any longer. I have to vent.

Like I said, Dragon Age II is an epic fail. Yes, this is my opinion . . . and why not? Who and what did BioWare make the game for anyway? Simply for posterity? (after reading interviews, I'm thinking yes, they did)

I read an interview with Mike Laidlaw at Eurogamer.net where he says the following

Well it's hard to know exactly what's going on with scores that are really, really negative. One possible culprit could just be a change backlash, i.e. this isn't Origins and I wanted Origins 2. There may be some degree of what I would honestly say is emotional investment in the Origins story, or in the way Origins was presented which is leading to a stronger than average reaction of disappointment.

HAHA! Are you kidding me? "hard to know"? You somehow have NO IDEA why we might feel that way? Hello! Have you forgotten a little matter of an Origins cliffhanger? For instance Morrigan's CHILD, you moron?

Just who is Mike and why is he so completely clueless? Other than the lead designer, I mean. How could he possibly be so unaware?

They should change the name of BioWare to UnaWare!

Oh, so you somehow also missed the part where Origins was the game of the year? You didn't think that was because Origins was actually a GOOD GAME THAT PEOPLE LIKED??

If he wanted to make another game, why didn't he make a NOTHER game? Like, call it Dragons Unleashed or something, not Dragon Age II, and especially don't leave a cliffhanger if you're not going to make it a SEQUEL!

Is this guy retarded?

Honestly though, the fact that they changed the characters isn't even my main beef, I'll get into that later, but seriously in the meantime: heaven forbid someone might have an "emotional investment" in your freaking story, dude. I mean, who would want that? Could this "emotional investment" possibly be the actual reason why Origins did so well and the actual reason why Dragon Age II didn't do quite so well? Hmmm, I know it's deep so take all the time necessary to ponder that . . .

I thought that was the whole point of making the plot so deep and the story so involved that you actually began to think of the characters as friends, of a sort, to create that "emotional investment". Do you think fans would have bought so much DLC and waited on the edge of their seats, chewing their nails down to their cuticles, in anticipation of DAII if there weren't an "emotional investment" in the previous story?

He also says that "it's never going to be the same game every time out. We see Dragon Age as a story about a place and a time, not just a singular story that continues through games" and you know what? That's fine, just fine. Although Origins DID end with a cliffhanger (but I won't quibble). I don't have a problem with Hawk, his family and companions. I could completely get used to another whole cast of characters and forget all about the cliffhanger, I'm no obsessive compulsive. I don't need Aedan, Alistair, Morrigan, Leliana, Zevran (sob), etc; although I WANT them . . . and I suppose I won't DIE if I don't know what happens with Morrigan and the child. What I cannot do without is the depth---the camaraderie that existed in Origins. I mean, even Shale and Justice and they were dang add ons!

I've been playing RPG's since Tex Murphy, probably before but I cannot recall them all now. I'll put it this way: to me RPG's, and especially Origins, are interactive fiction novels and Origins was the cream of the crop to me. I like to read and I think, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think other people do too. Books or moreso stories, have been around forever for a fairly simple reason. One could get all philosophical about it but I think it's universal enough to leave it to your own conclusions. Anyway, like I said Origins was like a novel, but even better. I think it's entirely possible that this is one very LARGE reason why it did so well and had such a strong following.

Now, let's continue with this parallel. I first heard of Robert Jordan back when he was writing Conan novels. Then he went on to write the unbelievably epic Wheel of Time series, of course. Now, if RJ had written The Eye of the World, or maybe that and the next two or three books, then at some point followed with a book in the same series with a completely different cast of characters who had vaguely heard of a guy named Al Thor but their story had nothing to do with that of the previous ones and the two storylines never converged but existed apart from each other and sold under the same series title, do you think it would STILL be topping the NY best seller lists? After FOURTEEN BOOKS?

No. People would have bought the Wheel of Time book 4 or whatever and been completely furious that they waited for the sequel to book 3 and instead got a completely different book with the same series title! Wow, would RJ have been on the shit list! And, to me, this is what BioWare did.

But, like I said that's not even my main problem but I'm still not to that point yet.

Mike, in this same interview with Eurogamer repeatedly refers to Baldur's Gate with reasons why they needed to change DAII (or maybe reasons why it's not important to keep it the same?). I gotta' be honest, I never played Baldur's Gate so I have no idea what the eff he's talking about. I don't care about Baldur's Gate and why should that have anything to do with ruining a perfectly good game? huh?

It sounds like a person who's WAY too close to something to be at all objective. He actually bases his conclusions on a former game rather than on the success of the game sitting in front of him. I mean, get past it man! Bury Baldur's Gate if you have to. Good or bad they are not the same game and why should one influence the other if the one is selling like freaking hotcakes? Are you TRYING to sink your own ship? You wanna' know why people liked Origins? ASK! Read the forums for god sake!

Taken as a stand alone game, not based upon Origins OR Baldur's Gate or anything else Dragon Age II is just NOT a good game. If DAII had come out first I doubt I would have played any sequel. It was the SCOPE and depth of Origins which was addictive and which made me a loyal fan. It was getting to know Liliana and nurturing the trust of Zevran and learning about Sten's culture; Morrigan's ruthlessness, Alistair's sensitivity and humor, Oghren's flatulence, etc, which made me sincerely love that game.

Then he goes on to say

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!" For those people we don't want to create this swathe of content that is closed off and exclusive.

This is where you almost feel sorry for the guy. "A fair amount"? Were they the ones who were buying the million dollars worth of Origins DLC? I mean, if so many people had such a hard time getting through the main game, why did they sell millions of dollars worth of means to expand said "plodding" game? Think man! Think!

So, you decided to change the entire game based upon four comments from some retards who just want to cut through the crap and kill things; and create, not a sequel, but a game by the same name (with a II after it) which seemed to me to be quite common and unremarkable (I'm thinking Darksiders here). Why would you dismantle a perfectly good story, which the majority wanted, only to make changes for an obvious minority? THEY weren't the ones who you were making the money from! It was the ones who wanted MORE of the same! Why do you think the sales of DAII spiked at the beginning and then sharply fell. Are you really so completely out of touch? The people like ME who were wanting more bought it, thinking they'd get more, but were sorely disappointed.

Ok, now we'll get more specific. Not only was I really angry that the game went from deep to shallow but I also found the limits VERY, well, limiting---constricting. So constricting, in fact, that I never did finish the game! Yes, I was past annoyed by the fact that you couldn't mix and match armor and weapons. This just seems like plain laziness to me. Honestly, it reminds me of a bunch of college kids who think a class is an easy A. Its seems like, to me, they did the bare minimum and made it sound "technically superior"---like The Emperor's New Clothes; BioWare played the part of the "swindlers".

HOW is DAII any different than Darksiders for instance? (Which didn't get much over 80% in the reviews) I didn't see much difference in the combat specifically . . . and it seems that they focused on the combat system more than anything else, because if not, then what? The world is TINY, the storyline is all but absent. The weapons and armor pool is alarmingly shallow, the graphics aren't that much better (I didn't like them better at all) . . . I mean what exactly did they put their time into? I can imagine them thinking they did such a bang up job on Origins that they decided to sit back and relax, thinking all the morons who bought Origins would just lap up DAII like the mindless drones that they are.

And maybe it's partially true . . . that us mindless drones would buy it. I did and that's the part that really makes me angry. I gotta' be honest with you, I won't be buying Dragon Age III . . . and that is the real tragedy of it all. Mike and his bunch there at BioWare could have had a steady income with the Dragon Age title. I would have bought every sequel as long as it gave me more story. The characters could have changed as long as they retained their depth, I would have still bought it.

Now they are not only on the shaky ground of "will this NEW game sell" but they've also gained for themselves some people, like me, who actually feel a bit betrayed by them and angry because of it.

Just Google "Dragon Age II" and read what they say in the forums. It's overwhelmingly bad and most say they won't be buying Dragon Age III. It's really really sad to me that they did this and ruined such a good thing. I know I'm not alone. I mean, is the market for games so good that a developer can afford to alienate a good deal of its clientele? The poor economy hasn't affected them whatsoever? I know I'm not buying video games like I used to. 

I won't be buying any BioWare stock either, btw. I'm no broker but I've been around long enough to know that when a company begins to alienate its clientele its days are numbered. Even the big three car companies weren't immune to going under. My dad has been predicting GM's downfall for thirty years for this same reason. If they continue with this sort of shortsighted cluelessness they might at least end up struggling (if they're not already) or worse. Jus' sayin'.

I've heard people say for years that the RPG genre is dying. I have to disagree, first of all simply because they have been saying it for many years, but if it's at all true then it's not just dying for lack of interest, it's being murdered by the very people who create it.

The question is: what WILL Dragon Age III be like? Will they actually pull their heads out of their asses and listen to the FANS? The ones who dumped a boatload of cash into Origins and all the DLC? Or will they continue in their pathetic crusade to, what? I don't even know what their point was in making the changes . . . I still haven't figured it out. I mean, OK, make it more high tech, but don't make it smaller and less interesting. And that's what it boils down to. They changed it, yes, but what WERE those changes? They made it smaller, more limited (in weapons and armor), and less interesting. They changed the way the characters talked and fought . . . is that worth losing your entire fanbase? I swear they all WANT to ruin the game, it's the only explanation that makes any sense. Sabotage.