Well, it's time for my first article of The Illusive One V.S. Game Informer and since I'm still fresh off Dragon Age II, I decided to make an issue of Game Informer's rating of it. Most game reviewers gave Dragon Age II less than perfect scores but I was surprised at just how brutally Game Informer panned the game. Like I said in my announcement, I'll be using the words of the writers of the review and saying if I thought they were right on, to brutal, not brutal enough and will be adding a few things they failed to mention. And for legal reasons, I'm inclined to say that Game Informer's Dragon Age II Review was written by Joe Juba. This is The Illusive One V.S. Game Informer: Dragon Age II.
|The Illusive One's Rating|
Game Informer: BioWare's template story structure involving an intro, four main quest hubs, and a finale is nowhere to be found in Dragon Age II. Unfortunately, no compelling story rises to take its place.
Not a compelling story? Less compelling then the story in Origins? Yes, but a compelling story all the same. Hawke wasn't a person out to conquer the world or to save it. He/she was just trying to survive in the world while making a living and in the process gets caught up in world altering events. In truth, I thought this story, while inferior, was much more realistic then the story lines of Origins and this panning seems to be more out a dislike of BioWare's shifting from classical game storytelling than anything else.
Game Informer: In execution, the story amounts to little more than a bunch of sidequests lashed together. They are rarely connected to a central goal, and since the main plot has no arc, you get little sense of mounting tension or rising stakes until the climax is upon you.
Now that's just mean but not entirely inaccurate. Particularly during the first act, most of the missions, even the main story ones, do feel like side quests but many are actually linked to quest later in the game. As far as tension goes, it was much more subtle but their all the same. Through dialog, via the frame story, you learn that the world is on the brink of war in the time the story is being told and they talk about how many people Hawke killed, (or will kill in point you're at in the game), for this to happen. And if you can't feel the tension in this I don't know what's wrong with you.
Game Informer: The battle system was fun, but not nearly as satisfying or rewarding as Origins'.
Satisfying or rewarding as Origins'. Let that sink into your mind for a minute.
Ok. Now, in what brain dead, retards mind was the battle system in Origins satisfying or rewarding? The battle system in Origins was slow, boring, and dull whereas the battle system in II was fast, fluent and fun and I honestly don't know how anyone can choose the system of Origins over II. Just....no.
Game Informer: Since you don't have a main antagonist until the final hours, the story pales in comparison to the original.
I've already said the story wasn't as good as the first but I feel I have to say something on the remark about a main antagonist. As I'm sure you know, most games tend to take place within a year, two at the most with a reoccurring antagonist trying to kill the protagonist. Can you honestly see those villains hunting the protagonist for ten years or vice versa? That just wouldn't be logical, even for games. As a result, the main antagonist switches after each act as years go by in-between acts.