About Me

My photo
Greetings. I am the Illusive One. For many years now I have been a huge video game player, movie viewer, and book reader. For almost as long, I have been a critic of these things and many people respect my opinions of these things and have often said I belong on G4 doing reviews on X-Play or a similar show. Sadly that is not likely to happen. So instead I shall do reviews for you, uninfluenced by other reviewers, of video games books, movies, and, occasionally, music and political actions. I hope you find this informative and helpful. Thank you for your time.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

The Illusvie One V.S. Game Informer: Dragon Age II

           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.

Game Informer's Rating
The Illusive One's Rating


           While admittedly their isn't much of a difference between ratings, I still felt that Game Informer's review panned way to many things and ignored things that were good and legitimately wrong with it.  So without further delay, let’s get this started.

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.

            Before I finish this article, there are a few criticisms and praises of my own that Game informer failed to address and I feel I have to mention.  A positive they failed to mention, (but one I didn't in my review), was how cleverly they intertwined your companion's story lines with that of the main story.  Then there are the negatives they failed to mention.  As I said in my own review of Dragon Age II, the ending sucked and I don't see that mentioned anywhere in Game Informer's review.  Finally, there is one last issue that both Game Informer and I failed to mention.  This has to do with the games length.  While it took me over 36 hours to beat the game I actually felt the game was too short.  I could have dealt with all of Dragon Age II's flaws and bullshit ending if the game had one more act in it that increased its length by five to ten hours.  I know that might sound a little long but the ending failed to give any since of conclusion and an extra act may have helped with that.

            Well, that's it for my first segment of The Illusive One V.S. Game Informer.  For those of you who read this please comment and if you liked it, more will be on the way.  Until next time this is the Illusive One and I'm burning the Game Informer magazine with the Dragon Age II Review.  AH HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Later!

No comments:

Post a Comment