Dragon Age Origins is so grossly overrated its not even funny (series spoilers)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I am struck dumb by this whole argument in all honesty. Usually when debating something I try to see the other side's case, but after all this I question if we even played the same game. For the record, I still really liked the game, but in no way/shape/form was it as elaborate or complex as you're making it out to be. I can only assume the TC was injected with a large amount of dopamine prior to starting his playthrough.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] The main theme of DAII is that consquences of our actions can knowingly or unknowingly esclate a conflict or a situation. The entire story is about escalation. JynxzorBut no matter what actions you take, the same thing happens, all that shows me is that my actions as the main character of the game are non-consequential. Hell I become the "Hero of Kirkwall" and people still take my characters opinion with a grain of salt unless I'm licking there boots. It's not like you can stop the Qunari insurrection, you can't save the kid, you can't stop the templars, you can't stop the theft of the relic, your character is doing nothing but going along for the ride. I could murder a pack of kittens infront of the Arishok and he probably wouldn't flinch because the story doesn't dictate that he fly into action yet. I can't antagonize the Qunari to insurrect early, or to leave, or to do anything. Nothing your character does in the story holds any world changing values aside from the few things they do that are jammed into the plot-line of the story. so its against WRPG law for other NPCs to make big decisons along with you? So its wrong for bad guys to be one step ahead of you and no matter what you do, cannot stop them from doing what they do? And once again, DAII is NOT about changing the world, its how the world shapes and influences YOU. Its different and its effective. Sometimes you are not in control and you have to make do with what is given to you. SO WHAT, if you can't change the world around you, your actiosn can still affect the lives, hopes, and dreams of others. My actions can get Isabela to change her ways, or to get Merrill to admit that she was wrong, or to convice Fenris that enslavement is enslavement not matter who it is. My actions affect Bethany and Carver's growth, whether Gamlen meets his daughther, or whether Sebastian goes fo revenge or stays truthful to the Chantry when Anders kills the Grand Cleric. There needs to be more and stronger personal chocie and consquence and less, I AM GOD I CAN CHANGE THE WORLD WITH MY SIMPLE DECISIONS in WRPGs. So what if they don't take your advice...."The Champion of Kirkwall" is a honorary title, nothing more. And Varric explcitly says that Meredith is the only one more powerful in the city than Hawke in Act III....and I argue the Grand Cleric as well. Aveline, if a rival, mentions that Hawke "stumbled" on being champion. Really, its a far different take of heroism than in your average RPG.
How about I played it multiple times and investigated every nook and cranny. The themes of the plot and the quests are very consistant. Most deal with the concept of escalation. Even the Bone Pit mine quests deal with the theme. It is a man vs nature story...they just do not go into deep psuedo philisophical discussion about it...it just shows you what happens when people with extreme intentions let things esclate out of hand and how those that don't, through their inaction (see Grand Cleric) can also help the escalation. Less tell, more show.I am struck dumb by this whole argument in all honesty. Usually when debating something I try to see the other side's case, but after all this I question if we even played the same game. For the record, I still really liked it but in no way/shape/form was it as elaborate or complex as you're making it out to be. I can only assume the TC was injected with a large amount of dopamine prior to starting his playthrough.
Vaasman
The only things that I agree withare that is has an underdeveloped plot and bad graphics. The characters are great, the combat has very few flaws, and overall its just a great game. And it seems to me that you have played quite a bit. You seemed to have formed a very well thought outand developed opinion of the game. If it's so bad, why play it so much? (just an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong)
Although there is one thing that I despise about the game that you failed to mention...the DLC. The DLC is absolutely atrocious, with the exception of Awakening, which is outrageously overpriced. However, I got the Ultimate Edition, so the price doesn't really affect me.
I actually enjoyed DAO at first, but each subsequent playthrough, it got more tiresome, and the flaws started to show more. Once I playedthe mage, I found how overpwered she was. DAII has an opposite effect. I went into the game with very low expectations, and while many of the criticisms, like world and dungeon design were spot on, I am also suprised in how well written the games plot and characters are, as well as most of the quests. I am disappointed because it does so many thing right...that it should have had more development time to not have the flaws.The only things that I agree withare that is has an underdeveloped plot and bad graphics. The characters are great, the combat has very few flaws, and overall its just a great game. And it seems to me that you have played quite a bit. You seemed to have formed a very well thought outand developed opinion of the game. If it's so bad, why play it so much? (just an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong)
cluelesspug
How about I played it multiple times and investigated every nook and cranny. The themes of the plot and the quests are very consistant. Most deal with the concept of escalation. Even the Bone Pit mine quests deal with the theme. It is a man vs nature story...they just do not go into deep psuedo philisophical discussion about it...it just shows you what happens when people with extreme intentions let things esclate out of hand and how those that don't, through their inaction (see Grand Cleric) can also help the escalation. Less tell, more show.This is what I'm talking about. There is practically no basis for this but you keep stating it like it's subtle and if I just keep playing it will suddenly click. It's beyond pretentious.[QUOTE="Vaasman"]
I am struck dumb by this whole argument in all honesty. Usually when debating something I try to see the other side's case, but after all this I question if we even played the same game. For the record, I still really liked it but in no way/shape/form was it as elaborate or complex as you're making it out to be. I can only assume the TC was injected with a large amount of dopamine prior to starting his playthrough.
texasgoldrush
I can do the same thing with any game and make it seem deep and complex.
Halo is an intricate allegory for American imperialism, as displayed by the larger invading force with extremist ideals and from a different culture overwhelming the inferior force with superior numbers and technology. It also demonstrates how silence leads to conflict, because the main character does not question the motives of his superiors and humanity and the covenant fight countless battles while making absolutely no diplomatic efforts.
Except not really, it's just a story about a guy killing aliens.
"So I'm just suposed to focus on the character I have through my journey not a single bit on the world around me?"
You do focus on the world...the world acts, you respond.
"It's a not a matter or the "bad guy being a step ahead" it's that at times it seems the bad-guy used me to GET ahead, and without that action I don't see how they remained ahead when I toss them a curve-ball. Hell I could live with it if the theme was based around how powerless a individual can be, but they even throw that out the window when I smack-down the last two bosses. It's downright loony that some things happen despite what you do, it's hard to get around when the previous instalment and mainly BioWare games in general are all about how you change the enviroment around you"
In the endgame, the mages ARE the weaker side, no matter what side you support. The Templars win the batlle. The head mage goes crazy because he is overrun. And how would the party stop him? They can't. "Unless some of those character I got letters from have some effect in DA3 there entire sidequests were pointless as well, will the characters in DA3 be different due to the choices I made in 2? I highly doubt it because that would be a good idea something BioWare seems to be short of these days."
Count on Charade Amell to be a future party member, in a DLC or sequel. A Sebastian looking for Anders head would be very different than if I killed Anders and Sebastian is still with me. Isbela would be a quite different character if she has a ship, if she doesn't have one, or gets taken by the Arishok. I count on my decisions affecting future content.
"You contradict youself when you say "Champion of Kirkwall" is a honorary title, when Hawke pretty much saved the entire city and is the "third" most influential person in Kirkwall, I'm not sure but even if I'm #1 I'm listening to the others in the back-ground and there choices are going to influence mine in the long run. Sure "
What kind of power does Hawke have? None officially really. Sure Sebastian wants you to be viscount, but the last thing the templar extremists want is you as a viscount because they run the city in Act III. Hawke has the power of respect, but respect can only go so far. The extremists such as Anders and Meredith will do what they do despite your views because they are that extreme. However, someone more moderate, like Cullen, respects you. Hence, he turns against Meredith in the final battle. The main point of Varric telling Cassandra the story is to tell her that Hawke was not really responisble for the conflict and that he was just caught in the middle and in the end, forced to act.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]
[QUOTE="Vaasman"]
I am struck dumb by this whole argument in all honesty. Usually when debating something I try to see the other side's case, but after all this I question if we even played the same game. For the record, I still really liked it but in no way/shape/form was it as elaborate or complex as you're making it out to be. I can only assume the TC was injected with a large amount of dopamine prior to starting his playthrough.
How about I played it multiple times and investigated every nook and cranny. The themes of the plot and the quests are very consistant. Most deal with the concept of escalation. Even the Bone Pit mine quests deal with the theme. It is a man vs nature story...they just do not go into deep psuedo philisophical discussion about it...it just shows you what happens when people with extreme intentions let things esclate out of hand and how those that don't, through their inaction (see Grand Cleric) can also help the escalation. Less tell, more show.This is what I'm talking about. There is practically no basis for this but you keep stating it like it's subtle and if I just keep playing it will suddenly click. It's beyond pretentious.I can do the same thing with any game and make it seem deep and complex.
Halo is an intricate allegory for American imperialism, as displayed by the larger invading force with extremist ideals and from a different culture overwhelming the inferior force with superior numbers and technology. It also demonstrates how silence leads to conflict, because the main character does not question the motives of his superiors and humanity and the covenant fight countless battles while making absolutely no diplomatic efforts.
Except not really, it's just a story about a guy killing aliens.
The difference is that DAII is complex and is made to be complex....Halo is not. And its not up for debate because it is a fact that most of the quests deal with escalation in some shape or form. Even Merrill's questlines deal with an esclaation of the situation, even leading to her clan being wiped out.The head mage goes crazy because he is over-run? Despite the fact if I'm fighting for the mages I have to kill him and THEN the templars? Without his help obviously only acting as a detriment the whole time. Bah to that I say. Nowhere does it feel like "the mages were over-run" if anything my situation would have turned out better if he didn't use crazy magic for no particular reason.JynxzorThen again, Orsino wasn't in his right mind and party members after the battle comment on this fact, especially Bethany. And once you become an abomination...you attack everything. Thats the dangers of using blood magic.
KOTOR doesn't have bad gameplay. It's simply a style of gameplay that is uncommon in many of todays games and many gamers do not play games for this style of gameplay. In many ways the game is as much of an ode to old 80's adventure classics like Space Quest as it is to RPGs such as BG. Many of the mini games were almost taken directly out of Space Quest. You have the landspeeder and gambling style mini games from SQ1, the space combat and ability to fly your own ship to a selection of planets from SQ3 and the type of puzzles you would find throughout the series. As mentioned it's also an ode to RPGs where the much of the gameplay is focused on the allocation of stat points and the outcome of battles are largely based on the results of your character planning in the menus. If you enjoy this style of game there are few better.I'm not a big fan of BioWare games. I tried KotOR and ended up hating it even though I liked the story because the gameplay was terrible... And I wanted to go the dark side too :(
fend_oblivion
Mass Effect is the only one I consider decent. It's not because of the story (which is cliche) but because of the vast amount of permutations and how each choice affects the gameplay and story in the sequels. ME is definitely not the "GOD OF RPG" but still, a decent game.
Dragon Age... looks so drab and ugly. I don't think I have seen an uglier art st-yle than the DA games. I also find it funny that all the females have super large mammary glands ;)
The difference is that DAII is complex and is made to be complex....Halo is not. And its not up for debate because it is a fact that most of the quests deal with escalation in some shape or form. Even Merrill's questlines deal with an esclaation of the situation, even leading to her clan being wiped out.texasgoldrushThat comment is completely vapid.
Oh really, a quest developed around an escalating situation? Really, how deep and complex, just like every decent story ever since the dawn of time.
That comment is completely vapid.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]The difference is that DAII is complex and is made to be complex....Halo is not. And its not up for debate because it is a fact that most of the quests deal with escalation in some shape or form. Even Merrill's questlines deal with an esclaation of the situation, even leading to her clan being wiped out.Vaasman
Oh really, a quest developed around an escalating situation? Really, how deep and complex, just like every decent story ever since the dawn of time.
In most stories, conflict does escalate...however, most stories do not explore the nature and the causes of escalation. They focus more on the themes of the conflict. I actually compare DAII to the Dark Knight, in which the main theme was on escalation (in which Nolan said TDK was about).A game example would be FFVI....yes, things esclaate to the point where Kefka takes power...however, the story is really about the value of life. Terra and Celes and the party value it, Kefka doesn't..thats the main conflict.
DAII on the other hand explores how people with extreme ideas perepuate conflict. Sister Petrice is a huge example, as is Anders and Meredith.
That comment is completely vapid.[QUOTE="Vaasman"]
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]The difference is that DAII is complex and is made to be complex....Halo is not. And its not up for debate because it is a fact that most of the quests deal with escalation in some shape or form. Even Merrill's questlines deal with an esclaation of the situation, even leading to her clan being wiped out.texasgoldrush
Oh really, a quest developed around an escalating situation? Really, how deep and complex, just like every decent story ever since the dawn of time.
In most stories, conflict does escalate...however, most stories do not explore the nature and the causes of escalation. They focus more on the themes of the conflict. I actually compare DAII to the Dark Knight, in which the main theme was on escalation (in which Nolan said TDK was about).When did Nolan say that about The Dark Knight?pre-release
http://screenrant.com/the-dark-knight-story-direction-vic-665/
also this
"As we looked through the comics, there was this fascinating idea that Batman's presence in Gotham actually attracts criminals to Gotham, [it] attracts lunacy. When you're dealing with questionable notions like people taking the law into their own hands, you have to really ask, where does that lead? That's what makes the character so dark, because he expresses a vengeful desire."
—Nolan, on the theme of escalation
Well I can't see the evidence for this case at all, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree so I can some sleep. If you really believe what you're saying, more power to you, but I imagine you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who considers your view less than grandiose.
but it is... The more the templars press the mages, the more extreme they become. That is a huge plot development. Also Ladlaw suggests a theme of esclaation as well....Well I can't see the evidence for this case at all, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree so I can some sleep. If you really believe what you're saying, more power to you, but I imagine you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who considers your view less than grandiose.
Vaasman
http://www.1up.com/features/dragon-age-2-afterthoughts?pager.offset=1
:lol::lol: Texas I love your threads so much. I disagree with you though, as do many many people. DA:O was far superior.I would actually say that DA2 was even more safe than origins.They bascially ripped the mass effect formula as is and shoved it up Dragon Age's a**. It was bascially"hmmmmm people liked mass effect2 lets just do that"
Personally I prefer well done cliched games than disatrous "innovative" games.
:lol::lol: Texas I love your threads so much. I disagree with you though, as do many many people. DA:O was far superior.I would actually say that DA2 was even more safe than origins.They bascially ripped the mass effect formula as is and shoved it up Dragon Age's a**. It was bascially"hmmmmm people liked mass effect2 lets just do that"
Personally I prefer well done cliched games than disatrous "innovative" games.
How is DAII "more safe"...its not. DAO overreachs for safety. Safe story, safe mechanics, safe characterization.... And maybe because Mass Effect had great elements like a voiced protagonist. And how is DAII disasterous? No...Ultima IX was disasterous. DAII is not. And DAO is NOT a well done cliched game.:lol::lol: Texas I love your threads so much. I disagree with you though, as do many many people. DA:O was far superior.I would actually say that DA2 was even more safe than origins.They bascially ripped the mass effect formula as is and shoved it up Dragon Age's a**. It was bascially"hmmmmm people liked mass effect2 lets just do that"
Personally I prefer well done cliched games than disatrous "innovative" games.
How is DAII "more safe"...its not. DAO overreachs for safety. Safe story, safe mechanics, safe characterization.... And maybe because Mass Effect had great elements like a voiced protagonist. And how is DAII disasterous? No...Ultima IX was disasterous. DAII is not. And DAO is NOT a well done cliched game. Critics, gamers and sales disagree with that last statement. 8.3 user average > 4.3:lol::lol: Texas I love your threads so much. I disagree with you though, as do many many people. DA:O was far superior.I would actually say that DA2 was even more safe than origins.They bascially ripped the mass effect formula as is and shoved it up Dragon Age's a**. It was bascially"hmmmmm people liked mass effect2 lets just do that"
Personally I prefer well done cliched games than disatrous "innovative" games.
How is DAII "more safe"...its not. DAO overreachs for safety. Safe story, safe mechanics, safe characterization.... And maybe because Mass Effect had great elements like a voiced protagonist. And how is DAII disasterous? No...Ultima IX was disasterous. DAII is not. And DAO is NOT a well done cliched game. Critics, gamers and sales disagree with that last statement. 8.3 user average > 4.3 you mean whiny elitist fanboys who on Day 1, rated DAII a 0. I am not saying DAII as a whole is better (just the story and characters), but I think DAO is vastly overrated.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] How is DAII "more safe"...its not. DAO overreachs for safety. Safe story, safe mechanics, safe characterization.... And maybe because Mass Effect had great elements like a voiced protagonist. And how is DAII disasterous? No...Ultima IX was disasterous. DAII is not. And DAO is NOT a well done cliched game.texasgoldrushCritics, gamers and sales disagree with that last statement. 8.3 user average > 4.3 you mean whiny elitist fanboys who on Day 1, rated DAII a 0. I am not saying DAII as a whole is better (just the story and characters), but I think DAO is vastly overrated. *shrug* You'd think that if it was worth more then the haters would be outnumbered by positive reviews. It's overwhelmingly negative and on forums I've read much more negative response to it than positive.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Critics, gamers and sales disagree with that last statement. 8.3 user average > 4.3Ace6301you mean whiny elitist fanboys who on Day 1, rated DAII a 0. I am not saying DAII as a whole is better (just the story and characters), but I think DAO is vastly overrated. *shrug* You'd think that if it was worth more then the haters would be outnumbered by positive reviews. It's overwhelmingly negative and on forums I've read much more negative response to it than positive. Because RPG elitists cannot accept change and want the same game over and over. Most of the "reviews" are from day 1. And I think they are hypocritical, because I can show them many Planescape Torment features that are just like DAII, like the inability to equip your party memebrs with everything. Oh wait, it has one ending and a clear predetermined protagonist too. Where is the ouitrage on that game? They are too stupid to realize that even though its more streamlined from Origins, its still more complex than most WRPGs, including KOTOR, Jade Empire, and even the PC RPG elitst darling The Witcher. But, nope they whine about not being able to play Barbie with the companions....so the game sucks.
I don't plan on playing Dragon Age 2 so I can't really comment on that, but I've been saying for a while now that Dragon Age: Origins was one of the most underwhelming big-budget RPGs I'd ever played.
From the god-awful pacing to the incredibly uninspired plot and setting, the repetitive combat and wonky difficulty spiral, the stale environments and muddy graphics, the broken romances and the bland characters, the bare dungeons and limited customisation choices...I couldn't see anything there that hadn't been done much better a whole decade ago.
Actually, worse than that - I couldn't see a single reason for the franchise existing in the first place. It did nothing new, it did nothing interesting, it had no hook whatsoever. It didn't even do cliche'd dungeon crawling well. I certainly don't see why it gets the praise that it does, although I suppose that's got more to do with the immense lack of party-based RPGs out at the moment. Or, you know, it's Bioware, so it got a free pass.
So yes, I agree, the franchise is a bit of a train wreck.
I've heard Dragon Age 2 is actually an improvement in some areas - at least in terms of throwing in some interesting lore and unique situations - but other than that, I've heard that just about everything else in DA2 is either flawed or full of bad design decisions. I'm sort of relieved that I stopped with Origins - it seems that every (other) Dragon Age release has been mostly disappointing.
*edit* Admittedly, I'm basing my thoughts on DA2 on articles like this one: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/31/analysis-dragon-age-ii/#more-55711
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] you mean whiny elitist fanboys who on Day 1, rated DAII a 0. I am not saying DAII as a whole is better (just the story and characters), but I think DAO is vastly overrated.texasgoldrush*shrug* You'd think that if it was worth more then the haters would be outnumbered by positive reviews. It's overwhelmingly negative and on forums I've read much more negative response to it than positive. Because RPG elitists cannot accept change and want the same game over and over. Most of the "reviews" are from day 1. And I think they are hypocritical, because I can show them many Planescape Torment features that are just like DAII, like the inability to equip your party memebrs with everything. Oh wait, it has one ending and a clear predetermined protagonist too. Where is the ouitrage on that game? They are too stupid to realize that even though its more streamlined from Origins, its still more complex than most WRPGs, including KOTOR, Jade Empire, and even the PC RPG elitst darling The Witcher. But, nope they whine about not being able to play Barbie with the companions....so the game sucks. You appear to have completely strawmanned anyone who has opinions of the game different than your own.
Texas, did you ever thought that that's just your opinion? You didn't like DA:O and that's fine. A game is not supposed to be praised from anyone.
DA:O is one of the best fantasy rpgs I played and DA2 is a horrible quick cash grab that doesn't deserve the name it holds. I will mention only one of many simplifications that I hated, the wheel. The wheel is the new dumbification Bioware invented for their games. It serves only one purpose, to cater to those who hate rpgs and just want quick action. In DA:O one had to read all the options and think what line would trigger what consequence. The wheel is made for those who don't want to bother with reading and usually love to skip all the talking. It's easy, up for good guy and down for bad guy. DA:O was superior for role play for that reason alone.
Because RPG elitists cannot accept change and want the same game over and over. Most of the "reviews" are from day 1. And I think they are hypocritical, because I can show them many Planescape Torment features that are just like DAII, like the inability to equip your party memebrs with everything. Oh wait, it has one ending and a clear predetermined protagonist too. Where is the ouitrage on that game? They are too stupid to realize that even though its more streamlined from Origins, its still more complex than most WRPGs, including KOTOR, Jade Empire, and even the PC RPG elitst darling The Witcher. But, nope they whine about not being able to play Barbie with the companions....so the game sucks.texasgoldrush
I think people were more angry that they removed features that were in the original game. And I agree that Origins is overrated to a degree, but I won't say anything about DA2 because I haven't bought it.
He doesn't get the plot or the ending. He tries to make the game something its not. And calling the mother a poorly written character is instant fail. In fact, the quest "All That Remains" is the most popular quest in the game, where [spoiler] she is murdered [/spoiler] . And Aveline is one of the best characters in DAII...she actually grows as a character throughout the game. He wants dominant personalities, and DAII just doesn;t give it to him. He complains about opening the story in mid action, but its not that big of a deal. I think the sibling is killed too early, however, the kill along with Aveline's husband minutes later gives the Hawkes and Aveline a strong bond that will last the rest of the game. DAII is just different in structure from most WRPGs.He tries to play by normal genre rules and not DAII's rules.I don't plan on playing Dragon Age 2 so I can't really comment on that, but I've been saying for a while now that Dragon Age: Origins was one of the most underwhelming big-budget RPGs I'd ever played.
From the god-awful pacing to the incredibly uninspired plot and setting, the repetitive combat and wonky difficulty spiral, the stale environments and muddy graphics, the broken romances and the bland characters, the bare dungeons and limited customisation choices...I couldn't see anything there that hadn't been done much better a whole decade ago.
Actually, worse than that - I couldn't see a single reason for the franchise existing in the first place. It did nothing new, it did nothing interesting, it had no hook whatsoever. It didn't even do cliche'd dungeon crawling well. I certainly don't see why it gets the praise that it does, although I suppose that's got more to do with the immense lack of party-based RPGs out at the moment. Or, you know, it's Bioware, so it got a free pass.
So yes, I agree, the franchise is a bit of a train wreck.
I've heard Dragon Age 2 is actually an improvement in some areas - at least in terms of throwing in some interesting lore and unique situations - but other than that, I've heard that just about everything else in DA2 is either flawed or full of bad design decisions. I'm sort of relieved that I stopped with Origins - it seems that every (other) Dragon Age release has been mostly disappointing.*edit* Admittedly, I'm basing my thoughts on DA2 on articles like this one: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/31/analysis-dragon-age-ii/#more-55711
Planeforger
I think ME2 is even more overrated than DA:O.
Espada12
I wouldn't say that at all, personally.
ME2 is definitely less of an RPG, and isn't a particularly amazing third-person shooter, and maybe it added absolutely nothing to the overall plot of the series, but at least it was a well-polished, Hollywood-esque blast to play through. It was generally well-made and fun, even if it was fairly simplistic.
In comparison, Origins is more of an RPG, but I'm certain that I'll never want to play through it again. One dose of 60+ hour badly-designed blandness was enough for me.
Wrong, the wheel absolutely works and its better than Mass Effect's. And actually, the diplomatic response is not always "good" and the aggressive response is not always "evil". In fact, many times, its the other way around. And actually, DAII had more dialogue choices than DAO. And personality does matter, some choices open up to whatever Hawke's personality is. If Hawke has a diplomatic disposition, he will not be able to effectively threaten a dock worker, but an aggressive Hawke is highly successful. Characters also react to your personality. A funny Hawke will result in people joking along with him.Texas, did you ever thought that that's just your opinion? You didn't like DA:O and that's fine. A game is not supposed to be praised from anyone.
DA:O is one of the best fantasy rpgs I played and DA2 is a horrible quick cash grab that doesn't deserve the name it holds. I will mention only one of many simplifications that I hated, the wheel. The wheel is the new dumbification Bioware invented for their games. It serves only one purpose, to cater to those who hate rpgs and just want quick action. In DA:O one had to read all the options and think what line would trigger what consequence. The wheel is made for those who don't want to bother with reading and usually love to skip all the talking. It's easy, up for good guy and down for bad guy. DA:O was superior for role play for that reason alone.
edidili
The best part of the wheel may be the "Call Companion" dialogue option where you can defer a choice to your teammate.
Dragon age origins has one of the most complicated but not over the top story. the quests are tied very well. The save arl eamon quest was a loooong one and took you to some more quests (urn of adraste , and adndraste cult). so, what are you saying dude??? one dimensionals characters?? i thionk DAO has the best characters i ve seen in a bioware game. alistair morrigan oghren and lelliana were my A.I friends!
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]Origins is a fun game but I would agree that the story is very cliche. Leliana is a terrible character, however. I was disappointed to see her return in DA2. Either way, both Dragon Age games pale in comparison to Baldur's Gate 2, or even Icewind Dale, or Planescape Torment. They're better than the Neverwinter Nights games, however.DarkLink77and how is Leliana terrible? And no NWN2 is better than DAO, especially its expansion. Of course NWN2 was better written. It was an Obsidian title. The OC was in no way better written.
But back to the flaming and arguing...
No, DAO's quests are not tied well at all. In fact, the save eamon quest is part of the human main quest in the middle of the game. Its the same quest. But the again, there is no real connection to th emain plot other than a plot coupon. Yes, most of the cast are one dimensional....Oghren, Zervan, and Sten defeintely fit. Morrigan is less deep than people think and a very simple character. Compare it to the three dimesnional DAII companions and Awakening's Nathaniel Howe and you will notice how one dimensional most of the DAO cast is. Most only show one personality or emotion. More damning is none of the party really matters except for Allistair and Morrigan. You can cut them from the game and the story won't suffer. Not so with Bioware's other games.Dragon age origins has one of the most complicated but not over the top story. the quests are tied very well. The save arl eamon quest was a loooong one and took you to some more quests (urn of adraste , and adndraste cult). so, what are you saying dude??? one dimensionals characters?? i thionk DAO has the best characters i ve seen in a bioware game. alistair morrigan oghren and lelliana were my A.I friends!
ioannisdenton
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] and how is Leliana terrible? And no NWN2 is better than DAO, especially its expansion.SkyWard20Of course NWN2 was better written. It was an Obsidian title. The OC was in no way better written. true, but Mask of the Betrayer defenitely is.
[QUOTE="edidili"]Wrong, the wheel absolutely works and its better than Mass Effect's. And actually, the diplomatic response is not always "good" and the aggressive response is not always "evil". In fact, many times, its the other way around. And actually, DAII had more dialogue choices. And personality does matter, some choices open up to whatever Hawke's personality is. If Hawke has a diplomatic disposition, he will not be able to effectively threaten a dock worker, but an aggressive Hawke is highly successful. Characters also react to your personality.Texas, did you ever thought that that's just your opinion? You didn't like DA:O and that's fine. A game is not supposed to be praised from anyone.
DA:O is one of the best fantasy rpgs I played and DA2 is a horrible quick cash grab that doesn't deserve the name it holds. I will mention only one of many simplifications that I hated, the wheel. The wheel is the new dumbification Bioware invented for their games. It serves only one purpose, to cater to those who hate rpgs and just want quick action. In DA:O one had to read all the options and think what line would trigger what consequence. The wheel is made for those who don't want to bother with reading and usually love to skip all the talking. It's easy, up for good guy and down for bad guy. DA:O was superior for role play for that reason alone.
texasgoldrush
It doesn't change the fact that you don't have to think what to say or read. It happened once when I wasn't paying attention what some guy was talking about so I thought, well now I'm *****. But it was easy, the wheel appeared and up for accepting, middle for accepting while saying a lame joke, down for not accepting while being a douche and heart for sex.
That's just way too simple and shouldn't belong in to the sequel of DA:O. Bioware had two kind of rpgs. The first one was a lite rpg, shooter, with a simplistic one liner dialog, perfect for the 360 players. The other was the typical crpg, dungeon crawler, heavy on micromanagment where you control a team of four not like in the first where you control mainly your character. This one had a more complex dialog system which forced you to pay attention and read because you do not automatically know what reaction your choice would trigger. With DA2 they now have only one kind of rpg, the simple one. They went even further and added the signs ffs. Now just hit heart for romance, you don't have to know the person anymore.
[QUOTE="SkyWard20"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Of course NWN2 was better written. It was an Obsidian title.texasgoldrushThe OC was in no way better written. true, but Mask of the Betrayer defenitely is. All I can say is the OC's party member cast was one of the weakest I've seen in a Obsidian/Bioware RPG. Filled with stereotypical characters, jokes and writing, etc. the relationship between your party members was uninspired and mainly based, again, on fantasy stereotypes.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="edidili"]
Texas, did you ever thought that that's just your opinion? You didn't like DA:O and that's fine. A game is not supposed to be praised from anyone.
DA:O is one of the best fantasy rpgs I played and DA2 is a horrible quick cash grab that doesn't deserve the name it holds. I will mention only one of many simplifications that I hated, the wheel. The wheel is the new dumbification Bioware invented for their games. It serves only one purpose, to cater to those who hate rpgs and just want quick action. In DA:O one had to read all the options and think what line would trigger what consequence. The wheel is made for those who don't want to bother with reading and usually love to skip all the talking. It's easy, up for good guy and down for bad guy. DA:O was superior for role play for that reason alone.
Wrong, the wheel absolutely works and its better than Mass Effect's. And actually, the diplomatic response is not always "good" and the aggressive response is not always "evil". In fact, many times, its the other way around. And actually, DAII had more dialogue choices. And personality does matter, some choices open up to whatever Hawke's personality is. If Hawke has a diplomatic disposition, he will not be able to effectively threaten a dock worker, but an aggressive Hawke is highly successful. Characters also react to your personality.It doesn't change the fact that you don't have to think what to say or read. It happened once when I wasn't paying attention what some guy was talking about so I thought, well now I'm *****. But it was easy, the wheel appeared and up for accepting, middle for accepting while saying a lame joke, down for not accepting while being a douche and heart for sex.
That's just way too simple and shouldn't belong in to the sequel of DA:O. Bioware had two kind of rpgs. The first one was a lite rpg, shooter, with a simplistic one liner dialog, perfect for the 360 players. The other was the typical crpg, dungeon crawler, heavy on micromanagment where you control a team of four not like in the first where you control mainly your character. This one had a more complex dialog system which forced you to pay attention and read because you do not automatically know what reaction your choice would trigger. With DA2 they now have only one kind of rpg, the simple one. They went even further and added the signs ffs. Now just hit heart for romance, you don't have to know the person anymore.
However, the dialogue wheel allows you to be much less literal in the script and be far more natural. The trees never account for tone and body language. It feels stilted and unnatural because most dialogue has to be literal. And in many choices in DAII, there is no emotion icon. It will give you the choice icon instead. Dailogue trees work for Fallout, they are outdated when it comes to Bioware. In fact, the wheel reminds me of key phrases in the Ultima games. Also remember Obsidian had one for Alpha Protocol and it was the best part of the game.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment