Dragon Age Origins is so grossly overrated its not even funny (series spoilers)

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I think ME2 is even more overrated than DA:O.

Planeforger

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.

Funny enough I didn't see the bad design in DA:O until I went through my second time. The first time I was too engrossed to notice that alot of things were so poorly done but with ME2 I noticed it my first time around. That's probably why I don't like ME 2 as much as the first.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="SkyWard20"] The OC was in no way better written. SkyWard20

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.

Planeforger

Exactly that. You might be onto something. >_>

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

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.

Funny enough I didn't see the bad design in DA:O until I went through my second time. The first time I was too engrossed to notice that alot of things were so poorly done but with ME2 I noticed it my first time around. That's probably why I don't like ME 2 as much as the first.

This game was rushed and a slap in the face. I wish they had named it something completely differnt than dragon age 2.It felt more like an expansion than a sequel. Obviously opinions differ but the fact that there was overwhelming fan negativity over this game is indicative of Fail similar to Final Fanatsy XIII.I am not buying the BS PR work being spouted by Bioware and Chris whatshisface. The game was designed around a deadline and with the sole goal of selling copies based on name alone. How can you defend a game that has so many recycled environments, non existant plot that appears to be strung together on the fly as the game was being designed with an ending that screams DLC content in coming. Its shameful what they did, DA:O may have been the most generic WRPG made but at least it was sincere and passinate DA2 was just soulless.

dao i a good game but ts not a 9.5. dunno what kevin v was thinking.

This game was rushed and a slap in the face. I wish they had named it something completely differnt than dragon age 2.It felt more like an expansion than a sequel. Obviously opinions differ but the fact that there was overwhelming fan negativity over this game is indicative of Fail similar to Final Fanatsy XIII.I am not buying the BS PR work being spouted by Bioware and Chris whatshisface. The game was designed around a deadline and with the sole goal of selling copies based on name alone. How can you defend a game that has so many recycled environments, non existant plot that appears to be strung together on the fly as the game was being designed with an ending that screams DLC content in coming. Its shameful what they did, DA:O may have been the most generic WRPG made but at least it was sincere and passinate DA2 was just soulless.

musalala

TC, are you saying ME's story isn't cliche compared to that of DA:O?

Lemme break it down for you:

ME - You start out as an ordinary Infiltrator/Adept/Soldier

DA - You start out as an ordinary Rogue/Mage/Warrior

ME - You go on a mission and then find the beacon which does something bad

DA - You go out and you find a mirror which does something bad (elven story)

ME - Then you are recruited to the Spectres.

DA - Then you are recruited to the Grey Wardens.

ME - You have to fight through a lof of geth, and eventually the Reaper.

DA - You have to fight through a lot of darkspawn, and eventually the Archdemon.

[QUOTE="musalala"]

This game was rushed and a slap in the face. I wish they had named it something completely differnt than dragon age 2.It felt more like an expansion than a sequel. Obviously opinions differ but the fact that there was overwhelming fan negativity over this game is indicative of Fail similar to Final Fanatsy XIII.I am not buying the BS PR work being spouted by Bioware and Chris whatshisface. The game was designed around a deadline and with the sole goal of selling copies based on name alone. How can you defend a game that has so many recycled environments, non existant plot that appears to be strung together on the fly as the game was being designed with an ending that screams DLC content in coming. Its shameful what they did, DA:O may have been the most generic WRPG made but at least it was sincere and passinate DA2 was just soulless.

texasgoldrush

-DA:O overrated with ***** storyline and some of the worst cliche writing ever!

- DA II, one of the best RPG stories ever, so good it went over peoples heads.

- Mass Effect 2 is a deep study about the human condition and what it means to be human.

After all this how can i take you seriously?

ME1 is much worse.....the combat is very clunky, many of the side quests are poor, there is no sense of urgency when there should be, and the xbox version is a techinical nightmare. Add the terrible Mako sections and the crappy inventory system.

texasgoldrush

Yeah but ME2 while the combat is better, is still clunky and some of the cover objects are buggy, most of the side quests in ME2 are poor as well, or simply non-existant (i.e you have to look really hard for them), why would there be a sense of urgency in ME1? The way the game played out you were doing routine stuff until coming down to the end, I played the PC version so I was not affected by that, and the mako sections while being bad, weren't nearly as bad as platforming with that thing in overlord. Not to mention ME2 removed all forms of planetary exploration. I mean ME1 did garbage with it, because bioware was lazy and copy/pasted almost all the planet surfaces, but ME2 could have been alot more.. but instead of fixing it they removed it. They removed all the stats in the game basically, and levelling up really makes no difference in the game, there's no sense of character progression at all, not stats wise or gear wise. Levelling up in that game brings the same results as levelling up in call of duty. You just get access to new perks.

Tl;dr, I hate DA:O too, mostly because it was just so repetitive, you just go down the same linear corridor, mashing the same button to kill the same enemy repeatedly, also the animations and grahpics sucked.

Agreed. The game was a 4/10 for me. Never knew a fantasy RPG could be so bland.

I actually agree with the TC. DA:O isn't a bad game, but its not a great game either. Maybe somewhere around a 7 or 7.5. I think you nailed all the major reasons, including absolutely atrocious graphics and art style and a lame me-too story arch. Also, the gameplay just simply wasn't fun. DA:O is probably the most overrated game of the generation. Coincidently, DA 2 is one of my favorite games of the generation, because I think it succeeded everywhere where DA:O failed- namely that its actually fun, and has a cool art style and much better story IMO.lockjaw333

There is a strange thing going on with the DA serie. Those whol loved the second hated the first and vice versa.

The problem with DAO is it plays it safe, unlike better games such as The Witcher and NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer, which not only had great storyteling, but was willing to take risks and be unique. Its also amazing how those games that came out two years prior LOOK better than DAO. And they ARE better.

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.texasgoldrush

Simple as that.

While I don't mind a wheel system or voicing, the amount of decisions and outcomes were pulled back with the inclusion of the wheel, it also didn't help that your three options were 'good' 'snarky and sarcastic' or **** the writers are forced into three templates of response for each line of dialogue, good luck giving the player alternate options.

This also wasn't helped by the fact that that your tone, morality, and critical choices are all seperate. Mass Effect ket Renegade and Paragon always evidence, DA2 however masks polarising choices with a 'three way mystery response' in a game that is telling you if your response is nice or not the vast majority of the time. Fractured character building, joy. The visual signposting was just bad, Origins lack of was well ahead.

As a result this effected quest lines and the apparent illusion of branching outcomes far too frequently than it should of, and it's all part of the games flawed narrative aspects.

Quite frankly it could have been done far better, I'm not against changing 'read the text, pick the text' dialogue tree, at all, however DA2's simple copy paste of ME, evidently in the sake of saving development and production time was a terribly lackluster move; be it ideas or execution.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] 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.skrat_01

Simple as that.

While I don't mind a wheel system or voicing, the amount of decisions and outcomes were pulled back with the inclusion of the wheel, it also didn't help that your three options were 'good' 'snarky and sarcastic' or **** the writers are forced into three templates of response for each line of dialogue, good luck giving the player alternate options.

This also wasn't helped by the fact that that your tone, morality, and critical choices are all seperate. Mass Effect ket Renegade and Paragon always evidence, DA2 however masks polarising choices with a 'three way mystery response' in a game that is telling you if your response is nice or not the vast majority of the time. Fractured character building, joy. The visual signposting was just bad, Origins lack of was well ahead.

Um, what? That was one of the better things done in DA 2. Your overall attitude and response habit don't always dictate your morality, which is great. Whether the neutral-looking icon wasn't a good indicator of what you were going to say is another thing, but this can be easily rectified by, you know... simply RELOADING the game.

It's worth noting that some of the responses ( which lack specific personality icons ) get adapted to the type of personality you used most often, so the response varies based on that. If you prefer to have intrusive game design that dictate all your critical choices by a predefined diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive Hawke, then that would be odd, since some of the decisions you make in the game are... not clearly defined as good/evil. Not being forced into always making important decisions based on your diplomatic/aggressive personality status is essential.

: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.

musalala

Sorry I didn't read the whole OP but I'm just going to say, DAO was probably the first Bioware RPG I didn't play at least a second time through and in fact, didn't even care to finish the game. :?

So suffice to say, I'm not much of a fan of the series myself. :P

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] 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.skrat_01

Simple as that.

While I don't mind a wheel system or voicing, the amount of decisions and outcomes were pulled back with the inclusion of the wheel, it also didn't help that your three options were 'good' 'snarky and sarcastic' or **** the writers are forced into three templates of response for each line of dialogue, good luck giving the player alternate options.

This also wasn't helped by the fact that that your tone, morality, and critical choices are all seperate. Mass Effect ket Renegade and Paragon always evidence, DA2 however masks polarising choices with a 'three way mystery response' in a game that is telling you if your response is nice or not the vast majority of the time. Fractured character building, joy. The visual signposting was just bad, Origins lack of was well ahead.

As a result this effected quest lines and the apparent illusion of branching outcomes far too frequently than it should of, and it's all part of the games flawed narrative aspects.

Quite frankly it could have been done far better, I'm not against changing 'read the text, pick the text' dialogue tree, at all, however DA2's simple copy paste of ME, evidently in the sake of saving development and production time was a terribly lackluster move; be it ideas or execution.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"] The Witcher has as many (or more) problems than Origins, though. Total lack of character customization (in terms of items and weapons), extremely poor pacing, a story that's all over the place, and a shoddy combat system that somehow manages to be worse than Summoner, which seems to be what it ripped it from (and Summoner was garbage). The Witcher's characters are great, however, and the overall feel of its world works well, if not as well as the book it's based off.AGMing

[QUOTE="AGMing"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] How is the lack of customization bad? Its called the Witcher. Its about Geralt. The story has excellent pacing after the first act and its not really all over the place. Everything connects in the end. Salamandra is a threat in every act.dreman999

[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="AGMing"] Many don't know that The Witcher is based on the books written 15 years ago that go into detail about Geralt's appearance, a customizable character would make no sense in the Witcher games. Also the White Wolf would be a pretty bad nickname for some dude with short dark hair or any other variation.Arach666

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="dreman999"] But yet you complain when you don't do it in JRPGS....dreman999

[QUOTE="dreman999"]

[QUOTE="Arach666"] Some of the best RPG characters areen´t costumizable,The Nameless One is a great example as it´s probably the best main character ever in an RPG.

Arach666

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] 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.dreman999

Simple as that.

While I don't mind a wheel system or voicing, the amount of decisions and outcomes were pulled back with the inclusion of the wheel, it also didn't help that your three options were 'good' 'snarky and sarcastic' or **** the writers are forced into three templates of response for each line of dialogue, good luck giving the player alternate options.

This also wasn't helped by the fact that that your tone, morality, and critical choices are all seperate. Mass Effect ket Renegade and Paragon always evidence, DA2 however masks polarising choices with a 'three way mystery response' in a game that is telling you if your response is nice or not the vast majority of the time. Fractured character building, joy. The visual signposting was just bad, Origins lack of was well ahead.

As a result this effected quest lines and the apparent illusion of branching outcomes far too frequently than it should of, and it's all part of the games flawed narrative aspects.

Quite frankly it could have been done far better, I'm not against changing 'read the text, pick the text' dialogue tree, at all, however DA2's simple copy paste of ME, evidently in the sake of saving development and production time was a terribly lackluster move; be it ideas or execution.

Bioware are so overrated it's not even funny!!.TheGuardian03

Crysis 2 is so overated it's not even funny!

Um, what? That was one of the better things done in DA 2. Your overall attitude and response habit don't always dictate your morality, which is great. Whether the neutral-looking icon wasn't a good indicator of what you were going to say is another thing, but this can be easily rectified by, you know... simply RELOADING the game.

It's worth noting that some of the responses ( which lack specific personality icons ) get adapted to the type of personality you used most often, so the response varies based on that. If you prefer to have intrusive game design that dictate all your critical choices by a predefined diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive Hawke, then that would be odd, since some of the decisions you make in the game are... not clearly defined as good/evil. Not being forced into always making important decisions based on your diplomatic/aggressive personality status is essential.

SkyWard20

"RELOADING" the game? :lol: No, that's hilarious. You shouldn't have to restart, retry or move back because *the game* poorly establishes what your character is going to say. That is a very, very basic example, and evidence of poor game design matched to writing.

Sure I certainly have resorted to that more often than I should have, it makes the fault all the more evident. Oh they do get adapted to the personality, as with the dialogue Hawke babblers when you have zero control. As I said before, it's jarring to be presented with options so polarising, and extremely critical based on a few words per option, and to have your attitude signposted blatantly with spoonfed attitude markings (which also encourages caring less about actual defining choice) until these moments.

While I do think the actual modification of dialogue track is a very nice touch, this is a poor example of dialogue signposting.

Did no one notice that if a character to be moreserious/snarky/agressive it changes the lines spoken? An no it does not do that at all. It's funny, Witcher 2 has it but no one hates it for it...... The point being is that it does not castarate anything. Your not use to it. That's all.

dreman999

Otherwise it does castrate choice. The writers and designers are limited to three options in determining your characters attitude in signposted dialogue choices, and outcomes, which then impacts on the variety of player choice in responding. Compared to other RPGs where the dialogue options don't have a set limit and aren't so bluntly defined by attitude; this means more choice for the player, and more options for outcomes if you're a designer or writer.

And yet you complain when can't do that with your allies in DA2.

dreman999

which use the classic bioware quest sturcture and character sturcture is less safe than a game that changed up everything in the original from the way we interact with character, to the combate and story sturcture?

dreman999

[QUOTE="musalala"]

This game was rushed and a slap in the face. I wish they had named it something completely differnt than dragon age 2.It felt more like an expansion than a sequel. Obviously opinions differ but the fact that there was overwhelming fan negativity over this game is indicative of Fail similar to Final Fanatsy XIII.I am not buying the BS PR work being spouted by Bioware and Chris whatshisface. The game was designed around a deadline and with the sole goal of selling copies based on name alone. How can you defend a game that has so many recycled environments, non existant plot that appears to be strung together on the fly as the game was being designed with an ending that screams DLC content in coming. Its shameful what they did, DA:O may have been the most generic WRPG made but at least it was sincere and passinate DA2 was just soulless.

texasgoldrush

You still do all the same stuff from solving problems to romances to defeating the end boss. In DAO you have the side stories set up along the main story arc, in DA2 the destination might be kept in the dark but the journey is still very much the same.

I don't really see the benefit in DA2's approach, a hero needs a villain and the generic main plot helps to provide motivation and reflect overall progress. I'm not against DA2 style of storytelling, it has potential, but it doesn't add anything if the rest of the game follows the same rules as the usual epic end of the world tales.

Um, what? That was one of the better things done in DA 2. Your overall attitude and response habit don't always dictate your morality, which is great. Whether the neutral-looking icon wasn't a good indicator of what you were going to say is another thing, but this can be easily rectified by, you know... simply RELOADING the game.

It's worth noting that some of the responses ( which lack specific personality icons ) get adapted to the type of personality you used most often, so the response varies based on that. If you prefer to have intrusive game design that dictate all your critical choices by a predefined diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive Hawke, then that would be odd, since some of the decisions you make in the game are... not clearly defined as good/evil. Not being forced into always making important decisions based on your diplomatic/aggressive personality status is essential.

[/QUOTE]I never said they 'always dictate', in my response. What I did say was your tone can be one of the three polarising options, then the game throws in an a variety of choices per 'critical dialogue choice' with to relevance to the former. It's fractured.

How? It seems consistent enough. Should we expect sarcastic/aggressive characters to act in a certain fashion and let developers make their choices for them? You haven't answered this. You could still make certain opposing quest-related choices in Paragon/Renegade fashion in Mass Effect 1. It's a good opportunity to roleplay a sarcastic hero, or merciful thug. Like I said, there are choices which recognize your most consistent personality. It remains relevant. What does being sarcastic/aggressive, for example, have to do with wanting mages to be granted more liberties or being ok with the way they are treated by the templars?

"RELOADING" the game? :lol: No, that's hilarious. You shouldn't have to restart, retry or move back because *the game* poorly establishes what your character is going to say. That is a very, very basic example, and evidence of poor game design matched to writing.

The system's goal is to not clearly establish what your character is going to say. Though I wonder how 'hilarious' you'll find it if I say not everyone thinks this is an inherent defect of Bioware's Mass Effect conversation system. Still, there's always RELOADING left for you. I hear people do that when you get dialogue choices to see the different outcomes of a situation.

Sure I certainly have resorted to that more often than I should have, it makes the fault all the more evident. Oh they do get adapted to the personality, as with the dialogue Hawke babblers when you have zero control.

It's fitted to match your previous responses. If you have an issue with this, you must not like having predefined conversations with your character carried out in the first place, which is fine, but no different from having your character forced to respond Mass Effect style in the first place.

As I said before, it's jarring to be presented with options so polarising.

Name one conversation where your character's personality type clearly contradicts the 'polarized' neutral given dialogue options. Even if you'll find any, that's not an inherent defect of the dialogue system.

While I do think the actual modification of dialogue track is a very nice touch, this is a poor example of dialogue signposting. [QUOTE="dreman999"]

Did no one notice that if a character to be moreserious/snarky/agressive it changes the lines spoken? An no it does not do that at all. It's funny, Witcher 2 has it but no one hates it for it...... The point being is that it does not castarate anything. Your not use to it. That's all.

skrat_01

Otherwise it does castrate choice. The writers and designers are limited to three options in determining your characters attitude in signposted dialogue choices, and outcomes, which then impacts on the variety of player choice in responding. Compared to other RPGs where the dialogue options don't have a set limit and aren't so bluntly defined by attitude; this means more choice for the player, and more options for outcomes if you're a designer or writer.

Post in quote.

I don't know how anyone could carrying on playing DA:O after the scene on the bridge where [spoiler] the king dies [/spoiler]

Does this look familiar?

[QUOTE="AGMing"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] How is the lack of customization bad? Its called the Witcher. Its about Geralt. The story has excellent pacing after the first act and its not really all over the place. Everything connects in the end. Salamandra is a threat in every act.dreman999

Mass Effect is bascially Kotor for a new generation. What's your point? Bioware has been a very derivative developer for a long time. This is not news.

[QUOTE="dreman999"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]The wheel castrates decision making.
The dialogue trees summarised don't establish exactly what you are saying half as well as they should.

Simple as that.

While I don't mind a wheel system or voicing, the amount of decisions and outcomes were pulled back with the inclusion of the wheel, it also didn't help that your three options were 'good' 'snarky and sarcastic' or **** the writers are forced into three templates of response for each line of dialogue, good luck giving the player alternate options.

This also wasn't helped by the fact that that your tone, morality, and critical choices are all seperate. Mass Effect ket Renegade and Paragon always evidence, DA2 however masks polarising choices with a 'three way mystery response' in a game that is telling you if your response is nice or not the vast majority of the time. Fractured character building, joy. The visual signposting was just bad, Origins lack of was well ahead.

As a result this effected quest lines and the apparent illusion of branching outcomes far too frequently than it should of, and it's all part of the games flawed narrative aspects.

Quite frankly it could have been done far better, I'm not against changing 'read the text, pick the text' dialogue tree, at all, however DA2's simple copy paste of ME, evidently in the sake of saving development and production time was a terribly lackluster move; be it ideas or execution.

KalDurenik

Mass Effect is bascially Kotor for a new generation. What's your point? Bioware has been a very derivative developer for a long time. This is not news.

Brendissimo35

Accepting **** and lower quality rpg's , less complexity, depth, story, conversation, choices have nothing to do with evolving.. Hell i play new rpg's. But most of them are not even on the top 20 rpg list. but then again you dont want a rpg... You want a adventure game with choices or a action game with choices.

DA2 had better storytelling, writing, characters, and choice/consequence/morality than Origins did, but that doesn't mean I can forgive the game for everything it did poorly.

The combat scenarios are terrible. I spent 30 minutes fighting the Ancient Rock Wraith, but never felt any exhilaration or tension like I did while fighting the Brood Mother where you're fighting for survival and barely scraping by. You spend a lot more time in fights in general because they keep throwing waves of enemies at you, and it kills the pacing. I was audibly groaning every time a fight started about half way through the game.

That said, DA2 gets way too much hate. It was a rushed product, it was overly simplified for no ****ing reason, the combat sucks, but that doesn't mean it's not great in it's own right though. It's not quite as good as Origins, but it's much better than Origins in a lot of ways. 3 steps forword, 3 steps back.