Dragon Age Origins was NOTHING like the game they promised when they announced it. Nor was it a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate in any way.
Played all the origin stories and finished the game as a male human noble on nightmare difficulty (or whatever it was). Hated the combat system and haven't touched it since I finished it.
Anyone want my collector's edition? :P
I didn't like Neverwinter Nights either (sorry Trent).
The other thing I did not like about Da:O was blood magic. When I use it right in front of Wynne's face when she is in my party, shouldn't she point this out? Don't you pretty much have to tell her directly you are one otherwise there are no consequences. I don't know, it just sort of seemed like for such a feared thing you are given a lot of leeway with your use of it.
I agree about the Blood Magic thing. Didn't make any sense. Honestly, to not freak out the common people you'd pretty much just be limited to Spirit Healer and Arcane Warrior because even a Shapeshifter should freak people out.
Then again Shapeshifter was horrible. Such a waste of a talent tree. Nothing useful in it at all. NOTHING.
I liked changing shapes, but yea it was useless. You know for only having 3 classes in the game you'd think they would have done a better job at balance.
You mean make it so non-mages could compete with a mage?
Shapeshifter or no, a mage without any specialist abilities wrecked face. They didn't taper off in damage til the expansion, and even then they were the single best class at crowd control.
I don't get how people didn't like the combat. Hard/Nightmare was a blast. I loved how creative I had to get with spell use.
@sandmanCCL : it's true that they were the best crowd controllers in Origins, but I think archers got the edge in Awakening with their new abilities, especially at crowd controlling.
Generally speaking, the thing I loved the most about mages were their debilitation spells - ice spells, "telekinetic" spells and those nightmarish and paralyzing spells. I never considered using them too much damage-wise.
SPEAKING OF WHICH - why could you turn Wynne into a blood mage without any repercussions? Player is weird enough, but her, even more so.
I switched halfway through the game to hard rather then normal and I still just had to mash "A", I was a Acrcane Warrior. It was Stuipdly easy.
Also one of my friends played the game parallel to me and also said the game was still a mash "A" fest as a Dwarven Warrior, So its not just my class.
The console version of Dragon Age was just boring to play because of the combat. (Well....That and the characters. They.Never.Stop.Talking.About.Nothing. )
Edit: I have like 120 hours on DA so I don't hate it . I just never want to see it again
And now it's time for... tales from the developer side...
The console versions of the games were on average one whole difficulty level easier despite being labelled the same. Why, you ask? The tactical overview wasn't available, and console gamers aren't used to a "pause and play" game style. The designers felt it made the game too hard for new players with a console pad, so the difficulties got shifted during development to account for that. I believe at the default setting, the idea was you could play the game and beat most fights barring a couple boss fights without having to pause and issue tactical commands.
On the PC, no such concessions had to be made.
True story!
Source: check the credits of DA:O for a Nathan Willis.
I think DA:O definitely had it's flaws but obviously a lot of work went into it, and I though it to be a reasonable game. I can't spare any hatred for it, since I have to save all of my precious hate up to spend on DA2
I was lucky enough to not get into DA2 until about 6 months after it came out, so my enormouse expectations were already assuaged by internet haters.
The game wasn't bad. It just didn't feel like a sequel to DA:O, which is a crying shame when it's literally only the second title in the franchise.
Pro tip for developers: Don't make radical shifts to your gaming franchises between literally the first and second installments. It never works out. Ever.
Meh, BioWare kinda knew DA2 wasn't on par with their stuff... that's why they gave a free copy of Mass Effect 2 with each copy of DA2 owned.... of course, something around 75% of the people already OWNED Mass Effect 2 but... oh well.
DA2 fans interpreted it as - "Dragon Age 2 is so good it even grants you a copy of ME2!!" Haters interpreted it as - "Dragon Age 2 is so bad that the devs were forced to put ME2 in it!" I interpreted it as - "Whatever gives you more money, huh? Clever but not transparent."
The game wasn't bad. It just didn't feel like a sequel to DA:O, which is a crying shame when it's literally only the second title in the franchise.
r.e. other stuff above, hey, the game is pretty damned awesome for one that was start to ship in less than a year. Literally barebones nothing to finished in less than a year! But, I suppose unless you've had a hand in creating a game, one may not have the perspective to appreciate the accomplishment that is for a game like DA2.
Hrmmm... I can safely say, I think (I hope), that the whole team knew exactly what the criticisms of the game were going to be when it was released and expected it. Or at least most of us did.
@sandmanCCL ...yes, I agree, and... I want to say more! But I can't. Suffice it to say I agree.
@Nathan: That's insight I didn't have before. Thanks for that perspective.
I can't imagine what that would feel like, releasing something you know won't be met with a lot of enthusiasm from the fanbase. Was there a lot of publisher pressure to get it out by a specific date or is that stuff you can't talk about?
I am on record as saying people slamming it went way, way, way too far. Dragon Age 2 was still fun. I enjoyed it. It's one of those situations I wish a game wasn't labeled as a direct sequel because if the public considered it a spin-off, I think it would have been better received.
It's just silly how the biggest criticism of DA2 is, "I liked it but not as much as I could have." For all it's flaws, the experience was still enjoyable. And it didn't hit me with an ending that made me hate the entire franchise ala Mass Effect 3.
I'am sorry to add wood to the fire but to me Mass Effect 3 problems were not just the end. The previous were epic stories but ME3 only felt like popcorn material. "The end" though, was the rest of the knife deep in our back.
Was there a lot of publisher pressure to get it out by a specific date or is that stuff you can't talk about?
I am on record as saying people slamming it went way, way, way too far. Dragon Age 2 was still fun. I enjoyed it. It's one of those situations I wish a game wasn't labeled as a direct sequel because if the public considered it a spin-off, I think it would have been better received.
It's just silly how the biggest criticism of DA2 is, "I liked it but not as much as I could have." For all it's flaws, the experience was still enjoyable. And it didn't hit me with an ending that made me hate the entire franchise ala Mass Effect 3.
You know, I honestly have no idea what would be okay and not okay to say with regards to that, so, I'll play it safe and say nothing
@sandmanCCL and @Razor, I just wanted to say if you never checked out the ME3 extended ending DLC, maybe give it a go! I never thought it'd be possible but it actually totally changed my position from not liking the ending direction to liking it. It doesn't outright change anything, it just provides more exposition...
My fave ending is the "blue" (paragon) one now, with the other information it adds. Just check it out on youtube.
@Nathan: I really wish they'd have stuck with Exodus. Would have helped distinguish the title more and kept each Dragon Age title a little more unique and separate because of the subtitles. It'd allow more freedom, too! Because then if the title is quite different from the others, they could have said, "We're simply expanding our franchise!"
But what do I know? I'm just a consumer.
Maybe I should switch my major into PR and see if EA would hire me to help get them some slight gamer cred back. Haha
DA:O was indeed awesome. Despite thoroughly disappointing DLC content I've always viewed it as worthy bastard offpsing of BGs. That sense of grand adventure was present. Some of the NPCs were awesome. Dialogue was good and I loved the world and sheer amount of lore they had written for it.
Most thoughts I have in store for DA II would get me banned for foul language I wager.
I hate how the elves were portryaed in DA 2. Those long necks and such skinny bodies...Of course Fenris and Merrill were given more attention as they're romanceable options. Classy, EAware. Very classy. >_>
i played dao once. really liked almost all of the companions, shale and wynne especially. after one playthrough i uninstalled it. da2 was ok in my opinion. nothing special and underdeveloped but the combat was improvement in my opinion, smooth and fast paced. i also liked the dialogue wheel and voiced main character uninstalled later, but it remained longer on my hard drive than dao.
simply put, the games didn't have that "something" to captivate my attention. mass effect franchise on the other hand did it for me, someday i intend to replay it again. it has it's flaws and stereotypes, but it manages to be better than that somehow. i dont think i would feel the same amount of affection toward baldurs gate if i would play it today. it was my first gaming experience of complex and immersive fantasy, so it will always remain special to me, even with its more ridiculous story and setting twists.
i don't want new games to be like baldurs gate. i want them to be a matured baldurs gate, if we need to draw comparisons. over the 14 years i had more then my share of standard "save the world" dwarf-elves-orcs schemes. i want to see a game that goes for "mature" rating and justifies it. and by mature i don't mean flashing a few tits and being excessively gory and depressing.
I kind of ruined my DA:O experience for me, because of my ridiculously high expectations, since it was called a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. It was a good game but had nothing to do with BG, so I was extremely disappointed. DA2 on the other hand was far worse game than DA:O, but I happened to enjoy it more than DA:O, because I expected absolutely nothing from it. It is funny how things work sometimes, but the words "Baldur's Gate" should have never ever been mentioned.
I like Dragon Age but it doesn't captivate me as much as Baldur's Gate. I haven't finished DA:O yet, but I do intend too. I'm finding the combat quite hard at times (on my first playthrough). I toned the difficulty down from normal to easy to win the courtyard battle in Castle Redcliffe. Though on my second playthrough I've set it to hard in Lothering for a greater challenge.
My first character is a City Elven Rogue called Ehlora and she's accompanied by Alistair (there seems to be a romance coming, but I'm not sure), Morrigan and Sten (who's surprised a woman can be a Grey Warden).
I've started a second campaign with a Human Mage called Thanlinxas, who's portrait that I made I started using on the Bioware BG board as an avatar. Good thing is I have more freedom in picking spells than with Morrigan, who's already got some spell-choices made when you recruit her.
I do like the game, but arcane combat feels less compelling than with the buff/debuff system of AD&D. I find there not to be too much variety in spell stratagies. But then, even in BG I have favourite stratagies that I use most unless it doesn't work.
I do like the party-banters. It's that part which does make the 'spiritual successor'-title a little fitting, even tough on a tactical level I find the game to be lacking compared to Baldur's Gate.
What DA:O does better than Baldur's Gate (the heresy of Son of Imoen!) is Rogues and Warriors get more diverse options in combat, so it's not only the casters that are the interesting characters.
One more thing I liked: the story got so complicated by the time I got to Castle Redcliffe, it did send my head spinning. It's not a superficial story in the detail they gave to it.
I liked it but it could drag on at times. The Deep Roads were way too damn long.
I was surprised how complicated a story about orcs invading the world became. I was often asking myself while I was dealing with everyone's problems "wait aren't we being invaded?"
After playing DA2 it makes a lot of sense though, they is a pretty big focus on the culture of Thedas and the political issues of the day...or age.
Overall, DA:O is a good game. I enjoyed it, though it has its weak points. Especially the main antagonist and end boss of the game is really stale and bland.
Comments
Played all the origin stories and finished the game as a male human noble on nightmare difficulty (or whatever it was). Hated the combat system and haven't touched it since I finished it.
Anyone want my collector's edition? :P
I didn't like Neverwinter Nights either (sorry Trent).
Then again Shapeshifter was horrible. Such a waste of a talent tree. Nothing useful in it at all. NOTHING.
Shapeshifter or no, a mage without any specialist abilities wrecked face. They didn't taper off in damage til the expansion, and even then they were the single best class at crowd control.
I don't get how people didn't like the combat. Hard/Nightmare was a blast. I loved how creative I had to get with spell use.
Generally speaking, the thing I loved the most about mages were their debilitation spells - ice spells, "telekinetic" spells and those nightmarish and paralyzing spells. I never considered using them too much damage-wise.
SPEAKING OF WHICH - why could you turn Wynne into a blood mage without any repercussions? Player is weird enough, but her, even more so.
The console versions of the games were on average one whole difficulty level easier despite being labelled the same. Why, you ask? The tactical overview wasn't available, and console gamers aren't used to a "pause and play" game style. The designers felt it made the game too hard for new players with a console pad, so the difficulties got shifted during development to account for that. I believe at the default setting, the idea was you could play the game and beat most fights barring a couple boss fights without having to pause and issue tactical commands.
On the PC, no such concessions had to be made.
True story!
Source: check the credits of DA:O for a Nathan Willis.
The game wasn't bad. It just didn't feel like a sequel to DA:O, which is a crying shame when it's literally only the second title in the franchise.
Pro tip for developers: Don't make radical shifts to your gaming franchises between literally the first and second installments. It never works out. Ever.
DA2 fans interpreted it as - "Dragon Age 2 is so good it even grants you a copy of ME2!!"
Haters interpreted it as - "Dragon Age 2 is so bad that the devs were forced to put ME2 in it!"
I interpreted it as - "Whatever gives you more money, huh? Clever but not transparent."
Hrmmm... I can safely say, I think (I hope), that the whole team knew exactly what the criticisms of the game were going to be when it was released and expected it. Or at least most of us did.
@sandmanCCL ...yes, I agree, and... I want to say more! But I can't. Suffice it to say I agree.
I can't imagine what that would feel like, releasing something you know won't be met with a lot of enthusiasm from the fanbase. Was there a lot of publisher pressure to get it out by a specific date or is that stuff you can't talk about?
I am on record as saying people slamming it went way, way, way too far. Dragon Age 2 was still fun. I enjoyed it. It's one of those situations I wish a game wasn't labeled as a direct sequel because if the public considered it a spin-off, I think it would have been better received.
It's just silly how the biggest criticism of DA2 is, "I liked it but not as much as I could have." For all it's flaws, the experience was still enjoyable. And it didn't hit me with an ending that made me hate the entire franchise ala Mass Effect 3.
As for the second part, that's an interesting point - you know how sometimes certain decisions are out of one's paygrade? Well, I don't always agree with every business decision that EA makes (as a matter of personal opinion) is all I can really express. Speaking of things that are interesting, check out this random forum thread I found that's totally unrelated to our conversation! Who would've thought!
@sandmanCCL and @Razor, I just wanted to say if you never checked out the ME3 extended ending DLC, maybe give it a go! I never thought it'd be possible but it actually totally changed my position from not liking the ending direction to liking it. It doesn't outright change anything, it just provides more exposition...
My fave ending is the "blue" (paragon) one now, with the other information it adds. Just check it out on youtube.
But what do I know? I'm just a consumer.
Maybe I should switch my major into PR and see if EA would hire me to help get them some slight gamer cred back. Haha
Most thoughts I have in store for DA II would get me banned for foul language I wager.
da2 was ok in my opinion. nothing special and underdeveloped but the combat was improvement in my opinion, smooth and fast paced. i also liked the dialogue wheel and voiced main character
simply put, the games didn't have that "something" to captivate my attention. mass effect franchise on the other hand did it for me, someday i intend to replay it again. it has it's flaws and stereotypes, but it manages to be better than that somehow.
i dont think i would feel the same amount of affection toward baldurs gate if i would play it today. it was my first gaming experience of complex and immersive fantasy, so it will always remain special to me, even with its more ridiculous story and setting twists.
i don't want new games to be like baldurs gate. i want them to be a matured baldurs gate, if we need to draw comparisons. over the 14 years i had more then my share of standard "save the world" dwarf-elves-orcs schemes. i want to see a game that goes for "mature" rating and justifies it. and by mature i don't mean flashing a few tits and being excessively gory and depressing.
DA2 on the other hand was far worse game than DA:O, but I happened to enjoy it more than DA:O, because I expected absolutely nothing from it.
It is funny how things work sometimes, but the words "Baldur's Gate" should have never ever been mentioned.
My first character is a City Elven Rogue called Ehlora and she's accompanied by Alistair (there seems to be a romance coming, but I'm not sure), Morrigan and Sten (who's surprised a woman can be a Grey Warden).
I've started a second campaign with a Human Mage called Thanlinxas, who's portrait that I made I started using on the Bioware BG board as an avatar. Good thing is I have more freedom in picking spells than with Morrigan, who's already got some spell-choices made when you recruit her.
I do like the game, but arcane combat feels less compelling than with the buff/debuff system of AD&D. I find there not to be too much variety in spell stratagies. But then, even in BG I have favourite stratagies that I use most unless it doesn't work.
I do like the party-banters. It's that part which does make the 'spiritual successor'-title a little fitting, even tough on a tactical level I find the game to be lacking compared to Baldur's Gate.
What DA:O does better than Baldur's Gate (the heresy of Son of Imoen!) is Rogues and Warriors get more diverse options in combat, so it's not only the casters that are the interesting characters.
I was surprised how complicated a story about orcs invading the world became. I was often asking myself while I was dealing with everyone's problems "wait aren't we being invaded?"
After playing DA2 it makes a lot of sense though, they is a pretty big focus on the culture of Thedas and the political issues of the day...or age.
I enjoyed it, though it has its weak points.
Especially the main antagonist and end boss of the game is really stale and bland.