Dragon Age: Origins

[FlintlockJazz]

So instead of debating the points posters are now resorting to accusations of rose coloured glasses and only wanting BG clones in order to try undermining others it seems. I never liked the Vancian system in the IE games but since I don't consider DAO awesome and prefer the IE games I guess that must mean I don't want it changed? And that all my points are invalid because the DAO fans say so? Well, thanks for letting me know, whar a relief!

[Volourn]

"I never liked the Vancian system in the IE games but since I don't consider DAO awesome and prefer the IE games I guess that must mean I don't want it changed? And that all my points are invalid because the DAO fans say so? Well, thanks for letting me know, whar a relief! "

 

I love the vancian system and I prefer BG2 overall 9though DA2 does things better) but this was about BG1. BG1 was a fun game for it time but it is a very weak rpg.

 

Just remember, that many IE fans also have no problem dissing those who prefer DA a smany horrible stuff. Turnabout can be fair. :D

[Amentep]

Anyone who thinks BG is a better game that DA doesn't know what a good game is or is trolling. The characters were litterally one note and basically did nothing, the overland maps werenothing but empty space with wussy monster to kill and maybe one bit of fluff dialogue with an npc. The combat options were really limited. The role-pklaying was basically non existence.

 

They were also different games in different times with different expectations. However subjective quality is subjective.

 

People who c ry about how you were 'forced' to be a Warden ignore the fact you were 'forced'; to be a Bhaalspawn. There is no real difference here. You couldn't convince anyone in Bg to do anything. At least you could avoid combat in DA.

 

I actually didn't like being forced to be a Bhaalspawn either. So yeah no real difference. In both games I dealt with aspects that I considered sub-optimal and enjoyed the game for what it was rather for what I hoped it to be.

[FlintlockJazz]

"I never liked the Vancian system in the IE games but since I don't consider DAO awesome and prefer the IE games I guess that must mean I don't want it changed? And that all my points are invalid because the DAO fans say so? Well, thanks for letting me know, whar a relief! "

 

I love the vancian system and I prefer BG2 overall 9though DA2 does things better) but this was about BG1. BG1 was a fun game for it time but it is a very weak rpg.

 

Just remember, that many IE fans also have no problem dissing those who prefer DA a smany horrible stuff. Turnabout can be fair. :D

 

I disagree, BG1 is more enjoyable to me and in some ways better than BG2 as an RPG: it has better exploration for a start, allowing you to pretty much randomly explore areas and find interesting stuff and quests. For me it was a better mix of freeform and storytelling than the later games but lacked the detail and stronger plot for quests that BG2 had.

[Slaunyeh]

I liked DA:Origins quite a lot, for the most part. That said, my biggest issue with that game was the huge disconnect between the game world and the game mechanics. Like, how you could throw blood magic left and right, and nobody would care, except everyone would be all "but that other guy is a blood mage, you must stop him!" Heck, you could turn the game's most adamant anti-blood mage character (Wynn) into a, you guessed it, blood mage. Because character system wise, blood mage was just another specialization. Or, to use another game (Skyrim in this case), I really hated how the game didn't know which factions you were part of. Unless it was important for a specific quest. If I can become the leader of virtually every faction in the known universe, some interaction between those factions would be quite nice.

 

The easy way to handle this, of course, is to not have a game where any of the mechanical character choices should have a significant impact on the game world (eg. if everyone hates necromancers and the main plot involves killing all necromancers on sight because necromancers are bad, don't let me play a necromancer who can walk around town with a small army of undead in tow).

 

The cool way to handle this, is to have a game that is actually aware of the in-game choices you make and have a world that reacts accordingly. Of course, that might be tough to pull off. But it would be pretty cool.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Slaunyeh

[Stun]

So instead of debating the points posters are now resorting to accusations of rose coloured glasses and only wanting BG clones in order to try undermining others it seems. I never liked the Vancian system in the IE games but since I don't consider DAO awesome and prefer the IE games I guess that must mean I don't want it changed? And that all my points are invalid because the DAO fans say so? Well, thanks for letting me know, whar a relief!

Just a thought: This jilting you feel you're getting might have something to do with the fact that with every single one of your posts here, you've approached this thread as if it was a "DA:O vs. IE" discussion. Even though it's not. At all. Did you even read the OP?

Edited October 9, 2012 by Stun

[Merin]

Could it be that something could like both DA:O and BG without having to judge them against each other in some unnecessary "either/or" dichotomy?

 

This is something that always baffles me - is it possible that someone could simultaneously enjoy Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Diablo, Angry Birds, Farmville and Planescape: Torment? I mean, the way some people post it's like they only like one very specific range of game mechanics and anyone who hazards to mention liking, say, the action combat from Arkham Asylum is suddenly the enemy.

 

A person can love Phantasie, Wizard's Crown and Bard's Tale and still love Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale and Fallout, and also love Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect. It can happen. And they can not want game mechanics from any one of those games to have to "infect" all the others.

 

Some people come across as entirely too obsessive about their one type of game.

 

Dragon Age: Origins wasn't a copy of Baldur's Gate. Doesn't mean someone can't have liked both, warts and all on both.

[Bos_hybrid]

so do some parts of DA2 (such as the core combat system, which was an improvement in many ways, but was let down by very poor encounter and monster design).

 

Make it stop, please make it stop.

[Reddie]

I don't have much problem with DAO's mechanics, apart from the fact that it was unbalanced. There were only few correct sets of skills that made you character not suck, and cooldowns should have their lengths sorted differently. But leaving that aside - I'm not a mechanics buff, I can take anything there is, with exception of a system that's totally unintuitive, to the point of being unplayable.

 

My biggest problem with DAO was an over-abundance of boring and repetitive dungeon-like areas. It felt less a homage to Baldur's Gate than to Icewind Dale, while lacking the feel of it.

[1varangian]

Let's have a look at Origins' bad points then:

 

 

- Combat. It wasn't reactive enough for an AAA title. The characters just basically stood there trading blows and depleting big HP pools. There was very little dodging or blocking involved.. the most important things in making combat look exciting and real and feel intense. Outcome of combat was decided by the amount of healing potions in your pack. (Still prefer the lazy Origins combat to the absolute nonsensical mess that was DA2.)

 

- Enemy level scaling was hideous and undermined the feeling of progress the characters made.

 

- Same with equipment.. material scaling was lame. How special is a dragonbone weapon if after level X every enemy drops a dragonbone something and steel basically disappears from the universe. I really don't think you have to be upgrading your equipment every 5 minutes.

 

- Mages couldn't do anything outside combat.

 

- PCs never dying felt like easy mode forced on you.. it was insulting. (Plot NPC's who can't die for plot reasons should be limited to just that.. being NPC's instead of party members)

 

- Stamina and Mana completely regenerating after every encounter was horrible. Using your most powerful spells and talents in every single fight really made them less awesome every time.

 

Other than those points.. great game. :D

 

Overall I wanted DA to move a little bit towards low fantasy (less magic, realistic weapons and armor...) And then they made DA2 which was the biggest letdown in gaming history for me.

Edited October 9, 2012 by 1varangian

[FlintlockJazz]

So instead of debating the points posters are now resorting to accusations of rose coloured glasses and only wanting BG clones in order to try undermining others it seems. I never liked the Vancian system in the IE games but since I don't consider DAO awesome and prefer the IE games I guess that must mean I don't want it changed? And that all my points are invalid because the DAO fans say so? Well, thanks for letting me know, whar a relief!

Just a thought: This jilting you feel you're getting might have something to do with the fact that with every single one of your posts here, you've approached this thread as if it was a "DA:O vs. IE" discussion. Even though it's not. At all. Did you even read the OP?

 

Just a thought: maybe you should take your own advice? I completed DAO with two separate characters and started four others two of which got halfway through the game. Does that sound like someone who despised DAO to you? I think DAO was a decent game but as the 'spiritual successor' to Baldur's Gate I think it failed and that many of the features people are praising would not make PE achieve it either, not without being reworked at least, and yes I do believe DAO failed in certain regards and do not want to see the same thing happening here. If you are unwilling to accept disagreement, and instead of putting forward an argument you accuse others of having questionable motives, then I suggest you take a look at yourself because you are not going to incite me with ad hominem attacks like you seem to be trying.

 

EDIT: For instance, I would love for someone to prove to me that they would work well in PE and improve the game. I went into DAO expecting them to be this great thing they had promised and was let down by the fact that they were pretty much nothing more than gimmicks, I would love to be proven wrong on whether they would work in PE, please do, just don't expect me to believe that they were great as is in DAO.

Edited October 9, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Tale]

Arguing about whether or not a post is on topic is even less valuable to the topic than an off-topic post. If you don't like it, ignore the post and move on.

[Stun]

I will now list a few things that PE can learn from DA:O.

 

1) It can learn that a spell/ability cooldown system dilutes magic and turns combat into action gameplay.

2) It can learn that being able to engage in dialogue with your party members, like you can in DA:O, does SO much for a game's richness. (or did you not like this feature? It's what made PS:T so great)

3) It can learn that 6 different prologues depending on your race and class is at least 6 times better than just one prologue that is irrespective of your character creation choices.

4) It can learn that a good, long game does not need to be broken up into acts or chapters to be able to present a driving narrative.

5) It can learn that even Warriors can benefit from a list of abilities (Unlike the IE games, where warriors do nothing but auto-attack. And even specialized warriors only have, at most, 1 or 2 selectable abilities to distinguish them from generic warriors)

6) It can learn how NOT to handle lockpicking, speech, and survival.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Stun

[Ieo]

I will now list a few things that PE can learn from DA:O.

 

1) It can learn that a spell/ability cooldown magic system dilutes magic and turns combat into action gameplay.

2) It can learn that being able to engage in dialogue with your party members, like you can in DA:O, does SO much for a game's richness. (or did you not like this feature? PS:T had it too, btw)

3) It can learn that 6 different prologues depending on your race and class is at least 6 times better than just one prologue that is irrespective of your character creation choices.

4) It can learn that a good, long game does not need to be broken up into acts or chapters to be able to present a driving narrative.

5) It can learn that even Warriors can benefit from a list of abilities (Unlike the IE games, where warriors do nothing but auto-attack. And even specialized warriors only have, at most, 1 or 2 selectable abilities to distinguish them from generic warriors)

6) It can learn how NOT to handle lockpicking, speech, and survival.

 

(1) It can learn that a cooldown (magic) system CAN dilute magic, if implemented as the primary control or in a vacuum. In one game I play, I have a particular skill on a one-hour cooldown. A one-hour cooldown in practice is significantly different than a 7-second cooldown--times can be easily adjusted with contingencies as well.

 

(2) It can learn that engaging in dialogue is always a good thing, like PS:T, though PS:T wasn't limited to a camp mechanic to do so (I'd rather have more freedom that way, but maybe companions can say "Uh, let's talk somewhere else more private"). Most importantly, it can learn that using a scoring system for such party interactions really sucks and turn the whole experience into a point arcade for stupid players. (So much hate for that.)

 

(3) Nah, I disagree with that. The 6 prologues took up too much individual content space due to linearity, but at the same time had too little effect in the main body of the game. The origins were fine in DA:O, but I'd rather if such an implementation appear in PE, it would be one quarter the length each and with far more effect in the actual game body.

 

(4) It can learn that a good, long game requires believable and engaging plot, overall narrative, and antagonists to be driving, period.

 

(5) It can learn that there are two ways to address auto-attack, either keep it for physical classes and add a caster auto-attack or remove the warrior auto-attack to match caster limits.

 

(6) Eh, yeah...

[stkaye]

I suppose my original post begged the question of comparison between DA:O and BG, in a way. It's fair to make such comparisons, and fair to conclude that BG is the better RPG (as I do, overall).

 

As a compromise, DA:O has always struck me as a deeply impressive product. Even when considering its many shortcomings. Considering that it's caught between on one hand the demands of and trends of more contemporary gaming norms, and on the other the classic successes of the IE games... If you consider the other games that exist somewhere in the same space - Neverwinter Nights 2, DA2, perhaps KOTOR, well, by comparison, DA:O strikes me as being by far the most successful.

 

So I guess I'm also asking - in terms of mechanics - whether we should expect PE to be a kind of a 'compromise' of this sort, or whether it should be uncompromising in its emulation of the IE games. It's not a question that I have a ready answer to.

[anubite]

I haven't played DA:O in a long time, but I'm replaying DA2 right now in order to make a video highlighting its gameplay short-comings. Hopefully, so people won't make these same sort of mistakes again.

 

What I'm noticing about DA2 as I analyze it... is, well, let me name all of the kinds of enemies in the game:

 

rogues/thieves/bandits/slavers/whatever - humans with bows or sword+shield

abominations/undead/demons - otherworldly things that attack with fists or bows

spiders - spiders

mages - things that cast spells

commander enemies - big humans with giant life pools

bosses - there are like 4 or 5, off the top of my head

 

And that's like... it. I haven't finished replaying the game yet, but there is zero enemy variety in Dragon Age 2. You have melee fighters, ranged attackers, and spell casters. The spellcasters ALL use the same spells (they have an instant vanish/teleport spell, an invulnerability shield, a force-based area of effect damage spell, and a single target damage spell) and they all use them in the same predictable ways.

 

Spiders? Do they use poison-based debuffs? Do they even imbed you with webbing? Nope. You can step in "web traps" that are laid out before encounters begin, and there are poison-based things the PC can get - but enemies never actively debuff you. Enemy spell casters use a very narrow margin of skills. And melee/bow enemies fight IDENTICALLY. There is no difference between fighting a pack of rogues and a pack of spiders - they fight in the exact same mannerisms. Completely awful design - it makes the game monotonous. There is one strategy you employ throughout the entire ****ing game.

 

The second awful thing is difficulty. All difficulty does is inflate damage per second and health pools. That's it. It's retarded. To fight that dragon towards the end of the game on the highest difficulty is like a 10-20 minute affair of you walking backwards, kiting the dumb thing with a full ranged party. There's no strategy, it's just a giant pin-cushion. Higher difficulty levels should a) turn on more advanced enemy AI b) allow enemies access to more skills/abilities c) increase enemy diversity

 

BG2 on the other hand, please, someone else do it for me - I don't want to try and count all the number of kinds of enemies and spells they can do. There are brain-eaters who can 2hko anybody, hulks with a chaos-spell, beholders - ridiculously lethal magic-resistant spellcasters, dragons, etc. - encounters are very diverse, even if in a particular zone, enemy diversity might be relatively low.

 

I'd say, Dragon Age Origins - at least from my memory of it - does only a few things well. If the game is as similar as DA2, which I know it's not entirely similar, but they bear similarities, then it is just too streamlined to take much from. Much of DA:O feels like it was inspired to appeal to WOW players and not BG players.

 

Anything you can learn from DAO can probably be learned from examining WOW, I'd rather we ask Obsidian to examine BG/BG2 and the other IE games instead, than try to extract something from DAO, which feels like an unsuccessful attempt to emulate what was great about the IE games. Or perhaps even a rejection of them - thinking that the 'modern gamer' can't handle the things they used to.

Edited November 7, 2012 by anubite

[Gibbscape_Torment]

I just want to give a suggestion, so you don't all sound so ridiculously elitist, and actually present your dislikes and likes in a moderately mature fashion.

 

DAO's cooldown system is not inherently worse than the Vancian system, and is not some kind of oversimplification of the Vancian system. It is a COMLETELY different system. How anyone can think resting to memorize spells is some kind of insanely complex and intricate procedure is beyond me anyhow. Anyway, DAO favoured a gameplay style that saw each fight as it's own separate tactical battle, as opposed to the IE games which favoured battles of attrition (Which, with the rest spamming rampant in BG, ended up being much more like DAO's system anyhow). Two different combat systems, each with their pros and cons. Neither is inherently better than the other.

 

 

As to what PE can learn from DAO, i'd have to say the Rogue and Warrior combat abilities. So much better to have a warrior with crowd control abilities, as opposed to relying on your mage for absolutely everything.

[Tamerlane]

If you take just one thing from DAO...

 

... take their spell-radius/cone graphic thing. NWN2 kind of did it, but DAO specifically highlighting what is and isn't inside the AOE of a fireball or cone of cold was a Damn Good Thing. I'd hope that this would be obvious to Obsidian, but then, I thought it would be obvious for the new Xcom, and yet...

[Gibbscape_Torment]

 

 

I actually didn't like being forced to be a Bhaalspawn either. So yeah no real difference. In both games I dealt with aspects that I considered sub-optimal and enjoyed the game for what it was rather for what I hoped it to be.

 

Perhaps you should play the Elder Scrolls games? The IE games never were, and PE will not be a sandbox in which you can implant all your head canon. You will be forced to do things, and things will happen that are out of your control. That is the nature of telling a story, as opposed to making you LARP ala Skyrim.

[Jarmo]

DA:O was awesome, probably the best RPG I've played. Not without its problems, some more and some less annoying.

(and seems it's the last "real" bioware game)

 

Good.

 

Origins: very well made. Enough that I played all of them, though continued past the beginning only a few times (not all of them with male/female choice though).

Combat: great camera (especially after suffering through (NWN2), good action, enough stuff for everybody (even fighters) to do.

Companions: Memorable with lots of character, (BG2 was otherwise on par, but not as fleshed out and less dialogue), party banter was the best ever.

The plot: Yeah, some dont like straightforward plots, and while I like complex ones as well, this was a good one, well told. Opinions differ.

Weapon enchancing: Simple, not complex. In most games I don't get much of anything crafted on the first playthrough, here it worked out just great.

 

Bad.

 

Enemy scaling: Fight darkspawn in the beginning, fight 10x more powerful darkspawn in the end. Boh-rign.

Equipment scaling: bandits drop iron daggers in the beginning an you get 50 copper for doing a task. Late game, you find emeralds in the dumpster.

Spells/skills variety: Youd need to pick a tree and max it, or you're toast. So basically you'll be casting the same few spells all the time, and then the high tier variety.

Instant healing after fight: everybody gets up and poof is just fine again, took something away.

Sidequests: chanters board and such were just padding, not fun.

Romances: couldn't get morrigan and leliana at the same time, no group romancing

[SGray]

I liked DAO pretty much. Hasn't ever compared it to BG and others, though.

• It has good plot (nothing unusual but quite well done),
  
• It has meaningful character stories, reactions and sidequests.
  
• It has greatly written and totally new world lore, and the whole game tightly connected to it. (Some calls to warhammer series, but that's even better.)
  
• Is has not bad dialogs, which in connection with good characters left good impression.
  
• Overally it left wishes of more of it. (Screwed badly in DA2.)
  

Battle system in DAO was flashy and attractive, but cant say it was good. Call me munchkin, but I literally oneshotted anything I encounter with my mage on highest difficulty. No any challenge, almost no thought involved, no preparations, no elixirs used except 1 or 2 battles through the game. There were too few enemies indeed, cant ever say they were boring as they lasted too short. Nevertheless it was fun.

 

 

What good things could PE peek from Dragon Age, imo:

1. Extensive lore. BG, IWD, NWN - relied much on D&D lore, assuming player already familiar with it. In PE there would be the new lore, so it'll be worth to take a look on how it's presented in DAO, which was good in it. Same with lore integration with the game and character behavior.
   
2. Character recognition through the game. The whole game shouldn't turn around this (need to create much unique content), but couple of words from someone in late game about who you are, some additional quest paths somewhere - adds greatly.
   
3. Campfire. Not about talky mechanics (was not bad too), but about party management. You could equip every character with rather convenient interface, without need to "come with me -> take this -> stay here" every time. I knew people spent hours dressing every party member with gear better suitable for it.
   
4. Traveling with the whole team. Every special one who wants to join your quest - travels with you or rests at some kind of a base, not standing ever ready in some dark corner where you found him. It's good for the above case, and more than that - allows more complex in-party interaction without the most part of it to be skipped by most of the players.
   
5. Forbidden knowledge really worth it. Was occasional imo, in DA, but still - blood mage was absolutely overpowered. Blood magic was really tempting. Pity that there where almost no consequences about becoming one.
   

People, really, stop making pure pathos statements like "make everything not like in DAO", it's just no-brain-involved flood. Try to formalize what was bad in it and what was good, and how that could be used or avoided.

[TrashMan]

What bothered me the most about DA:O was the equipment scaling and character mechanics.

 

The whole items restrictions and attributes made no sense.

"You must be lvl14 to equip this item" - worst concept in game design history ever.

 

Leveling felt so pointless and trivial, because you got 3 attribute points each level and dumped tham all into one stat.

Not only that, but starting as "above average" with 15 STR and ending up with 60 STR is redicolous.

 

 

 

I abosolutely LOVE the DA setting. It is brilliant.

Only recently have more and more silly things begun creeping in.

Edited November 8, 2012 by TrashMan

[Jarmo]

Yeah, hated how golem and sten were portrayed as something superstrong, but then the golem puts all stats into con and ends up puny weak

compared to alistair and the sten from the beginning is no different or stronger than any other random fighter you'd roll up yourself.

[Amentep]

I actually didn't like being forced to be a Bhaalspawn either. So yeah no real difference. In both games I dealt with aspects that I considered sub-optimal and enjoyed the game for what it was rather for what I hoped it to be.

 

Perhaps you should play the Elder Scrolls games? The IE games never were, and PE will not be a sandbox in which you can implant all your head canon. You will be forced to do things, and things will happen that are out of your control. That is the nature of telling a story, as opposed to making you LARP ala Skyrim.

 

Not be unfair, but where does does not like an element of an IE game equal to "you should play the Elder Scrolls games"? Did I say I wanted a sandbox game? No. Did I say I want to LARP a video game? No.

 

By your logic, Icewind Dale is an Elder Scrolls-esque LARPing sandbox game because it doesn't railroad you into a set history of being a Bhaalspawn or Warden or something similar.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

It seemed that you disliked it when game's imposed plot elements upon you and your character. I was merely saying that if you don't want any restrictions that a well told story would inherently have, you should play TES; where absolutely everything is an enormous bout of headcanon-ing. Only those games provide you with the "freedom" it seemed you were looking for. But if you do not have a problem with a game's story imposing certain elements to your character or the game world, and you simply disliked the fact that your character in DAO was a Warden for some unusual reason, then i misinterpreted your post.