Dragon Age - Review @ GameBanshee

GameBanshee has whipped up their opinion on Dragon Age. The NPCs are praised but the "dull" plot and "boring" combat are clear negatives, with the author ultimately concluding he only "moderately" enjoyed it:

The plotting overall isn’t noteworthy. Not that I mind a series of clichés; most entertainment or art starts with that. It’s how you expand upon it that matters, and the development in DA:O is standard formula. I never came away with the feeling, as I did in BG2 or Ultima VII, of being a pawn successfully moved about in a much, much larger game, or disrupting a very carefully laid and complex plan, as in BG1, or discovering that everything I knew was wrong, as in Planescape: Torment. I gathered a party to punish a highly-placed, powerful traitor, then dealt with a still more powerful army of invaders. On the other hand, dialog between your party members and yourself is superlative for content, structure, immediate mannerisms, and the gradual unfolding of character traits you’d expect from successive pieces of dialog as your party comes to “know” you.

More information.

I can't really agree. BG1 and BG2 weren't anywhere close to Ultima VII and probably overall worse than Dragon Age, if we talk about plot.

Originally Posted by Tuco
I can't really agree. BG1 and BG2 weren't anywhere close to Ultima VII and probably overall worse than Dragon Age, if we talk about plot.

I thought the BG games were better as well.

I give the review an 80%. I agree with the emphasis he put on the positives, I think he left out some important negatives, and wrote about other negatives that I didn't think were worth mentioning.

Did you…did you just review the review?

LOL! Yes, I think all reviews should be reviewed. Just want to be even handed.

Other sites truly have atrocious reviews (GB not included, BTW) and I am rating those too.

Why? Over the years I have become more and more disgusted with the degeneration of gaming "journalism". I think it needs some quality feedback and control. Not that my opinion will make any difference, but it makes me feel better.

When boiled down…
BG1 plot: You start as a schmuck, get tougher, and then kill your brother the foozle.
BG2 plot: You don't start as a schmuck, get tougher, and then kill a foozle who's not your brother.

DA:O is basically the same. In fact 99.44% of RPGs are the same.

Funny over the years I have become more disgusted with forum posters, and fake people with agendas….but hey thats just me.

Are you accusing me of being fake with an agenda? If so you don't know me, and I would suspect that you are defensive because I somehow insulted you.

Nah, not you…it was just a generalization…so many people are wonky in threads deciding what is or isn't an rpg etc etc etc…its my current nit pick of rpg fans in general.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
When boiled down…
BG1 plot: You start as a schmuck, get tougher, and then kill your brother the foozle.
BG2 plot: You don't start as a schmuck, get tougher, and then kill a foozle who's not your brother.

Foozles?

I can agree that Sarevok wasn't much more than a generic foozle, but Jon Irenicus was an *excellent* villain, and much deeper than the usual cliche RPG antagonist.

I agree with JDR13. Irenicus is one of the best villan I've ever encountered.

You know BN, I'd love to see a site review reviews!! To be honest, your site and this are the only ones whose reviews I actually bother to read anymore because I know I can trust you guys at GB and the folk here. When VD manages to write something, I respect his views as well, just not the place he often posts them!!

Irenicus didn't do much for me, but I realise I'm in the minority with that opinion.

As to the review, I think the plot and combat criticisms aren't unfounded but are too harsh for my taste. I thoroughly enjoyed the story and, in the main, the combat. I would have preferred the balance of adventuring to combat be more even and there are quite a few minor criticisms (not enough enemy variations, for example) but "boring" is over the top for me.

I agree with many of the points the review raised , specially those about combat .
I didn't like this part : "Granted, linearity is necessary" …ehm what?

Plot wise minions start popping from the earth while PC has also to fight corruption is a very cliché scenario and i didn't find any interesting twists and turns either.

Amazing, a review from a major role playing games web site that doesn't drool over Dragon Age and proclaim it "the best rpg ever!"
How refreshing.

The combat is better than I think the reviewer gives it credit for, but he is right on target when they talk about the combat tactics slots. This was a ridiculous system, that you have to earn the right to control your own party member tactics in the game. This is the first reviewer I have seen that picked up on it.

Some of the other complaints seem to be a little superficial and petty (who cares if the architecture clashes or if the food on a table appears plentiful with a tiny cooking area?!), but overall an interesting review that I tend to agree with in terms of Dragon Age being "not all that". I think it was a pretty good rpg, but not even close to classic rpgs when looked at in totality.

Originally Posted by Tragos
Plot wise minions start popping from the earth while PC has also to fight corruption is a very cliché scenario and i didn't find any interesting twists and turns either.

Really? None?

I think the sheer amount of combat was what made it boring in the end. The formula of battling through x amount of rooms with minions before getting to the super duper boss just gets old for me. Wouldn't it have been better if the combat made more sense? Like: hold this hallway against the storming Darkspawn or sneak into the enemy camp at night and kill the general / sabotage the siege engines. Ok I'm just brainstorming here but I think you understand what I mean.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Irenicus didn't do much for me, but I realise I'm in the minority with that opinion.

Well… I'm still waiting for someone to share my opinion that Irenicus was in fact one of the worst villains I've seen in an RPG - He keeps claiming that he could effortlessly kill me but him refusing to take the -apparently insignificant- time to do so even after I've proven to be a threat again and again and it's obvious that I'm not going to stop, makes him very unsatisfying to deal with - I mean, telling me that he's extremely powerful and then having him teleporting away a few times after I beat him and having me hunt him down like a dog for the entire game is debunking.


---
Good review though… + it's good to see that someone finally mentions being bothered by the in-game marketing as much as I have in a review!

Originally Posted by holeraw
Well… I'm still waiting for someone to share my opinion that Irenicus was in fact one of the worst villains I've seen in an RPG

You'll be waiting for a long time.