Dragon Age - Review @ GameBanshee

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Really? None?

Spoiler – Plot spoilers abound!

Didn't find any of the Origins interesting? Nothing of interest in the death of Duncan and the King? Didn't find the situation in Redcliffe castle slightly interesting? Not The Fade? No curiosity about Sten's background in Lothering? No surprise about the link between the elves and werewolves? Didn't want to discover the truth about Morrigan vs Flemeth?

Most of those wasn't part of the main plot and i didn't say that party members didn't had interesting backgrounds

All bar two them are part of the critical quest line - you must do them; that makes them part of the main plot, no?

Anyway, so some of the major sub-plots and characters are interesting? That's not how it sounded, hence my reply.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
All bar two them are part of the critical quest line - you must do them; that makes them part of the main plot, no?

Anyway, so some of the major sub-plots and characters are interesting? That's not how it sounded, hence my reply.

Still (almost) everything was very predictable and cliché. , nothing really surprising, not real twist and turn . Also most of the characters were very "clean" , maybe too clearly "good or evil" to be human .
The parts you mention are critical because you have to follow the long boring story instead of killing someone at the spot and solve everything.
Luckily for Rogue characters max invisibility means that you can leave your party behind and proceed skipping the long meaningless battles

I am not saying that the story sucks , it isn't bad at all nor i was "hopping for something better" because i wasn't following development / hype ; what i am saying is that i have seen such things before and story overall could have been more innovative (like for example : there is no good or evil , you are forced to take sides while knowing that both are wrong) and exciting (having to kill one or more of the party members for example) and stop giving a fair resolution for everything .

Originally Posted by Tragos
Still (almost) everything was very predictable and cliché. , (like for example : there is no good or evil , you are forced to take sides while knowing that both are wrong)

But that's still in there: The dwarven kings, the Elves vs. Werewolves, even Loghain seems to have at least a fair motive at the beginning (what with Cailan being an idiot with suicidal tendencies) despite him going loopy eventually.

Of course you don't get to choose between one murdering lunatic and another murdering lunatic but I don't think it's fair to say that this game only has pitch black vs. bright white choices.

---

Also… why should it? I don't really see what is it with gray being so appealing to people. I'd think that a pure good vs. pure evil story would be as good as any if it was interesting enough. Why is moral ambiguity considered such an absolute advantage.

Originally Posted by rune_74
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.

I have to say, I am getting a bit frustrated with people complaining against anyone who looks to even attempt to evaluate or categorize a game. Honest and open-minded people are free to discuss their opinions and express arguments without being accused of being "elitist" or "having an agenda." I am not saying there are any of those out there, but a good number of reasonable, open-minded, non-confrontational others who have been characterized as such unfairly every time they post.

Its not fair to try and shut down discussion or dismiss other arguments and viewpoints, because someone feels that there is no real, acceptable definition of an rpg or because people might characterize them differently. We can and should be able to have a reasonable and open discussion without namecalling simply because somebody says something critical about a game someone likes or postive about a game someone dislikes or expresses a point someone doesn't like.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
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.

Same, to some extent, but I think you'll agree with me, in that you can't really say his point of view is an invalid one, even if it is over the top. It's pretty easy to see someone get bored out of their skull with all the filler combat. Hell, first time I played the game I just quit somewhere in the Deep Roads, fed up with the filler combat.

Originally Posted by Corwin
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!!

There's others out there usually worth reading from my point of view, but it's good to have a selection of sites you know you can trust. Not ones you'll always agree with, but once who at least put effort and critical thought into reviews.

And yeah, a review-reviewing site might by this point become a necessity. Poor gaming media.

Originally Posted by holeraw
even Loghain seems to have at least a fair motive at the beginning (what with Cailan being an idiot with suicidal tendencies) despite him going loopy eventually.

I really loved Loghain's design and voice acting. It's too bad he kind of tapered out at the end and his motivations were never expanded upon beyond paranoia. That's a real shame, since he's really the game's antagonist (screw the Arch Demon, I never get to talk to him…it), and could potentially have been one of the best of all time. I still think he's pretty solid, tho'.

Originally Posted by Brother None
I really loved Loghain's design and voice acting. It's too bad he kind of tapered out at the end and his motivations were never expanded upon beyond paranoia. That's a real shame, since he's really the game's antagonist (screw the Arch Demon, I never get to talk to him…it), and could potentially have been one of the best of all time. I still think he's pretty solid, tho'.

That's one spot where the plot really fell down. At the end I kept expecting some big revelation about why Loghain did what he had done but then he was gone and I was still left puzzled.

And as for the Irenicus thing, yeah, I thought he was pretty lame too as a foozle though not as bad as Sarevok. He has all these chances to take care of you when you are weak (in comparison to him) but, no, the best he can do is kidnap your sister and send you bad dreams. He's the classic villain who REALLY needs to read the evil overlord manual.

Nearly all RPGs will have the "right a perceived wrong" plotline. I think the story of the power-hungry traitor/usurper was the strongest point in this particular plot, and it was well-written. The story of the darkspawn invasion was serviceable, if not particularly interesting.
In reality, history repeats itself century after century, therefore it's the nuances that make history so interesting, especially those nuances that are the pebbles that lead to culture shifts. I think that RPGs have found that, yes, they are by nature going to be repetetive in terms of overall plot, and that these nuances (backstories, side-stories, environments, objects, interactions, etc.) are what need to be developed strongly in order to set them apart from their peers.
Dragon Age has certainly done well to continue to advance the genre from this perspective.
No, there's not much that's going to shock anyone in terms of design, and I'm not saying there aren't plenty of negatives to be observed in this game, but there were some nice strides forward in DA:O in terms of RPG development.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
He has all these chances to take care of you when you are weak (in comparison to him) but, no, the best he can do is kidnap your sister and send you bad dreams. He's the classic villain who REALLY needs to read the evil overlord manual.

He needs to extract your soul, killing you early would be contraproductive.
He´s a very good villain in concept and thanks to voice acting, unfortunately the whole morality angle was left underdeveloped. I´ve always liked Bodhi more.
He´s seriously badass with SCS2 though.

As for the review, in parts I agree, in parts I don´t.
The review itself feels very, uh, disproportioned contentually. With the exception of character system, most of it is devoted to nitpickery, leaving the factoids on a side trail.

Originally Posted by DeepO
He needs to extract your soul, killing you early would be contraproductive.
He´s a very good villain in concept and thanks to voice acting, unfortunately the whole morality angle was left underdeveloped. I´ve always liked Bodhi more.
He´s seriously badass with SCS2 though.

Right but why doesn't he just capture you again? He managed to before without any trouble and he makes off with Imoen.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
Right but why doesn't he just capture you again?.

I don't know, maybe because it's a videogame?

Seriously, you could nitpick a detail about any villain ever made. For instance, Shodan, who is generally regarded as one of the greatest computer game villains of all time, should have been able to use her resources to kill you at any time in System Shock.

Which brings us back to what we were saying earlier. Even the best video game villains are lame when you really think about them.

Originally Posted by Brother None
I really loved Loghain's design and voice acting. It's too bad he kind of tapered out at the end and his motivations were never expanded upon beyond paranoia.

It's a shame how people are impressed with the actress who voiced Morrigan, and no one's noticing Simon Templeman (aka Kain) who did Loghain. He was definitely the star of the cast for me (no, I'm not gay). What's really annoying about Loghain is that he admits being wrong way too easily. What, I just kicked his ass, I gave him a lesson, and he's all nice and goody again?! That's a bit dumb.

Originally Posted by holeraw
Why is moral ambiguity considered such an absolute advantage.

It's better when you can choose between being good, evil and ''neutral'' than when you can only choose between good and evil.

Originally Posted by Brother None
Same, to some extent, but I think you'll agree with me, in that you can't really say his point of view is an invalid one, even if it is over the top. It's pretty easy to see someone get bored out of their skull with all the filler combat. Hell, first time I played the game I just quit somewhere in the Deep Roads, fed up with the filler combat.

He has a perfectly valid point of (I thought I acknowledged that?), I just disagree.

I've seen the Deep Roads complaint a few times. Oddly, I found it one of the most compelling parts of the game. I found some tension in the idea of being deep underground, in the heart of the darkspawn, and I really enjoyed the associated stories (I've gone blank on the name of Oghren's wife).

I found Loghain very difficult to understand, after reading the prequel novel, in which he was someone who grew to sacrifice everything for his king and kingdom, even the woman he loved (wow that sounded corny). I found the transition to the Dragon Age Loghain extremely jarring. It just didn't make sense to me that the Loghain of the novel would abandon his King and countrymen to die, try to kill off all the Grey Wardens, and turn into such a snarling liar and villan. I would always feel, "That's not Loghain."

Anyone else read the prequel novel and have that reaction?

Originally Posted by Malk
What's really annoying about Loghain is that he admits being wrong way too easily. What, I just kicked his ass, I gave him a lesson, and he's all nice and goody again?! That's a bit dumb.

Maybe he had doubts all along and your confrontation with him just opened the hatch After he joined the group, his talks were quite interesting.
The main villain of DA are circumstances, which I liked.

That's a good point.

Originally Posted by Anderson
I found Loghain very difficult to understand, after reading the prequel novel, in which he was someone who grew to sacrifice everything for his king and kingdom, even the woman he loved (wow that sounded corny). I found the transition to the Dragon Age Loghain extremely jarring. It just didn't make sense to me that the Loghain of the novel would abandon his King and countrymen to die, try to kill off all the Grey Wardens, and turn into such a snarling liar and villan. I would always feel, "That's not Loghain."

The kingdom is more important than the king? He had respect for Maric, maybe he just didn't like Cailan… And why did he try to kill off all the Wardens?

Originally Posted by Malk
The kingdom is more important than the king? He had respect for Maric, maybe he just didn't like Cailan… And why did he try to kill off all the Wardens?

But Maric did a lot of foolhardy things, too, and Loghain always backed him up (in the prequel novel, I mean). Maric would step naively into some trap, and Loghain would ride to his rescue. Here, he turns his back not only on the King, but on half the army he is commanding. That is a level of betrayal that is (imo) completely at odds with his character in the novel. Again, I found it very jarring and hard to reconcile. I could only assume something very bad happened to Loghain between the novel and the game.

As for why he tried to kill off the Wardens, I think he was trying to pin the blame on them for what happened to the King, as a way to dodge responsibility. I might have that wrong, though.

The review, overall, is fairly indicative of DA:O's general gaming experience… Before I take up arms against the one glaring exception(his belief that he was not a pawn from square one) let me say that I found it refreshing to read a relatively objective review.

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.

Becoming a gray warden is unavoidable, a necessary bit of linearity to maintain the games continuity. But your "survival" at Ostagar is nothing of the sort… Of course as the hero you have live, but there were other ways you could have survived the tower. However, more telling are those that did not survive. Why did Flemeth not save the King or Duncan? She claims that the blight is a threat to all, if so saving the man with the knowledge to make more gray wardens would have been the logical choice. I'm of the belief that it was all part of her plan to acquire the soul/essence of the old god from the archdemon.

Now the question becomes, had Flemeth already started the ritual to take over Morrigans body before the threesome set off for Lothering(as we learn it seems to take time to "settle in")? It would explain why killing a nearly immortal being was so damn easy, what was killed was nothing more than a vestigial husk - Flemeth's old body. Indeed it's destruction was most likely tangent and meant only to further Morrigan's complacency or perhaps it was a necessary part of the ritual? Then again, let us assume that Morrigan was truly herself. She lets on that killing Flemeth will most likely only be a temporary set back… Which in hindsight, could also be part of Flemeth's plan to take over the body/soul of the old god Morrigan wishes to birth.

Of course with only two grey wardens the hero is definitely tempted to take up Morrigan's offer. Let's face it, who wants to die? Though, for arguments sake, let us assume that the her offer is refused and one of the grey wardens dies… You still find out that a woman matching Morrigan's description is heavy with child. IMO, that can only mean that Morrigan is actually Flemeth and she seeks to continue her perverse existence. Of course there are other remaining old gods for her to try and acquire…

Then again, maybe I've given Bioware too much credit.

Another issue I'd like to comment on, one that I found quite annoying, was the lack of reactivity - especially when playing a Blood mage… At a minimum within the party, those who would see you using such abilities, should express their thoughts on the matter if not leave or attack you. Oh and Wynne, why would she even allow herself to learn blood magic?!? Small things can kill RPing/Immersion, for me anyway.

Oh boy, I guess I have more to say on the subject than I thought… I'll just stop for now and say this, I've been a lurker for some time, great site.

Nice post, and I tend to agree. We certainly haven't seen the last of either Morrigan or Flemmeth.