DA:O Dragon Age: Origins -- best game ever made?

Dragon Age: Origins
There was only ever one Dragon Age game, it was released in November of 2009, and it was pretty good. Still have it on the computer, maybe one day a true worthy sequel will happen.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,941
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
Carnifex said:
There was only ever one Dragon Age game, it was released in November of 2009, and it was pretty good. Still have it on the computer, maybe one day a true worthy sequel will happen.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there is barely a snowflakes chance in hell of getting a sequel to Dragon Age Origins.

Remember, EA owns it. I'm not sure they even make games anymore, it seems all they make these days is software to sell, in order to sell you virtual goods. At best since it's now actually gambling since what you may get is an unknown (which likely has been balanced according to expected/desired possible profit, just like slot machines etc.)

Even when Dragon Age came out and was so surprisingly good, I suspected it's because it flew under EA's own radar, the moment it was a success and got their attention look what happened to it, look at poor Dead Space from about the same time, that got off lightly by EA standards of today.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
147
The only BioWare games I've played are: BG, BGII, KotOR and ME1. The only ones I enjoyed were BG and BGII.

I also tried MotB, but the wonky controls and ugly art turned me off. (Also, I don't want to study and learn high level D&D 3.5.)
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
252
Study and learn? I find D&D 3.5 fun, and like learning it while playing the game, but I don't stress complex rulesets in RPGs. I love to pore over character options, stats, etc., but I also just wing it, learn it a bit as I go and enjoy.

I've never had an RPG where I messed up the character building so bad I could not progress. Just use your RPG Sense skill. Life finds a way, etc.. :)
 
I did not play, or at least pushed my self to continue with, BG and BGII as I am more of a visual person and dislike following an agglomeration of small pixels on the screen during combat.

DA:O was a master-piece for me in writing, dialog, choices and consequences, replayability, atmosphere, locations, characters, weapons, magic, gear and customisation, tactical and visceral combat, sound track, voice overs, and marvellous user interface and controls (on PC). What more can I ask for?
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
2,818
Location
United Kingdom
I agree that DAO had many strengths, and it's a shame they didn't iterate upon it to create a real classic of a sequel. With the original, good as it was, I found myself getting pretty bored by about half way through, and I think the content could have been more interesting.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Fluent said:
Study and learn? I find D&D 3.5 fun, and like learning it while playing the game, but I don't stress complex rulesets in RPGs. I love to pore over character options, stats, etc., but I also just wing it, learn it a bit as I go and enjoy.

I've never had an RPG where I messed up the character building so bad I could not progress. Just use your RPG Sense skill. Life finds a way, etc.. :)
Click to expand...

You must not have played Underrail in the Deep Caverns. If you don't have the hide in shadows or sneak ability you messed up your character build.

I've tried to get thru Dragon Age twice and get too bored about half way thru. Would not make my top 100 RPG's.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
2,857
Location
Wolf Light Woods
One of the best rpgs I've played. No doubt about this. As a whole there is very little to fault: Good gameplay, plenty of intresting quests, great characters, good choises, well writen dialog & lore and a memorable fantasy story. I don't get the complaints about generic setting. To me it was nothing but generic. Everything just made sense and the world felt very belivable. How the magic, demons and fade worked for instance was very orginal. And I also thought that religion and religious institutions seemed very real. Chantry was obviously the catholic church of Thedas.

And there was the politics side which I found really intriguing back then. Like how religious institutions such as Chantry tried to use their influence on rulers and common folk to mold the world as they see fit. And unlike Purpleblob for instance, I digged dwarven politics a lot. One of the most interesting moral choises I have had to make in rpgs was choosing a new king for dwarves.

Ok few serious spoilers about the game and dwarven storyline & orgins story.

It was intresting that lord Harrowmont seemed like the most honorable and just person, but he would actully continue upkeeping fucked up dwarven traditions and under his rule, dwarves would more or less fade away. It is very hard not to like him. He is very charismatic and he seems like the most obvious chose. And if you have played the dwarven noble storyline you have knowledge that he was a close friend & a supporter of your late father, the king. Yet we will never know what kind of person the king was. If Lord Harrowmont supported him, your father was likely very much a traditionalist and a big beliver in dwarven ways.

Sadly under the reign of Harrowmont Orzammar will just further isolate itself from the rest of world. He will never fully win the assemblys support which is why he ends up making bunch of poor compromises with the noble houses. Bhalens rebellion also continues strong throughout his reign. At the end of game Harrowmont is revealed to be quite a conservative and under his rule casteless people truly suffer as many discriminating laws are passed.

The other option Prince Bhalen… There is no question about his ruthlessness. And if you played the dwarven noble storyline, you have a very personal reason to hate him.
Yet the prick has decent ideas how to change the society for the better. Like terminating the unfair caste system and improving the life of casteless people.

He also has plans to expand dwarven influence and make contact with other remaining dwarven settlements. He doesn't hold grudge against the so called surface dwarves or other races. He thinks that a person should have a shot of become successfull if he or she has just such capability. He is like a beliver in meritocratian ideas.

At the end of day choosing him to be the next king happens to be quite beneficial to dwarven race. But there is the personal cost ofcourse. And if you happen to belive in dwarven ways no matter how fucked up some of those ways are, under Bhalen dwarves are modernised and will likely lose much of their identity and old traditions fade away.

I fully admit that the first time I chose lord Harrowmont, but as I was watching the epilogue I realized that the signs of Harrowmonts failure could have been seen beforehand. And there were few hints pointing out to his conservative policies. Now that is good storytelling. :)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
Ripper said:
I agree that DAO had many strengths, and it's a shame they didn't iterate upon it to create a real classic of a sequel. With the original, good as it was, I found myself getting pretty bored by about half way through, and I think the content could have been more interesting.
Click to expand...

I remember the same happening to me, around the time when you had to visit the various races' home areas. Still, it was decent enough, but ultimately not that memorable for me. I did like aspects of it, though, like the ethereal area (The Fade, I think?), and Shale had some hilarious dialogue. My original playthrough was on console, too, so it was not optimal, and it was also my first RTWP game, so I wonder if the game would seem better after much more experience in that area now if I revisit it.

Still, I'd probably play Drakensang or River of Time instead. NWN/NWN as well, with their large amounts of quality modules. Just installed an NWN 2 Planescape module, actually. Looks pretty interesting. :)
 
Fluent said:
I remember the same happening to me, around the time when you had to visit the various races' home areas. Still, it was decent enough, but ultimately not that memorable for me. I did like aspects of it, though, like the ethereal area (The Fade, I think?), and Shale had some hilarious dialogue. My original playthrough was on console, too, so it was not optimal, and it was also my first RTWP game, so I wonder if the game would seem better after much more experience in that area now if I revisit it.

Still, I'd probably play Drakensang or River of Time instead. NWN/NWN as well, with their large amounts of quality modules. Just installed an NWN 2 Planescape module, actually. Looks pretty interesting. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, as I recall, the early game was pretty good, and then it split into essentially three main quests - a lord with demon-riddled kiddies that led to the Fade, some business in the Deep Roads, and a bit of werewolf mischief in the woods.

One way or the other, I became bored in the midst of it, in a way I didn't with Buldur's Gate and Friends.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
River of Time was also great but I think it was a little more clunky and more…"special" than Dragon Age: Origin, it just wasn't as polished. For example the AI in combat was a mess. Drakensang had an aggro system which often lead to a bad chain reaction.
You just moved one character by a meter and the enemies attacking him moved, the characters attacking that enemies moved and so on. And that in a way, as if you just poked into an ant hive.

Also both games had one thing in common: Their DLCs were a horrible mess and a pure money grab without any good content (excluding the 2 Dragon Age DLCs which were available right at release which in itself doesn't speak in favor of the game either though.).

But is Dragon Age Origins the best game? Meh…I wouldn't think so.
Well, personally I am not a fan of RTwP, but that's just a personal opinion.
But the combat often included exploiting the AI or spells with oversights. E.g. casting a spell which didn't require LOS to the enemy. Or you stayed outide of LOS in another room and killed everyone in the door, and then killed the archers which stayed in the other room with AOEs.
The character system wasn't really good either. While you had some decisions in the beginning, near the end you just had every single talent for a character. I remember taking 2h skills for a guy with sword&shield, because there wasnt any other option anymore.
The item system wasn't that interesting either. Mostly replacing a +2 sword with a +3 sword.
And while the story and quests weren't bad, they were too much "as expected" following a clear blueprint. E.g. I remember there were often or always only good or evil/bad decisions. Do you want to let the mother sacrifice herself in a blood ritual for her very important son? If you were reasonable and wanted to guarantee the survival of the son, you might have agreed. But the game considered this as the bad or evil decision.

Personally I'd consider Divinity Original Sin 2 as the clearly better RPG now.
Before that, well, maybe Pillars, though it would be a close race.
Also I prefered Mass Effect 2 over Dragon Age Origin, but as they are very different games, it's rather hard to be objective in that comparison.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,699
Drakensang and River of Time are much lower budget games, so sure, they are "clunkier" and less-produced than Origins. I'd still likely play them both before revisiting Origins. :)

I really liked Drakensang the first time through, and it was more memorable for me than Origins. I didn't have a problem with the combat in Drakensang, but it wasn't quite as Action-RTWP as I remember Origins being. The character system was also vastly superior for my tastes, and just an overall more interesting ruleset and stat system.

It also felt like a 3rd-person Baldur's Gate to me, in a weird way even more so than Origins did. And it has a strong storybook fantasy magic feel.

Haven't played River of Time yet, though. Need to get working on that. :)
 
I do think DA:O has some of the best writing in the genre, though. I particularly liked all the "Fade" stuff - which is probably why I enjoyed that sequence in the game. Not in terms of gameplay (which was incredibly tedious) - but because the lore regarding all the demons and their relationship with magic was fascinating.
 
I found DA:O decent in the beginning and towards the ending. Middle chunk is so boring, I keep stop playing once I get to either Brecilian Forest or Orzamma.
 
NewDArt said:
I do think DA:O has some of the best writing in the genre, though. I particularly liked all the "Fade" stuff - which is probably why I enjoyed that sequence in the game. Not in terms of gameplay (which was incredibly tedious) - but because the lore regarding all the demons and their relationship with magic was fascinating.
Click to expand...

I don't remember specifics too well, but I liked The Fade areas, too. I thought some of the dialogue was really good, too, specifically with Alistair, Morrigan and Shale. But it's been so long since I played that it's a bit fuzzy. I was still pretty much a console gamer when I played it.
 
NewDArt said:
I do think DA:O has some of the best writing in the genre, though. I particularly liked all the "Fade" stuff - which is probably why I enjoyed that sequence in the game. Not in terms of gameplay (which was incredibly tedious) - but because the lore regarding all the demons and their relationship with magic was fascinating.
Click to expand...

Knew it. I loved everything in DA:O - except Fade. All about it just made me throw up as it felt as mish mash of ideas about whatever heavy drugs trip whatnot.

That's however exactly what makes DA:O a great game as it has combines different elements for different tastes under it's hood.

Kordanor said:
River of Time was also great but I think it was a little more clunky and more…"special" than Dragon Age: Origin, it just wasn't as polished. For example the AI in combat was a mess. Drakensang had an aggro system which often lead to a bad chain reaction.
You just moved one character by a meter and the enemies attacking him moved, the characters attacking that enemies moved and so on. And that in a way, as if you just poked into an ant hive.

Also both games had one thing in common: Their DLCs were a horrible mess and a pure money grab without any good content (excluding the 2 Dragon Age DLCs which were available right at release which in itself doesn't speak in favor of the game either though.).
Click to expand...
Lemme simplify it a bit.
Drakensang games and DA:O share two things in common.
Both are epic RPGs and both are musthave/mustplay.

I love(d) them equally.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
joxer said:
Lemme simplify it a bit.
Drakensang games and DA:O share two things in common.
Both are epic RPGs and both are musthave/mustplay.
Click to expand...

Yep, that too. At least River of Time. Didn't like the first Drakensang. And @Fluent;: That's also the reason why you should definitely play it, if you liked the first already. The second one just brings big improvements.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,699
Kordanor said:
And @Fluent;: That's also the reason why you should definitely play it, if you liked the first already. The second one just brings big improvements.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it looks great. There's just so many games I need to play, it's almost overwhelming, hah.

But I never did finish Drakensang, either. I am very far in the game, basically in the last area. Still have my save there from a year or two ago. Would like to finish it at least and then play River of Time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom