Dragon age origins best game ever made?

A quality game and one that I'd be very glad to see made these days.

I do agree that some sections far outstay their welcome, and I got bored before the end. If only we'd had two more improved iterations on this model.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
I would agree with Carnifex. I played through twice, once as a good hearted dwarf commoner, and once as a cynical city elf, and I might eventually go through to play the other origins. I love that, I think the origins are a super of way of giving you a feel for your characters, and making character choice seem to matter. Many of the dungeons though I find rather tedious, not because of the combat, but because of the level design. The tower of sorcery including the fade and the the deep roads stand out as my least favorite.

I tried out all origins, they were all quite unique and engaging. I was disappointed though that the Dalish Elf origin was never really explained properly afterwards.

I really wish they made the game shorter and sweeter, I preferred Awakening expansion to be honest.

I finished all of the origin stories, but I've only played through the entire game once. I'll probably play it again someday, but it's not high on my list of gaming priorities.

I can't imagine how anyone could consider it the best RPG ever made. I wouldn't even rank it in my top 5 of RPGs that use RTwP combat.

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
Best rpg game ever? Nope. Excellent and rare (for its time) classical rpg game, with old school type sensibilities and influences from masterpieces such as Baldur's Gate? Hell yea.

Yes it was BioWare's best modern RPG since their infinity engine games, and what happens after it's successful release? They make DA 2 and almost destroy the franchise.

It baffles me how developers always try to change sequels instead of keeping what works. It's that same philosophy that almost destroyed Mass Effect also.

Just look at Pillars of Eternity 2 it kept what made the first game a success, and was improved to make the game better. Just read all the positive reviews to see how.

The key thing which DA:O did, which few other RPGs have done, is nail the blend of depth & ease of access required to create a game which both hardcore & casual gamers can enjoy.

I remember playing it & thinking how much different it was from the likes of BG, but how most those differences were actually an improvement even if they were watering down certain aspects (e.g. not aving to rest to heal. It just saves messing about & felt more natural than always sleeping)

It's an absolute travesty that Bioware didn't stay more faithful to Origins, and just tweaked it slightly for the 2nd & 3rd entries. For me it should have been the foundation to snag casuals & make them more hardcore, as opposed to snagging casuals & then making all the sequels more casual.

Yes, agree that it strikes very good balance between hardcore and casual. I do wish we will get to play DA:O like game in near future - I love BG2 and am enjoying Pathfinder but sometimes I want to play something a little more casual.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Yes it was BioWare's best modern RPG since their infinity engine games, and what happens after it's successful release? They make DA 2 and almost destroy the franchise.

It baffles me how developers always try to change sequels instead of keeping what works. It's that same philosophy that almost destroyed Mass Effect also.

Just look at Pillars of Eternity 2 it kept what made the first game a success, and was improved to make the game better. Just read all the positive reviews to see how.

I think the problem is that developers often believe they are doing just as you say, but are actually doing the opposite. If Bioware developers thought the world, the companions, and the romances were what made Dragon Age successful, but that the old school mechanics, combat and skill system were holding the game back from having more success, I think it is understandable how a Dragon Age 2 could be developed (that and EA apparently rushing the development which caused corners to be cut). Many reviewers agreed, but most fans of the first game did not, and DA couldn't win over many new players.
I think its actually quite a skill to understand how to keep the best elements of a game and how to improve upon them. So many developers fail at it that I think its much easier to say than do.

I think my answer would have been to change little of the core game, but just create better content for the sequels. Much like the Baldur's Gates, or even the Kotors (the second of which was similarly rushed to DA2, but contained far more quality.)

Also, when the Awesome Button man piped up, to make him walk the plank out the corporate window.

Yeah who can forget the awesome button.


His name is David Silverman and he was BioWare's director of marketing.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
I think the problem is that developers often believe they are doing just as you say, but are actually doing the opposite. If Bioware developers thought the world, the companions, and the romances were what made Dragon Age successful, but that the old school mechanics, combat and skill system were holding the game back from having more success, I think it is understandable how a Dragon Age 2 could be developed (that and EA apparently rushing the development which caused corners to be cut). Many reviewers agreed, but most fans of the first game did not, and DA couldn't win over many new players.
I think its actually quite a skill to understand how to keep the best elements of a game and how to improve upon them. So many developers fail at it that I think its much easier to say than do.

Agree but don't forget gamers and critics in general. I have seen quite a few RPGs called stagnant just because they didn't re-invent the wheel with the sequel.

I think Origins was originally pitched as a modern Baldur's Gate, and a lot of the first one bares that out. It was in production for a long time and the tactical pause system is still one of the better ones to date.

It was a good game that kept me all the way to the end. It didn't blow my mind at the time but I think history and reflection has been kind to it.

Originally Posted by Mosaic
I think Origins was originally pitched as a modern Baldur's Gate, and a lot of the first one bares that out. It was in production for a long time and the tactical pause system is still one of the better ones to date.

It was a good game that kept me all the way to the end. It didn't blow my mind at the time but I think history and reflection has been kind to it.

Probably because it was the last Bioware game to resemble Baldur's Gate, even distantly.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
Probably because it was the last Bioware game to resemble Baldur's Gate, even distantly.

Why should it resemble it - DA:O excels in presentation, graphics and production values, not to mention story, companions and choices and consequences. While all developers are going backwards in time with isometric rpgs, DA:O is still unmatched as a third-person party rpg.

Originally Posted by SpoonFULL
Why should it resemble it - DA:O excels in presentation, graphics and production values, not to mention story, companions and choices and consequences. While all developers are going backwards in time with isometric rpgs, DA:O is still unmatched as a third-person party rpg.

Not in my book - DA:O is far inferior to BG. Just about everything BG does better than DA:O. I'd say the only thing DA:O did better is C&C.

Baldur's Gate to me was pure mayhem in many ways, and not my favourite style of gaming. Origins took that premise, and made it more fun, at least for me. Fun versus chore-oriented.

The BG games had a steeper learning curve, but they were sooo much better than DA once you got the hang of combat. I can't imagine anyone thinking DA was superior unless they just wanted something less complex or perhaps they just didn't like the setting in BG.

The biggest difference, for me, was the bestiary. Baldur's Gate had a huge variety of different enemy types throughout the game. In DA, you usually just fought the same 4-5 types of Darkspawn over and over again, and the non-Darkspawn enemy types were generic and boring.

The same thing applies to spells and weapons as well. There was just so much more variety in BG. Don't even get me started on races and classes.

Wow. At release I had very meh opinion of DAO, though it did have it's bright moments. If only I had known the rest of the series could do so much worse.

One of these day maybe I should give it another try and check if time has brought a new perspective on the game.

See, that's what made Origins such an excellent game, the sheer drek that used the Dragon Age tag afterwards. I only briefly saw the second game before I got my refund, as to any after that, I'd have no knowledge. To me, there is only one Dragon Age game, period.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Yeah who can forget the awesome button.

loading…

His name is David Silverman and he was BioWare's director of marketing.

I had blotted that from my mind until you reminded me …argh my ears!

In my opinion Dragon Age Origins is a great game in terms of graphics, story, role-playing system and all the rest. I've spent many hours, enjoying this high-class game.