Dragon Age - Review @ GameVisions

100% is ridiculous and stupid.

Personally, I'd probably rate it at ~90%.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
100% is ridiculous and stupid.

Personally, I'd probably rate it at ~90%.

Same here. 90-92% at most.


Wich is more or less the average of the "non-biased" review sites, 94% tops.

Come on, the facial models are all similar, the close-up textures are terrible, the character creation is too simplistic, (i could go on….)

No one can possibly give 100% at this game, not more than 90-95% imho, the game is VERY NICE, but far from perfect, that are numerous things that could be changed to make it better like more model diversity, wayyyyy more loot balance/diversity, less history "cliché", etc.´

90% on my book is a sounding formidable score, over 95% on this game is plain obvious why it was given….

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
Dragon Age is possibly one of the most over-rated games that I have ever seen in recent past.

Bioware games in general have been very overrated imo, at least what they've done in the last 6-7 years. I don't think DA is anymore overrated than KotOR.

I think the only proper thing to do at this point, is name my first-born child Dragon Age.

I am curious. What would you guys rate BG 1, BG 2, and DAO as? If different (higher or lower) why? Those are 3 of my favorite RPGs.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
I am curious. What would you guys rate BG 1, BG 2, and DAO as? If different (higher or lower) why? Those are 3 of my favorite RPGs.

Judging by the amount of personal enjoyment gained from the first playthroughs, it´s DAO > BG2 > BG in my case.
I leave it at that since more in-depth comparison would fit into another thread, plus I think that comparing games released so far from each other wouldn´t be entirely fair anyway.

Depending on the benevolence of scale and preferences, this is the range I´d consider adequate for each game:
BG2: 90 - 100
DAO: 85 - 100
BG: 80 - 95

While the review at hand contains some strange wording, generally I don´t see a problem when reviewer gives a game perfect score as long as he finds it all around entertaining and doesn´t find any of its flaws major. There´s nothing stupid about it. Reserving 10/10 only for games which are flawless, now that´s stupid.

Originally Posted by Badesumofu
Incidentally, a modern-day Baldur's Gate II with no serious flaws, is exactly how I'd describe DA.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
I am curious. What would you guys rate BG 1, BG 2, and DAO as? If different (higher or lower) why? Those are 3 of my favorite RPGs.

That depends, if you rate them by the standards of their respective times: - BG=1998, BG2=2001, DA=2009, I'd say BG 1/2 were significantly better.

Personally I stopped playing half way through, at least temporarily. Its not a bad game by any stretch, its in fact very good but also quite flawed. 85% is fair. I'd rate Drakensang at 86% and I finished that title. Its a "lesser" but similar game that simply got more right with less IMO….

Originally Posted by JDR13
That depends, if you rate them by the standards of their respective times: - BG=1998, BG2=2001, DA=2009, I'd say BG 1/2 were significantly better.

I would definitely rate BG2 as Bioware's best games and one of the greatest all time RPG's as well as one of my personal faves.

I played BG1 after BG2, and can see its' importance, but like it less.

Dragon Age … well, I like it a lot but my review will have to wait just a bit

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
I am curious. What would you guys rate BG 1, BG 2, and DAO as? If different (higher or lower) why? Those are 3 of my favorite RPGs.

BG = 92%
BG2 = ? (Never completed it, and never played it beyond ~10 hours or so)
DAO = 90%

I suspect I'd rate BG2 around 85-90 - because it didn't SEEM to be as non-linear as BG. I've tried getting into it at least 5 times now. I intend to try again soonish.

Non-linearity is one of the most important aspects in a CRPG for me. Very few games handle it well, though - and I'd rather have a strong story in a semi-linear CRPG than a poorly handled non-linear game - like Oblivion.

But what I MUST HAVE are interesting character mechanics. I must have a reason to play BEYOND the story, because otherwise I'd rather read a book or watch a movie.

Exploration is also vital, and that's one area where Bioware generally don't shine, but they always take it into account - so there's that.

I would reserve +90% ratings to ground breaking / influential games like let's say Elite , Civ 1 , Daggerfall or Diablo .

DAO is a very good & well done game but it didn't introduced us to something new plus it is very restrictive even for story driven cRPG .

Originally Posted by Badesumofu

Incidentally, a modern-day Baldur's Gate II with no serious flaws, is exactly how I'd describe DA.

No serious flaws? Do you know you can solo the game naked with an arcane warrior on dificulty "hard", on a game that is based around a NPC party management, do you not consider that a serious flaw? you can do it with a rogue aswell btw.

So lets see:

- Some Ridiculously low-res textures on close-ups.
- Repetitive character facial models
- ability unbalance (ice cone+petrify combo rings a bell)
- Badly balanced classes (you can solo the entire game naked with a arcane warrior, or an medium equiped duelist rogue)
- Mediocre gear variety (too few epic items to wish for end-game)
- DLC content (so far) extremely low value (i ended them in 40 minutes).



Don't get me wrong, i'm on the 2nd playthrough now, meaning i REALY like the game, but saying it doesnt have any serious flaw is just coming from people who just dont wanna see, blinded by either the excessive hype, or blinded because they WANT it to be perfect. No offense meant to anyone, i just can't believe 100% scores, nor people saying this game doesnt have flaws.


I repeat, how can you say a game doesnt have any serious flaws if its possible to solo ALL the dragons in the game SOLO, NAKED on HARD dificulty ?

I repeat, how can you say a game doesnt have any serious flaws if its possible to solo ALL the dragons in the game SOLO, NAKED on HARD dificulty ?

Just a guess, but I think it might have something to do with flaws being perceived subjectively. What you consider serious flaws, others might consider trivial or maybe even not flaws at all.

Personally, I think you're vastly exaggerating most of the issues above - and there's certainly no way to solo the entire game with a rogue on hard. The Arcane Warrior thing sounds like a balance oversight - but it also strikes me as a supremely boring and hollow way to experience the game, so I doubt many would enjoy such a thing anyway.

But I agree the game has flaws, but I also realise that such things mean different things to different people.

But 100% is just stupid - because it's logically equivalent to perfection, which I simply don't believe in as an achievable goal.

Just to be technical, you can't solo the entire game as an Arcane Warrior, since that is NOT one of the starting classes!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
Just to be technical, you can't solo the entire game as an Arcane Warrior, since that is NOT one of the starting classes!!

That would be more pedantic than technical, I'd say

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I suspect I'd rate BG2 around 85-90 - because it didn't SEEM to be as non-linear as BG. I've tried getting into it at least 5 times now. I intend to try again soonish.

Wow … that is interesting, as I can't think of a SINGLE way that BG1 is better than BG2 …

Originally Posted by txa1265
Wow … that is interesting, as I can't think of a SINGLE way that BG1 is better than BG2 …

Do you weigh non-linearity as high as I do?

Also, IS BG2 as non-linear? Because if it becomes non-linear later on, that's one more incentive for me to try again.

I'd probably rate'em along these lines:
DA:O - 88%
BG1 (w/Tales) - 93%
BG2 (w/Throne) - 95%

I suspect DA:O might be at 90% after an add-on or DLCs. I would not give any game beyond 95%, since I always find annoying elements in games.

PS. I did not take TuTu into consideration as that is a player made mod. It would bring BG1 roughly on par with 2 (or just slightly behind).

Edit:

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Do you weigh non-linearity as high as I do?

Also, IS BG2 as non-linear? Because if it becomes non-linear later on, that's one more incentive for me to try again.

A common misconception. The main quest of BG2 is as linear as BG1. There are various quests where you decide the outcome, but not as part of the main quest. In fact, BG1-2 both have an "Oblivion recipe" - percieved freedom, but very little actual freedom; you only change the order in which you do things, and not actually the outcome of what you do. Big difference.

In short: Both games have certain parts where you are allowed to roam the world. Both games also have parts where you're forced to do the main quest. Both of them have sidequests where you decide the outcome, but none of them allow any real decisions during the main quest.

I can think of a several ways that BG1 was superior, and vice versa of course. Overall, they're pretty much equal to me.

A common misconception. The main quest of BG2 is as linear as BG1. There are various quests where you decide the outcome, but not as part of the main quest. In fact, BG1-2 both have an "Oblivion recipe" - percieved freedom, but very little actual freedom; you only change the order in which you do things, and not actually the outcome of what you do. Big difference.

I'd say it's a common misconception that non-linearity has to be about the main quest structure. There's no way a main quest can be truly non-linear, as that just doesn't work. It'd be impractical to develop a quest you can approach in a non-linear path, dealing with every aspect in a flexible timeline structure. Not impossible, perhaps, but a HELL of a lot of work.

BG1 was non-linear exactly like I want it to be, namely that I can do the main quest when I'm good and ready - and there are tons of ways to progress that have little or no relation to the main quest. Non-linear exploration is the main thing that separates BG from what I experienced with BG2.

It requires the game to have minimal level-scaling to really make sense in its implementation, but that's just my opinion.

but very little actual freedom; you only change the order in which you do things, and not actually the outcome of what you do. Big difference.

I think you're referring to C&C as it's commonly known. That isn't non-linearity, that's variation in "quest/dialogue" approaches.

At least, it's not what I'm talking about when talking about linearity/non-linearity.

I'm primarily talking about the path through the game - which can either be linear or non-linear - or anything in between, and it's really as simple as that. Makes a lot of sense, in my opinion, when you think about what these words actually mean.

DA:O - for instance, was kinda in-between, but leaning towards linearity. That's how I see it, anyway. You could approach major quests in the order you wanted, and they did actually make up the larger main quest - but it's so divided as to be almost pointless in what order you do them. Also, level scaling and rigid/no exploration ruined the idea of progressing outside the main quest/story.

So, is BG2 non-linear in this way, or isn't it?