Dragon Age: Hugely Disappointing?

[Jaesun]

DA just felt too much like a chore.

Sadly I will still continue to re-play BGI/BGII as I still enjoy them greatly. DA will sadly sit on my shelf only to collect dust.... forever.

DA felt like a chore? So the Deep Roads =/= Nashkel Mines ? The Brecilian forest =/= Cloakwood forest?

Come on, replace darkspawn with kobolds and werewolves with wyverns and they're basically the same locations.

BG 1 was almost as much of a chore as DA:O. You can't even say that BG's characters were any better.

"Heya, I'm Imoen!" vs "I am Leiliana, I will have sex with you if you come to karaoke with me"

"My name is Kagain, angry dwarf." vs "My name is Oghren, BURRRP"

"I am Jaheira, aloof druid of of your every action" vs "I am Morrigan, aloof druid-witch of the wilds of "

"I am Khalid, too nice for my own good, but sometimes with an obnoxious sense of humour" vs "Alistair here, bit of a cunt."

So what makes BG better than DA:O in your opinion? The character design and the manner in which the plots unfold are highly similar, both indulge enormously in the cRPG (read: tragic plot) cliches; on the one hand your father figure is killed leaving you, the Chosen One of unlimited but untrained and untapped power alone vs. your mentor figure has recruited you to an organisation of great, world saving power but dies leaving you to figure out where to go with it all.

Do you just prefer BG because it's old school? Because you were younger and see its flaws with rose-tinted glasses?

(I will make the point now that I too prefer BG to DA:O, if I look back (I have not played Baldur's Gate in some years) I have fonder memories of it, of its characters (perhaps they were fresher the FIRST time Bioware did them?), of its combat (which I believe was much more tactical and challenging than DA:O's) and of its plot overall)

I would like to generate a real discussion on this topic, not simply some rage bullshit about why DA:O is shit and BG is great.

1 potato out of 10.

 

[Raghar]

It felt like WoW, looked like WoW. However WoW was more detailed and had better art.

Ironically, I feel like the WoW engine could make a seriously good singleplayer RPG if you threw a dialogue tree interface in and made a scripted campaign out of it. The gameplay is some of the best combat out there, it's just that it's... well, an MMO.

Actually I played a single player WoW under Mangos. It's just a matter of setting firewall to block all incoming/outgoing connections to server.

The trouble was lack of AI, and an impossibility to easily get into instances because of lack of companions.

 

[Jaesun]

1 potato out of 10.

God damnit. Unshackle your mind and engage with debate. You, sir, are an agent of decline, perhaps the very reason the cRPG industry is in the sorry state it finds itself in today.

The shitty unoriginal not at all funny alts are the cancer of the codex and the cause of the current decline honey. Just sayin...

 

[Stabwound]

DA just felt too much like a chore.

Sadly I will still continue to re-play BGI/BGII as I still enjoy them greatly. DA will sadly sit on my shelf only to collect dust.... forever.

DA felt like a chore? So the Deep Roads =/= Nashkel Mines ? The Brecilian forest =/= Cloakwood forest?

No, you definitely have a point. The Nashkel mines are cringe-worthy, and so is much of BG1 after the first playthrough. BG2 I will say is not nearly as bad.

To me, BG1 just feels like a necessary boring part if I want to play BG2, because I don't feel right just starting a new character in BG2.

 

[Jaesun]

Wait... you resorted to a walkthrough for playing Baldur's Gate II?

FFS!!!!!!!!

 

[Jaesun]

So what games HAVE you played ironyuri?

 

[Crooked Bee]

Fallout, Arcanum, Icewind Dale 1 & 2 (including expansions), VtM:B, KotOR 1 & 2, Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast, Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Mass Effect 1& 2, DA: O, Thief: The Metal Age, Thief: Deadly Shadows (Unfinished), System Shock 2, Baldur's Gate 2 (Unfinished), The Witcher, Oblivion (unfinished), Morrowind (unfinished), Jagged Alliance 2, Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader, ToEE (unfinished), Fallout 2, PS:T, Jade Empire... (As a basic list of games which could be labelled cRPGs)

And tens of others that will have to go unlisted.

No Ultimas or Wizardries, meh. Or do they "go unlisted"?

 

[racofer]

Fallout, Arcanum...

The very first of your list. How convenient!

 

[Jaesun]

OK nice list. Question what was your first RPG? Did you say... discover Kotor and then decided to find other RPG's that you might like?

And yes, I completed Icewind Dale 1 and 2 but not BG 2, because IWD was a combat slog that didn't disguise itself under layers of fucking inane Carth Anomen paladin cleric romance.

You are going to fit in here just fine. Welcome to the Codex! And stay far far away from GD. It's a terrible place.

 

[racofer]

And since you're staying, don't forget to stick to the few rules we have in here http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=21366. They're not strictly enforced, however there's some stuff (which you've already violated, to a degree) that you should be aware of.

 

[Jaesun]

 

[kanenas]

It's a good game if you invite it in and have a little patience. Once you understand it for what it is, you're never letting go.

yep minesweeper grows on you the more you play it

 

[Fomorian]

DA felt like a chore? So the Deep Roads =/= Nashkel Mines ? The Brecilian forest =/= Cloakwood forest?]

Nope. Play through them. Nashkel mines, while poorly designed in terms of combat encounters and challenge was far, far shorter and less tedious than the fucking Deep Roads which remains one of the worst gaming experiences I have ever had. You're going to have explain what exactly you thought is equivalent between the Cloakwood and Brecilian Forests beyond the obvious before I can explain why you're wrong there.

Come on, replace darkspawn with kobolds and werewolves with wyverns and they're basically the same locations.

Nope. Nashkel mines were nowhere near as awful. Wyverns aren't even remotely equivalent to werewolves because they required a different approach to taking them on or at least a lot of buffing since their poison was very deadly very quickly. Werewolves you can deal with like any other interchangeable mob of normal-sized melee creatures. For a more offtopic yet tangentially related example of why BG 1>DA:O I didn't spend the rest of Baldur's Gate hacking down hordes of level-scaling kobolds after the Nashkel mines.

BG 1 was almost as much of a chore as DA:O. You can't even say that BG's characters were any better.

Of course not because BG barely had characters. It's sad if that's what you have to go back to win the point because one game clearly didn't care at all and still managed to put up characters that were equally as interesting (by which I mean not very) as did the romance simulator with party camp.

"Heya, I'm Imoen!" vs "I am Leiliana, I will have sex with you if you come to karaoke with me"

Imoen was less annoying. So again you have a character whose interaction consists of combat flavor dialogue (past the opening conversations in Candlekeep) versus intensely planned love interest and it's a fucking tie. Way to go Dragon Age.

"My name is Kagain, angry dwarf." vs "My name is Oghren, BURRRP

See above.

"I am Jaheira, aloof druid of of your every action" vs "I am Morrigan, aloof druid-witch of the wilds of "

Jaheira has a consistent, if stupid philosophy inherent to a druid. Morrigan is a terribly written and hopelessly inconsistent character who insists on being pragmatic until the point where it would interfere with your mindlessly evil character getting laid.

"I am Khalid, too nice for my own good, but sometimes with an obnoxious sense of humour" vs "Alistair here, bit of a cunt."

I could get rid of Khalid. I had to have scripted conversations with Alistair. Really see the first point.

So what makes BG better than DA:O in your opinion? The character design and the manner in which the plots unfold are highly similar, both indulge enormously in the cRPG (read: tragic plot) cliches; on the one hand your father figure is killed leaving you, the Chosen One of unlimited but untrained and untapped power alone vs. your mentor figure has recruited you to an organisation of great, world saving power but dies leaving you to figure out where to go with it all.

Not really. First off Baldur's Gate has a far less EPIC storyline than Dragon Age. You're basically a total sidenote in Sarevok's plans which are far above your head and your motivation for stopping him is intensely personal (avenging foster father and/or staying alive) versus Dragon Age's SAVE THE WORLD crap. You also don't know you're a Bhaalspawn for most BG1 whereas you start out the key leader of the anti-darkspawn forces in DA:O.

Do you just prefer BG because it's old school? Because you were younger and see its flaws with rose-tinted glasses?

Can't speak for anyone else but in my case certainly not. I only finished Baldur's Gate about a year before I played Dragon Age and frankly I'm a fan of neither game.

(I will make the point now that I too prefer BG to DA:O, if I look back (I have not played Baldur's Gate in some years) I have fonder memories of it, of its characters (perhaps they were fresher the FIRST time Bioware did them?), of its combat (which I believe was much more tactical and challenging than DA:O's) and of its plot overall)

I would like to generate a real discussion on this topic, not simply some rage bullshit about why DA:O is shit and BG is great.

So basically you agree but just wanted to prove that the mean old Codex is just a bunch of irrational haters.

 

[Fomorian]

That was the premise, yes.

Figured as much.

But as for your points -

I played through BG much longer ago than to be able to recall some things off hand but...

You should be a game reviewer. They often construct entire arguments about games off fuzzy memories.

When comparing Nashkel/Cloakwood to Deep Roads/Brecilian Forest my main point is about structured experience rather than content. You are forced by plot in both case to trudge through underground dungeon and forest dungeon respectively. It's trite. Of course it's a saving grace that BG offers shorter periods in each and more interesting monsters, but level scaling is another structural kettle of fish.....

So? Almost all RPGs include forced dungeon crawls. Fallout forces you to go through Mariposa and playing it naturally, Vault 15 and Necropolis. Arcanum forces you through multiple dungeon crawls. The difference is whether they're enjoyable or not, or, failing that (I'm looking at you Arcanum), the extent to which they ruin the rest of the experience. Baldur's Gate's dungeons are much better, if not objectively good, than Dragon Age's and more tolerable besides.

Which exists only to provide a veneer of "challenge" in otherwise bland gameplay, and in a comparative situation the budget for creature design in Baldur's Gate would have been larger than for that of Dragon Age based on overall design cost so Dragon Age needed to keept trash mobs levelled up, whereas BG had the luxury of offering interesting "new" monsters. It's a technology problem in that case which influences the structure of gameplay.

So? I don't give it a shit why the problem exists the point is it exists and it's worse than Baldur's Gate.

And as for the characters - Yes. BG does have more characters than DA:O and they are equally as deep, and incidentally probably deeper considering Edwin vs Minsc and Viconia vs others etc etc. They have personal clashes and motivations. In DA:O it's a happy family affair and it pissed me off no end. Recruit the assassin who wants you dead? No problem. Recruit the general who hired the assassin and who was doing it because all along he had the good of the country at heart politically? NO DICE BUB, THAT'S TOO MUCH OF A GREY AREA!

Precisely so what does that say about the comparative quality of the two games when one which clearly has little interest in NPC interaction wipes the floor with or at least equals the game with heavy focus on characters in this department?

What I wanted to achieve was a discussion of the flaws of Baldur's Gate with a view to the flaws of DA:O and vice versa. A discussion that opens the road to show what DA:O did right and what aspects of the old (Baldur's Gate) should be preserved or promoted in new games of that particular style.

So rather than try to have a discussion like that you tried to troll Jaesun. You may be a true Codexer after all.

RE: Plot/Sarevok's plans however.... I still find the plot cliche, even if the big reveal comes late. The intro to the game and the interactions with Elminster all imply greater things to come and come they do. Oh? I'm the son of a god? Wow I always THOUGHT I WAS SPECIAL!

Well the plot was more than a little cliche. Still Sarevok's machinations were way better than EVIL HORDE IS COMING AND THIS OLD GUY IS A PARANOID DICK. STOP THEM.

 

[Baron]

My problem with DA is the NPC companions. I want to make them eat drain cleaner. It's the going back to camp and the chore-like feeling of speaking to them, so they can whine, question my status as Supreme Leader, and generally shit me to tears of blood. It's a similar feeling I'm getting from Mass Effect 2 as I trudge down to the lower deck to console a bunch of alien dicks I'd rather jettison from the airlock or teleport into a nearby star. I adored the first Mass Effect, mostly for the brilliant character of Wrex, and the entire Elcore race. I don't expect all my party members to be so memorable, but I'd like at least one to be.

DA tried to replicate a lot about ME, with its wonderful space encyclopaedia. But DA was too much tedium. Apart from the Fade it was a very generic fantasy world, which seemed a waste of newfound creative freedom. ES:Oblivion suffers the same problem, (except my Lizardman Alchemist could smack an unsuspecting goblin in the back of the head with a silver mace, so it gets a pass.)

Baldur's Gate never felt tedious to me. I hooted and cackled as I butchered a village of Xvarts. The sequel presented a memorable villain whose dialogue I still quote at the people who sit next to me on the bus.

I shelved DA, and don't see it raining hard enough for me to get back to it. But I'm an RPG whore, and depending on what information is released I might still buy the sequel. It would take a lot of misses for me to start jilting Bioware. But I have to say, the coloured conversation wheel is a very very bad beginning. Flowing dialogue achieves the goal of an interactive movie experience they're aiming for; but clicking coloured boxes instead of preferred dialogue makes the experience so passive. It removes choice and involvement in my own goddamned character. I really hope they don't make this change just because 80% of the console RPG market can't fucking read beyond third grade level. I miss the days when RPGs were for bright 12 year olds who embraced complex rules.

 

[Selenti]

I didn't get very far in Dragon Age.

I was standing in camp, with my companions standing around me, when I suddenly realised that I hated my own party far more than I could ever hate the Darkspawn no matter how many cities they burned down.

Hah, this happened to me too. I liked Alistair's jokes, but other than that the endless whiny righteousness was just so depressing. I really think it is the voice-overs. I mean, BG2 had plenty of whininess, but at least it wasn't assaulting my ears.

 

[Selenti]

It would be highly difficult for me to be someone's alt.

I've been lurking here for close to six or seven years, which would be around when I first got around to playing Planescape: Torment, but regardless....

You have not answered any of my questions apropos what makes DA:O so different from BG and why in your opinion will DA:O gather dust and BG warrant another playthrough? I have offered a list of similarities which are not simply superficial but deeply ingrained within the structure of both games (samey repetitive combat, inane character design and cliched plot development), I also explained why I am inclined toward your opinion, but would like to know why you hold it given that neither rpg really stands out as exciting or groundbreaking and both infact whore themselves openly to convention.

Can't speak for him, but a few things occur to me:

2e D&D is just a much more fleshed out system. Sure, all of the "choices" in BG and BG2's game system are superficial, but they are nonetheless fairly entertaining.

I am swimming against the current here, but I still firmly believe that state-of-the-art 2D is much more gorgeous (and hence mood-evoking) than state-of-the-art 3D (until we're all playing the Matrix IRL).

But mostly I feel it comes down to Forgotten Realms. There is a lot of bad stuff said about FR (and I agree with much of it), but it remains a deeply fleshed out world. It's clear looking back that having that wellspring of ideas to draw upon was a good thing. Look at all the magic items in BG and IWD that have their own, pages-long histories and backgrounds. MAGIC ITEMS WITH FUCKING BACKGROUNDS. Small difference.

Ultimately, I just see DA as a sloppy attempt. It worries me that all of their attempts since BG2 have been "sloppy", though, other than ME 1 & 2 which I really feel were spot-on other than the shortness.