Dragon Age : Origins - An utter disappointment ?

[Zykon TheLich]

Yup, I really didn't like it either. Combat was a chore, didn't care about the characters at all and had pretty much forgotton what it was I was supposed to be doing and why by about halfway through. I thought the graphics were ok though.

 

[Thedayrecker]

I played it for a while, and it was pretty fun. It is rather generic though, and I was bored after 1 playthrough.

 

[jamradar]

Play it a bit longer you may find it to be enjoyable. The first couple hours of my first playthrough I was bored out of my mind, but I kept playing and got immersed in it.

 

[Jimbo1212]

So 8 bit colour and 4 bit textures are going to look better to some then dx11 engines that can melt gpu's?
You are getting confused between graphic styles and the quality of graphics.

On the point of skimping on graphics, why do you think people loved God of War 1 & 2 when they were remastered in HD graphics? The same can be said for Team Ico. People want better graphics, different styles yes, but better as it increases the players immersion.

No, you are getting confused by the fact that 'worse' is not the same as 'bad'. DA is probably worse graphically than other games released in the same time-frame. That does not mean it is objectively bad (or 'dire' as you put it). That is up to people's opinions. They differ. It's subjective. I don't think I have any more words to put it differently.

As for the second point, branding people 'cheap gamers' because they are willing to play graphics at the 'horrific level' of Dragon Age, as you put it, is just a big fat no-no. I'm not even going to try and bother to argue with that, it should really be self-evident.

Are you aware of the technical element of graphics and just how ill informed you are sounding? Lower resolution textures = bad. This is a fact, not an opinion.

DA graphics are far worse then other games released in the same time frame, even compared to games released a few years before hand. This is shown by the low requirements and the horrifically weak gpu it needs (8800 gts) to run it at full.Do you even know how poor the 8800GTS is? I'm guessing not. When textures are blurry and pixelated, they are bad, especially when they are aiming for realism. To put it another way, what games are you comparing DA to ?

You avoid my second point showing that I am right as you can not formulate a half decent counter argument. In the future, do not even try.

 

[Eduku]

So 8 bit colour and 4 bit textures are going to look better to some then dx11 engines that can melt gpu's?
You are getting confused between graphic styles and the quality of graphics.

On the point of skimping on graphics, why do you think people loved God of War 1 & 2 when they were remastered in HD graphics? The same can be said for Team Ico. People want better graphics, different styles yes, but better as it increases the players immersion.

No, you are getting confused by the fact that 'worse' is not the same as 'bad'. DA is probably worse graphically than other games released in the same time-frame. That does not mean it is objectively bad (or 'dire' as you put it). That is up to people's opinions. They differ. It's subjective. I don't think I have any more words to put it differently.

As for the second point, branding people 'cheap gamers' because they are willing to play graphics at the 'horrific level' of Dragon Age, as you put it, is just a big fat no-no. I'm not even going to try and bother to argue with that, it should really be self-evident.

Are you aware of the technical element of graphics and just how ill informed you are sounding? Lower resolution textures = bad. This is a fact, not an opinion.

DA graphics are far worse then other games released in the same time frame, even compared to games released a few years before hand. This is shown by the low requirements and the horrifically weak gpu it needs (8800 gts) to run it at full.Do you even know how poor the 8800GTS is? I'm guessing not. When textures are blurry and pixelated, they are bad, especially when they are aiming for realism. To put it another way, what games are you comparing DA to ?

You avoid my second point showing that I am right as you can not formulate a half decent counter argument. In the future, do not even try.

I am going to give my own argument despite the fact that you've placed insults throughout your response. I hope in the future you can refrain from that, since it only serves to make your argument far worse.

'Bad' itself is a subjective word. It is not a fact. Someone's 'bad' may be another person's 'good'. If you said that lower resolution textures = worse, I would be inclined to agree. But as I have said, 'worse' =/= 'bad'.

As for the second point, the reason I 'avoided' it was because, as I said, it should really be self-evident. To address it, I'll say that it is a statement born out of ignorance and unwillingness to understand other people's opinions. For reference, it is akin to saying 'you don't game on a PC, therefore you are less of a gamer than I am'.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

Oh boy some guy on the internet hates a popular game; someone give him a medal.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I say you play a bit more. You can't really judge the whole game until you finished it.

Dragon Age didn't make me want to play it. Why would I play the whole game if just to judge it if I can't stand the first few hours?
This may seem stupid, but I personally consider a game bad if it genuinely makes me not want to play it to the end. Dragon Age being a prime example.
Mass Effect being the only anomaly; I think it's very good, gameplay was very fun, I just didn't like the talking. I saw why it was good though, and respect it's success.

while i can respect it and glad that you at least enjoyed mass effect, you gotta realize..

its bioware. you dont like the talking? i am shit shined suprised that you actually made it through mass effect. bioware is all about talking and potraying some nifty ass characters, thast what they are about, and to most people, they can't get enough of it. people dont play their games for AMAZING gameplay or AMAZING graphics, (which they dont do horrible in, just average) they play it to experience the character/story driven plot of the game.

 

[Something Amyss]

It was to me. Apparently, this statement generates a lot of nerdrage though.

 

[Naheal]

After playing this game for a few hours I stopped playing when I realised that I was completely bored.
Can someone please explain to me why this game has received so much praise. All I found was that the combat was terribly repetitive with no grounds for creativity and very similar to the combat found in WoW. On top of this the graphics are shockingly bad along with the conversation menu. What possessed bioware to take a step backwards and use a generic and resultantly bad conversation system over their innovative mass effect conversation menu?

And I played it on the PC. It still has terrible graphics. Why was a game like this released in 2009 when it could have easily been released in 2006/7?

A note on the graphics: people dip into the uncanny valley on the PC.

That said, I was upset that it was advertised as a "dark fantasy" and that such a promise wasn't delivered. However, I do feel that Dragon Age: Awakening delivered on that promise.

 

[Jimbo1212]

So 8 bit colour and 4 bit textures are going to look better to some then dx11 engines that can melt gpu's?
You are getting confused between graphic styles and the quality of graphics.

On the point of skimping on graphics, why do you think people loved God of War 1 & 2 when they were remastered in HD graphics? The same can be said for Team Ico. People want better graphics, different styles yes, but better as it increases the players immersion.

No, you are getting confused by the fact that 'worse' is not the same as 'bad'. DA is probably worse graphically than other games released in the same time-frame. That does not mean it is objectively bad (or 'dire' as you put it). That is up to people's opinions. They differ. It's subjective. I don't think I have any more words to put it differently.

As for the second point, branding people 'cheap gamers' because they are willing to play graphics at the 'horrific level' of Dragon Age, as you put it, is just a big fat no-no. I'm not even going to try and bother to argue with that, it should really be self-evident.

Are you aware of the technical element of graphics and just how ill informed you are sounding? Lower resolution textures = bad. This is a fact, not an opinion.

DA graphics are far worse then other games released in the same time frame, even compared to games released a few years before hand. This is shown by the low requirements and the horrifically weak gpu it needs (8800 gts) to run it at full.Do you even know how poor the 8800GTS is? I'm guessing not. When textures are blurry and pixelated, they are bad, especially when they are aiming for realism. To put it another way, what games are you comparing DA to ?

You avoid my second point showing that I am right as you can not formulate a half decent counter argument. In the future, do not even try.

I am going to give my own argument despite the fact that you've placed insults throughout your response. I hope in the future you can refrain from that, since it only serves to make your argument far worse.

'Bad' itself is a subjective word. It is not a fact. Someone's 'bad' may be another person's 'good'. If you said that lower resolution textures = worse, I would be inclined to agree. But as I have said, 'worse' =/= 'bad'.

As for the second point, the reason I 'avoided' it was because, as I said, it should really be self-evident. To address it, I'll say that it is a statement born out of ignorance and unwillingness to understand other people's opinions. For reference, it is akin to saying 'you don't game on a PC, therefore you are less of a gamer than I am'.

But you are ill informed. That is not an insult.
'Bad' is only subjective on certain topics. When dealing with something technical, bad is not subjective, but a fact. Graphics are not art, there is only room for opinion on art style, not quality of graphics. Lower resolutions = Bad. This is a fact and can not be argued. To argue this would be to argue that 1 + 1 =/= 2. Your point about using the word worse is some what pedantic as you have to look at what you are comparing it to. Compared to other games of 2009 and the feeble requirements, the graphics are worse to the point of being bad. As I asked before, what other games are you using as a comparison?

My statement is born of ignorance although I explain why graphics are important and you have yet to say why they are not. Oh the irony.

 

[Xanadu84]

Most people, myself included, think you're flat out wrong about the majority of that. I liked the game, and the only real point I see is older graphics. I will give you that, however graphics are the number one thing that most gamers are willing to sacrifice, if it means more strengths elsewhere. Personally, I liked it better then Mass Effect.

Well if I am wrong, then please explain why, rather then just claiming that my points are invalid.
On the point about graphics, I feel that the only people who are willing to sacrifice graphics to such a horrific level are cheap gamers. Such poor graphics does break the immersion of a game and begs the question why did you pay so much for something that is already dated.

I didn't say you were "So wrong". I said that we will think you are wrong, because we disagree. It's all subjective, but when a lot of people disagree with you over something subjective, maybe you should consider the possibility that it's not actually bad, it's just a matter of taste. And hey, I don't really like Metroid, and Ive long since come to terms with the fact that I'm weird because of that.

Also, no, I think you are in quite a minority in terms of graphics. For most people here on the Escapist, graphics is the least important, most expendable aspect of a game. Most people here will accept a jump back to 8 bit if it means slightly better game play or story. Good graphics actually makes a lot of people suspicious, and assume that it must be terrible because they are focusing all their time on graphics instead of gameplay. Even if it did look like a game from 2006, so what? A game that was originally made in the 90's is still very playable, and it takes minutes until you adjust. The graphics arn't that bad. They are just no where near the potential of what we are capable of these days.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Well if I am wrong, then please explain why, rather then just claiming that my points are invalid.
On the point about graphics, I feel that the only people who are willing to sacrifice graphics to such a horrific level are cheap gamers. Such poor graphics does break the immersion of a game and begs the question why did you pay so much for something that is already dated.

I didn't say you were "So wrong". I said that we will think you are wrong, because we disagree. It's all subjective, but when a lot of people disagree with you over something subjective, maybe you should consider the possibility that it's not actually bad, it's just a matter of taste. And hey, I don't really like Metroid, and Ive long since come to terms with the fact that I'm weird because of that.

Also, no, I think you are in quite a minority in terms of graphics. For most people here on the Escapist, graphics is the least important, most expendable aspect of a game. Most people here will accept a jump back to 8 bit if it means slightly better game play or story. Good graphics actually makes a lot of people suspicious, and assume that it must be terrible because they are focusing all their time on graphics instead of gameplay. Even if it did look like a game from 2006, so what? A game that was originally made in the 90's is still very playable, and it takes minutes until you adjust. The graphics arn't that bad. They are just no where near the potential of what we are capable of these days.

I know that finding a game to be good or bad is opinion, but if you can not back it up then it is a worthless opinion.
Graphics can play a large part in a game, however it is not coincidence that people say it changes nothing and it happens to be the most expensive element to playing a game. With games such as DA which are aiming for a more realistic style of graphics, better graphics would make it more immersive. To argue against this is to argue that improving from 8-bit sound did not help game immersion and HD is a waste of time.
Also, why do I want to part with my money for a game that has not had as much investment into it as it should of? What have they been doing for all these years? You would not buy a film that had poor audio, so why buy a game with poor graphics?

NB. Most games from the 90's are not very playable. No one reasonable would want to sacrifice the stunning graphics of Crysis etc for nauseating 8 bit colour as you would gain nothing from that loss.

 

[Eduku]

So 8 bit colour and 4 bit textures are going to look better to some then dx11 engines that can melt gpu's?
You are getting confused between graphic styles and the quality of graphics.

On the point of skimping on graphics, why do you think people loved God of War 1 & 2 when they were remastered in HD graphics? The same can be said for Team Ico. People want better graphics, different styles yes, but better as it increases the players immersion.

No, you are getting confused by the fact that 'worse' is not the same as 'bad'. DA is probably worse graphically than other games released in the same time-frame. That does not mean it is objectively bad (or 'dire' as you put it). That is up to people's opinions. They differ. It's subjective. I don't think I have any more words to put it differently.

As for the second point, branding people 'cheap gamers' because they are willing to play graphics at the 'horrific level' of Dragon Age, as you put it, is just a big fat no-no. I'm not even going to try and bother to argue with that, it should really be self-evident.

Are you aware of the technical element of graphics and just how ill informed you are sounding? Lower resolution textures = bad. This is a fact, not an opinion.

DA graphics are far worse then other games released in the same time frame, even compared to games released a few years before hand. This is shown by the low requirements and the horrifically weak gpu it needs (8800 gts) to run it at full.Do you even know how poor the 8800GTS is? I'm guessing not. When textures are blurry and pixelated, they are bad, especially when they are aiming for realism. To put it another way, what games are you comparing DA to ?

You avoid my second point showing that I am right as you can not formulate a half decent counter argument. In the future, do not even try.

I am going to give my own argument despite the fact that you've placed insults throughout your response. I hope in the future you can refrain from that, since it only serves to make your argument far worse.

'Bad' itself is a subjective word. It is not a fact. Someone's 'bad' may be another person's 'good'. If you said that lower resolution textures = worse, I would be inclined to agree. But as I have said, 'worse' =/= 'bad'.

As for the second point, the reason I 'avoided' it was because, as I said, it should really be self-evident. To address it, I'll say that it is a statement born out of ignorance and unwillingness to understand other people's opinions. For reference, it is akin to saying 'you don't game on a PC, therefore you are less of a gamer than I am'.

But you are ill informed. That is not an insult.
'Bad' is only subjective on certain topics. When dealing with something technical, bad is not subjective, but a fact. Graphics are not art, there is only room for opinion on art style, not quality of graphics. Lower resolutions = Bad. This is a fact and can not be argued. To argue this would be to argue that 1 + 1 =/= 2. Your point about using the word worse is some what pedantic as you have to look at what you are comparing it to. Compared to other games of 2009 and the feeble requirements, the graphics are worse to the point of being bad. As I asked before, what other games are you using as a comparison?

My statement is born of ignorance although I explain why graphics are important and you have yet to say why they are not. Oh the irony.

You're still not getting the point. Bad =/= worse. It's not pedantic, it's the whole point of the argument. I'll give a basic example: I ask person A and person B if the graphics in Dragon Age are good. Person A says the graphics are bad. Person B says the graphics are good. Therefore it cannot be objective, as '1 + 1 = 2' would be.

Yes, your statement is born out of ignorance and unwillingness to accept other's opinions, despite how sarcastically you want to put it. Graphics are not as important to me because I hold gameplay to be more essential to my enjoyment of the game. That's my explanation.

 

[Snowalker]

Xbox version, nuff said.

Xbox version had the shittest graphics of all the options. You are just a fanboy, aren't you?

 

[open trap]

i absolutly loved the game, though i guess you could say i was in it for the story.

 

[Snowalker]

I loved Dragon Age, mostly cause of the story and characters but I also love sandbox style RPGs as well.

woah, woah, sandbox? it felt very linear to me, I mean yes the beginnings and endings are different, but the core is the same. Sandbox RPG implies you can tackle every situation from any way, I never felt that freedom in DA

 

[Snowalker]

I say you play a bit more. You can't really judge the whole game until you finished it.

read this now [link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8149-Experienced-Points-Your-Favorite-Game-Sucks[/link]

 

[Eduku]

I say you play a bit more. You can't really judge the whole game until you finished it.

read this now [link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8149-Experienced-Points-Your-Favorite-Game-Sucks[/link]

It's a good article, but I still disagree with it. I think it's just one of those things which we (me and the writer, I mean) won't see eye-to-eye on. The writer makes some awesome comics though, I read a lot of them.

 

[Jimbo1212]

But you are ill informed. That is not an insult.
'Bad' is only subjective on certain topics. When dealing with something technical, bad is not subjective, but a fact. Graphics are not art, there is only room for opinion on art style, not quality of graphics. Lower resolutions = Bad. This is a fact and can not be argued. To argue this would be to argue that 1 + 1 =/= 2. Your point about using the word worse is some what pedantic as you have to look at what you are comparing it to. Compared to other games of 2009 and the feeble requirements, the graphics are worse to the point of being bad. As I asked before, what other games are you using as a comparison?

My statement is born of ignorance although I explain why graphics are important and you have yet to say why they are not. Oh the irony.

You're still not getting the point. Bad =/= worse. It's not pedantic, it's the whole point of the argument. I'll give a basic example: I ask person A and person B if the graphics in Dragon Age are good. Person A says the graphics are bad. Person B says the graphics are good. Therefore it cannot be objective, as '1 + 1 = 2' would be.

Yes, your statement is born out of ignorance and unwillingness to accept other's opinions, despite how sarcastically you want to put it. Graphics are not as important to me because I hold gameplay to be more essential to my enjoyment of the game. That's my explanation.

What games are you comparing DA too?
It runs maxed out on a 8800 GTS and is only DX 9 ergo it is bad.
Maybe not 10 years ago, but even in 2008 that is bad. You may claim it is opinion, but I will stand by my facts and hope you realise that your opinion is ignorant as you obviously have no understanding of graphics and what you are talking about.
Also, you may want to grab a dictionary as I have given a valid reason for why I feel graphics to be important yet you have not. The only view point (or lack of) you have given is " I don't care cause l0l". Maybe if you explain why immersion in an RPG is not important, then I will consider your view point. However, after asking you to clarify this point numerous times and you still have yet to deliver an answer which would be found out of a playground, I doubt I will have better luck.

 

[Frenger]

But you are ill informed. That is not an insult.
'Bad' is only subjective on certain topics. When dealing with something technical, bad is not subjective, but a fact. Graphics are not art, there is only room for opinion on art style, not quality of graphics. Lower resolutions = Bad. This is a fact and can not be argued. To argue this would be to argue that 1 + 1 =/= 2. Your point about using the word worse is some what pedantic as you have to look at what you are comparing it to. Compared to other games of 2009 and the feeble requirements, the graphics are worse to the point of being bad. As I asked before, what other games are you using as a comparison?

My statement is born of ignorance although I explain why graphics are important and you have yet to say why they are not. Oh the irony.

You're still not getting the point. Bad =/= worse. It's not pedantic, it's the whole point of the argument. I'll give a basic example: I ask person A and person B if the graphics in Dragon Age are good. Person A says the graphics are bad. Person B says the graphics are good. Therefore it cannot be objective, as '1 + 1 = 2' would be.

Yes, your statement is born out of ignorance and unwillingness to accept other's opinions, despite how sarcastically you want to put it. Graphics are not as important to me because I hold gameplay to be more essential to my enjoyment of the game. That's my explanation.

What games are you comparing DA too?
It runs maxed out on a 8800 GTS and is only DX 9 ergo it is bad.
Maybe not 10 years ago, but even in 2008 that is bad. You may claim it is opinion, but I will stand by my facts and hope you realise that your opinion is ignorant as you obviously have no understanding of graphics and what you are talking about.
Also, you may want to grab a dictionary as I have given a valid reason for why I feel graphics to be important yet you have not. The only view point (or lack of) you have given is " I don't care cause l0l". Maybe if you explain why immersion in an RPG is not important, then I will consider your view point. However, after asking you to clarify this point numerous times and you still have yet to deliver an answer which would be found out of a playground, I doubt I will have better luck.

FFS. You compared the game mechanics to WoW, a concept is over 30 years old. But graphics matters? Always? People still play games that are 5- 10 years old, when there are top-of-the-line games out there. People still play Counter-strike 1.6 and Starcraft, yet those games have have absolutely dreadful graphics. What are you getting at? All I see here is that you believe hardware is more important than the games they run on. Man, I rather play Dwarf Fortress than Crysis any time of the week. Immersion *IS* in the eye of the beholder. Graphics are worse than new games, and sometimes even old ones, but the "fact" you point as are not infact... err, a "fact".

It's an opinion. On a technical standpoint, there is nothing "bad" about the graphics in DAO, or Starcraft, or Civ 2, or Ultima IV. Why? Because they do the job. If the graphics doesn't load properly, then I guess it's bad(had no glitches in DAO yet, plenty in RRD, but that's expected). I had screentearing on Half-life 2, but not Quake 1 on the same machine. Guess Quake 1 had better graphics then... OR NOT. Maybe it's a faulty driver, or maybe Quake runs differently than Half-life 2, since they are on two different engines. Or better yet, they are two separate games, 6-7 years apart. Hell, I get less graphical errors in Baldur's Gate than Mass Effect 1. Damn, they can't make decent graphics these days...

also,

Spoiler

On topic, yeah, Dragon Age was pretty good. Liked KOTOR better, though.