Dragon Age : Origins - An utter disappointment ?

[Vault101]

It's interesting, I'm not a huge fan of high fantasy and as far as tactics go my main stratgy was mash the "heal" button and hope no one dies, but I think because of the story and interacting with charachters (plus the cinematic nature of the game) I acctually played this one through, even though as a game it wasn't really my thing.

Don't know if ill look at the second one but I actually like the idea of using the conversation wheel it makes it somehow more personal than just selecting a few lines of text

 

[Jimbo1212]

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,

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

A 30 year old concept?
That is my point. It is dated and boring as sin.
Why do people play old games? Because they are cheap and/or nostalgia. Within 10 years new games do come out that progress the genre, yet people stick with the old games as that is what they are familiar with - not because it is better. Look at DOW, look at MW 1. Yet people still play CS and StarCraft.
Again, graphics helps with immersion. Unless someone can explain why something looking more realistic does not help, then I will keep calling you people cheap. And the quality (not immersions, don't know where you read that ) of graphics is a fact as it is technical and you can simply compare the maths.
On the technical side, DA graphics are bad. To argue they do the job is to argue why move to colour film? Black and white worked right? Screen tearing? Learn to use V-sync....As you do not know about this, I feel that yet again I am debating with someone who has no knowledge of the topic at hand. Every heard of polygon count? Texture resolutions? Thought not.

 

[Faladorian]

I wasn't expecting anything out of it, and I was pleasantly surprised. I'm a sucker for story, and the characterization was great. They make you feel for the characters, the game can get pretty emotional if you let it. The game play wasn't bad... the PC version was really hard, though. It's probably still one of my top 5 games, I loved it.

 

[Lacsapix]

DAO is best game I played since well ever...

first I disliked it and trew it away.
then I played it again.
then I was in love with it.
now we are maried

it takes some time but inside that game is a lot of fun.

 

[frago roc]

Xbox version, nuff said.

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

My mistake, I thought ppl were smart enough to assume by me saying "xbox version" I was refering to why ppl where whining about the game. ofc the pc version is better.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

DA:O took me a while to get into it. At first I was definitely disappointed, but eventually I was hooked.

 

[jackpipsam]

it isn't CoD! and thats a good thing

 

[Rensenhito]

Well if I am wrong, then please explain why, rather then just claiming that my points are invalid.

The thing is, there's no such thing as a wrong opinion, so there's no way we can convince you of anything contrary to what you already think. In fact, I'm pretty sure you came here to hear an echo of your own sentiments. Nothing wrong with that, it's human nature to seek out like-minded individuals.
Anyway, I quite enjoyed Dragon Age, myself. I found the combat to be deep and rewarding once I got a few levels under my belt, and the leveling system was very solid and easy to work with. As far as the dialogue, yeah, it was pretty stilted a lot of the time, but at least the characters were well thought out instead of being one-dimensional twigs.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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?

The combat is nothing like in WoW. Did you even play WoW?


Bioware games all tend to be the same.
Great story, decent to good graphics, bad combat.


If you're a graphics whore who always skips over every bit of story and dialogue in games to get to the action, Bioware games aren't for you.

It is almost identical. 1,2,3,4, move to back of npc whilst being outnumbered, 1,2,3,4, rebuff. How is that not like WoW?
And the graphics are bad, go look at the requirements.

 

[Funkysandwich]

I've done one playthrough and enjoyed it, but I can't be bothered playing it again.

Not sure why, I had some fun with it though.

And what's with the bitching about the requirements? It doesn't ask much.

 

[zHellas]

America, You've got House. That's the best TV doctor anyone could ever ask for. Why do you need Who as well?

Okay, you just made me think of a fight between Hugh Laurie and David Tennant. I'm not sure if I should thank you or hit you on the head...

OT: The graphics are good(at least okay), and the storyline is fine. The only thing I hate about it is the Fade part of the Broken Circle, but people would have probably been angry or annoyed if they could only go into the Fade & explore it as the Mage in his/her intro.

 

[Red Right Hand]

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?

What? Did you honestly just ask that question? Graphics aren't the only thing that designers spend their time on. If you think that graphics is all that matters then it's no wonder you didn't enjoy the game. Also, the graphics really aren't that bad. Not everything has to have Crysis level fucking graphics.

 

[chaos order]

Because one of them might cure you of you're massive bigotry.

Also, in the spirit of things I feel it necessary to point out that they are also doing an American version of Shameless.

Bigotry? Yeah, love you too... I just really get carried away and aggresive when it comes to Dragon Age, dunno it just hits a nerve with me.

I haven't heard too good things about Shameless, but... just the concept.

Leave our shows alone, we leave yours American!
I haven't seen C.S.I. Birmingham, or something like that.
Random thought: If there were to be an English House, they'd have to get an American who everyone thinks is English to play Dr. House.

isnt hugh laurie english? LOL

 

[Shycte]

I loved it. But it takes a certain taste to do so.

 

[Frenger]

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,

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

A 30 year old concept?
That is my point. It is dated and boring as sin.
Why do people play old games? Because they are cheap and/or nostalgia. Within 10 years new games do come out that progress the genre, yet people stick with the old games as that is what they are familiar with - not because it is better. Look at DOW, look at MW 1. Yet people still play CS and StarCraft.
Again, graphics helps with immersion. Unless someone can explain why something looking more realistic does not help, then I will keep calling you people cheap. And the quality (not immersions, don't know where you read that ) of graphics is a fact as it is technical and you can simply compare the maths.
On the technical side, DA graphics are bad. To argue they do the job is to argue why move to colour film? Black and white worked right? Screen tearing? Learn to use V-sync....As you do not know about this, I feel that yet again I am debating with someone who has no knowledge of the topic at hand. Every heard of polygon count? Texture resolutions? Thought not.

Well, to be perfectly honest, MW2(or any "modern" shooter) is built on a concept that is 15- 20 years old aswell, so that is old as sin too. Every game are built on some idea that have been conjured up the past 20-25 years. The rest of your arguments are irrelevant too, at least to me, as I don't give a shit about them. I do know what polygon count, texture resolution mean. But why should I care about that if that's the last thing on the list, if on a list at all. I just bought Civilization 5. Do you honestly believe I cared about the graphics when there are more changes to the game than what meets the eye(or ears). Hell, I still play Civ 2 on my shitty netbook, and that game was released 1996.

Good graphics are fine, no argument from me here, but I honestly don't care what a game looks like, I want a game that is fun. If you don't like playing games with "bad graphics", then don't. But trying to impose an opinion as "fact" is just silly. And there is no math behind your argument, no matter how hard you try.

PS. Honestly, I would love to see those numbers. And a reason why I (or anyone) should care.
DS.

 

[Liberaliter]

Not an utter disappointment, you just didn't enjoy it.