Poll: Is there any hope Dragon Age?

[Kahunaburger]

I think the problems with DA:2 are going to continue to be problems, because they have to do with the writers and the business model.

Spoiler: When you have people like this on your writing team, you're pretty much screwed.

The way I see it, Dragon Age was a good game but will likely be a bad franchise. But that's alright - there are a lot of very good WRPGs coming out this year and likely in the future as well. Of course, we're likely going to see more Dragon Age, since DA2 did very well financially - better than DA1. It's just probably all going to suck.

Tell me, did any of the characters in DA:O develop beyond your interactions with them? did they lead any lives behind the scenes? weren't they just props for the main character to interact with?

Now think about DA2, some of the side-characters can get fucking remarried and it doesn't matter if you choose to be a part of their lives (although you have the choice). They were well-rounded characters, they were actually individuals instead of trite character archetypes. If this is where the writing is headed, that is no longer the same "you are the chosen one, defeat big evil baddie" and ACTUAl FUCKING CHARACTERS, then i say full speed ahead.

DA:O was a big call-back to one of the most nostalgia-ladden WRPGs of old, but it took both the good AND the bad parts of old-school RPGs. DA2 however represented a more modern approach (that is, an UI that wasn't completely obtuse as shit and a fresh story), something that angered fans who were expecting the same game they bought 11 years ago.

Well, I didn't think any of the Dragon Age 2 characters (with the possible exception of Varric) were any good. They seemed designed to appeal (as fanservice) to a particular segment of players - on the female side, you have characters straight out of a madonna/whore complex, and on the male side, you have Twilight [http://www.stellarfour.com/2011/03/dragon-age-2-twilightening.html]. But yeah, Dragon Age characters were a mixed bag. Alistair definitely had kingship stuff going on without the player, Wynne and Sten were solid, and Morrigan (despite a lot of writing issues) was generally a good example of a character that is active outside of the player's actions.

Honestly, if you're looking for innovation in RPGs I would look entirely outside of (modern) Bioware. (And partially out of the WRPG sub-genre, if only to get to the Atlus stuff.) Bioware's more about applying a good formula than doing anything new. But there are several RPGs that have, as you said, a more modern approach out right now. The recent ones I've played that have a higher standard of storytelling are Witcher 2 and Devil Survivor, and I have pretty high expectations for Deus Ex 3.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

DA:O was convoluted, heavy on sidequests that were more or less boring fetch quests, topped with a decent opening that leads into the drudgery of grind, grab worthless gear for money, grind/quest. It was fun in some respects but overall a bit confusing at parts, buggy in some others (had to reload quite a few saves in the mage tower due to bugs).
DA 2 did away with what I found to be an annoying and useless crafting system, switched out the useless gear system for one that worked better (like Mass Effect 2 did) and had characters that were more engaging fun (I don't even remember the supporting NPC's except for Alistair and Morrigan without hitting up Wiki).
I didn't hate DA:O, it was still fun enough to complete. I liked DA 2 better because I found combat a bit more engaging (no I didn't button mash, I played it like WoW timing my attacks for maximum DPS). I never used the Tactics slots beyond educating my NPC's to not use potions/heals unless in dire straits. Moreover, I think there was a lot of stuff that wasn't needed in DA:O that DA 2 did away with. DA 2 had a more localized setting, which to me was easier to care about what was happening. I wish though that Bioware would stop giving us the illusion of choice in these games. If we do something, please show us more consequences than possibly losing one or two NPC's at the very end.
I enjoy the series very much, despite misgivings for the first one, and hope that DA3 has at least an engaging system/storyline without the useless tacked-on crafting/gear systems.
If I want gear/crafting I play WoW already.
Yes the series could be better, but please quit acting like DA:O was perfect.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Of course, we're likely going to see more Dragon Age, since DA2 did very well financially - better than DA1. It's just probably all going to suck.

Seriously? I remember reading that Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever. It even outsold Mass Effect. And that's not factoring the money Bioware made off all the DLC for Origins. For Dragon Age 2 to do better financially than Origins... well, I don't remember reading anywhere that DA2 has snuck up to become Bioware's best-selling game. Especially regarding, well, that reception it got.

I'm actually not 100% sure about how it was calculated, but I remember reading a few articles saying that EA was pretty happy with the profit margin for DA2 - I think it was that it did better for early sales and was a lot cheaper to make. But don't quote me on that haha.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

Dragon Age: Origins was good but not exactly original. The gameplay mechanics have all been done before (and arguably better) and the world isn't very different from that found in various series of books (or The Witcher, if you want a game comparison).

Why do gamers have this obsession with just having the same game repeated over and over with as little change as possible. If you want that, go fuck Zelda or Mario. I'd rather have a universe wherein a whole variety of game types take place. If I want strategy/RPG then I play Origins, if I want a more action focus I play DA2. It's that damn simple.

Bioware stories/characters left originality behind long ago so now I play them simply for the good/great gameplaym, with no qualms about reliving the same story over and over.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Humans who are dicks? Check.

They're not dicks. What do they do that's particularly dickish?

They're medieval-inspired humans. What do you expect of them? As it is, most of them seem pretty damn nice.

Elves who like nature? Check.

DA elves don't really seem to have much concept of nature. Some of them live in woods, if that's what you mean, but that's really because they're heathen nomads, not because they feel any great connection with nature.

Their magic is quite nature oriented, but really.. that's about it, and that only came in in Awakenings.

Dwarves who live underground? Check.

In most settings dwarves don't exclusively live underground. Even in Tolkien they didn't. Their culture is also radically different from any idea of dwarven culture presented in fantasy literature.

They're also epic bastards. Seriously, who the hell played through DA:O and somehow got the idea that the humans were the dicks? Dwarves are like enormous horse-sized dicks compared to the humans.

Evil wizards who abuse magic? Check.

They're not evil. Except maybe a few abominations like Uldred, but they can't really be called wizards any more. Most blood mages in Dragon Age come off as either desperate or naive, not evil.

Horde of monstrous beings deciding upon the civilized world that the hero and his/her band of united misfits must defeat by killing their evil leader? Super check.

You got that one. Which is why I'm going to make a very radical point.

In terms of story structure, Dragon Age 2 was the better game.

There's a lot you can criticise it for. It was rushed, it had copy pasted dungeons, the combat system wasn't nearly as much fun, the story meandered a bit and ultimately ended disappointingly and it didn't account for the choices you made in origins as much as it should, the character creation was kind of stripped down. But as a story and as a roleplaying game, it was extremely bold, extremely daring and extremely well executed in many ways. It can be remembered as flawed, but it can not be remembered as formulaic. Even a failure made in the name of progress is better than just rehashing the same shit.

As a story and as a roleplaying game, Origins was deliberately generic. It was basically a remake of the standard roleplaying formula, albeit done to a very high standard. Dragon Age 2 ventured right into the heart of the some of the complex politics, moral choices and dilemmas of the dragon age universe. It felt like its own game, rather than just being 'Joseph Campbell rides again' all over again. It's the first game I've played in a very long which gave the sense of stepping into someone's life, rather than just piloting an author insertion fantasy persona through a series of cutscenes and fights. Despite being flawed, it gave me a unique experience which I've never had before in a game, and that's worth celebrating.

So no, I thought Dragon Age 2 was alright. Flawed, yes, but making a flawed game which pushes the boundaries is better than making an okay game which pushes nothing and has no reason to exist beyond killing your time for 30 hours. If you punish bioware for it, you're sending out the message that all you want is endless remakes of plot formulas copied from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. For one, that's not what I want.

 

[RatRace123]

Honestly I thought DA2 was pretty good, the only things that really irked me about it were things that can be easily corrected and it was obviously rushed, the next one needs a lot more development time.
I still enjoyed the story and the characters and the combat system was fun, but the repetition of environments, and the wave after wave of enemy combat and some of the character building elements were a bit wonky; but overall I liked DA2 maybe even more than Origins, even if I preferred some things in Origins to DA2.

Of course I also think that Mass Effect 1 is better than its sequel, so I might have weird tastes. I still don't think DA2 deserves anywhere near the level of hate it gets.

 

[castlewise]

In my opinion DA2 had a good story and very mediocre gameplay. That makes it an ok game, not an abject failure. There are plenty of games that are way worse. Pick any of the licenced shovelware titles.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Try to revert to what it was and not piss in it.
They need to work on the next one carefully, not rush it, take their time with it, make it as it was before (you know, when it had CUSTOMIZATION)and above all: NOT USE IT AS A TEASER FOR HOW HAWT THE NEXT MASS EFFECT WILL BE.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

-snip for ease-

They're not dicks. What do they do that's particularly dickish?

They're medieval-inspired humans. What do you expect of them? As it is, most of them seem pretty damn nice.

Loghain? Slavers? Racism against elves? Plenty of dickish nobles?

In most settings dwarves don't exclusively live underground. Even in Tolkien they didn't. Their culture is also radically different from any idea of dwarven culture presented in fantasy literature.

Most of the settings that I know of usually have dwarves as a race of beings very much connected with the earth. They usually live underground, though not exclusively.

They're not evil. Except maybe a few abominations like Uldred, but they can't really be called wizards any more. Most blood mages in Dragon Age come off as either desperate or naive, not evil.

Teviter Imperium? That's an entire empire run by mages. And mages keep popping up all the time in both games that make it rather hard to stay on the "Mages are people just like us" side. Sure some are desperate but there are also some that

Although all in all, I don't see why we're arguing. I'm not saying the Dragon Age setting as a whole is "Generic Fantasy Setting #726". It obviously pulls alot from classic Tolkieneqse fantasy, but it adds its own spin on most of the stuff. Rather than being a bunch of noble beings, the elves are all second-class citizens or nomads trying to reclaim their lost culture. The dwarves have an extremely strict social structure filled with intrigue throughout it. Wizards run the gamut when it comes to drives, from noble and caring to selfish and cruel to naive and scared. And I'm not one of the people who complain about DA2 being horrible. I see all that whining as being a bunch of "they changed it, now it sucks". I really liked the story as it wasn't concerned with some world-threatening evil force. Instead it focused on one person who ended up being very influential in several different important events in a particular city. Much of "personal" overall, which in my opinion is good.

 

[Inkidu]

Dragon Age is something that is not about one Warden or Champion, and people looking for a Shepard don't get it.

 

[Periodic]

I don't really care. Dragon Age Origins was so well received because it was seen as Bioware starting to go back to their roots, but objectively it was mediocre, and DA2 dashed all hopes that Bioware will ever make pure RPGs ever again.

It would be nice if they tried to make something LIKE it again, but I scoff at anybody who really cares about the franchise. The first thing I noticed when I started playing DAO was how utterly generic the setting was. If it didn't have the Bioware named attached, nobody would care.

 

[Inkidu]

DA2 dashed all hopes that Bioware will ever make pure RPGs ever again.

No such animal. Is it something to do with stats? DA2's got 'em. Is it characters and choices? DA2's got it. Please point out a pure RPG.

 

[Periodic]

No such animal. Is it something to do with stats? DA2's got 'em. Is it characters and choices? DA2's got it. Please point out a pure RPG.

I'm not going to involve myself in this idiotic debate.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I can understand criticisms of the game, but not criticisms of the writing. The writing was as good as DA:0's, despite a few choice bits that I just found jarring.

Spoiler: An example would be, to me

"The Mage Question" and "The Tranquil Solution". It simply felt cheesy given the obvious references to Nazi Germany it entailed.

 

[ace_of_something]

Maybe if they don't release DA:3 for the Xbox360 it will have more variety in the locations.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I can understand criticisms of the game, but not criticisms of the writing. The writing was as good as DA:0's, despite a few choice bits that I just found jarring.

Spoiler: An example would be, to me

"The Mage Question" and "The Tranquil Solution". It simply felt cheesy given the obvious references to Nazi Germany it entailed.

Although I don't think DA:O had the best writing, either. See also: "swooping would be bad." Mass Effect as a series has a lot better writing, IMO.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I didn't realize the Dragon Age series was in trouble. I enjoyed both games quite a lot. What I want them to do is to get lithographs out of Merrill (Meredith and the Arishock? Really?), but since that's done by someone completely different, not much I can do...

Both games had problems, but none of them are series killers.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

Haven't played 2 yet, but if it's as abysmal as 1...

 

[DarkhoIlow]

The only thing that could save this franchise is EA to let Bioware do it's thing and finish a game,not shove a deadline up their throats.