Why Dragon Age II Should Have Been a New IP

[Krantos]

As we all know, the game industry has a bad habit of making sequels rather than introducing new IP?s, but it?s rare that a game comes along that would have truly done better as a new IP. Dragon Age II is one such game.

The question people always ask me is ?Why would BioWare have made it a separate IP??

In order to answer that, you have to look at why a company makes a game a sequel to begin with. Not actually being a part of the game industry I don?t have the inside knowledge on this (I?d love to see Extra Credits do a video on this), but, logically speaking, these are the reasons I can see for making a game into a sequel:

1. To continue developing the story/characters/setting of the first game.
2. To draw in sales from those who liked the first game.

So number one is out when it comes to Dragon Age II. The game features a single returning party member from the first game?s expansion; the story is only tangentially related to the first; and it takes place in completely different part of the world.

It can be argued that the world itself is what the developers wanted to explore further, but that doesn?t hold up. Take any element from Dragon Age?s world and I guarantee it (or at least something incredibly similar) appears in at least a dozen other fantasy stories. Origins was many things, original is not one of them. The game could easily be set in a different world, have all the same basic elements and lose nothing in the transition.

The arguments for new IP are even more compelling when you look at those elements that returned from the Origins. Several characters make reappearances but their designs have been changed so drastically you would never know who they are if the game didn?t tell you. When I saw Flemeth in the demo, my jaw literally hit the ground. Then there are the darkspawn, which make a reappearance as well but have also been radically redesigned (and where are the Genlocks?).

When the only returning elements from the first game in no way resemble themselves, it?s hard to justify calling it a sequel.

In an attempt to wrap this up, other things that were changed to the point of being unrecognizable include: combat, talent trees, dialogue system, weapons and armor styles, etc.

Thus, number two on my list falls flat on its face. I understand that BioWare wanted to produce a more console friendly game and direct it to people who didn?t quite like the first. I get that, and such a thing can be done and done well.

Dragon Age II doesn?t do that.

In order for that approach to work, you can?t alienate those that liked the first game. Otherwise, they?re going to do what fans of Origins are doing, namely, raise a fuss and boycott the sequel. Origins produced a wealth of loyal fans. Those should have been guaranteed sales for the sequel. Instead the game was changed so radically that everything they enjoyed about the first had been stripped away. This produced outrage and boycotting.

This could have been avoided with a new IP. With a new IP, fans of Origins wouldn?t have anything to complain about, because it didn?t touch the franchise. So, instead of boycotting it out of a sense of betrayal, they?d have pre-ordered it because, hell, it was a new IP from BioWare. That used to be an instant sell for tons of gamers.

There was simply no reason to tack the Dragon Age title onto Dragon Age II. The story would have lost nothing transitioning to a new world. It would have saved all those sales from fans of Origins, and it would have left the door open for a more faithful sequel that would have benefitted from the increased attention this game garnered from the console market. By releasing it as ?Dragon Age II,? BioWare lost sales and a sizable portion of its fan base. A shame since a simple renaming could have prevented it.

TL;DR just read the last paragraph. Then, if you have arguments to make, read the rest first, because I probably already addressed a lot of the obvious ones.

 

[Saelune]

Know why its a sequal and not a new IP? Same world. The Elder Scroll games are all sequals, because it continues the story of Tamriel. The hero of Arena is seperate from Daggerfall, from Morrowind, from Oblivion, from Skyrim, but it all affects the same world, hence they are sequals of eachother.
Dragon Age 2 shows a different part of events in the Dragon Age world.

 

[Krantos]

Know why its a sequal and not a new IP? Same world. The Elder Scroll games are all sequals, because it continues the story of Tamriel. The hero of Arena is seperate from Daggerfall, from Morrowind, from Oblivion, from Skyrim, but it all affects the same world, hence they are sequals of eachother.
Dragon Age 2 shows a different part of events in the Dragon Age world.

Please read the rest of my post next time.

*ahem*
"It can be argued that the world itself is what the developers wanted to explore further, but that doesn't hold up. Take any element from Dragon Age's world and I guarantee it (or at least something incredibly similar) appears in at least a dozen other fantasy stories. Origins was many things, original is not one of them. The game could easily be set in a different world, have all the same basic elements and lose nothing in the transition."

 

[Saelune]

Know why its a sequal and not a new IP? Same world. The Elder Scroll games are all sequals, because it continues the story of Tamriel. The hero of Arena is seperate from Daggerfall, from Morrowind, from Oblivion, from Skyrim, but it all affects the same world, hence they are sequals of eachother.
Dragon Age 2 shows a different part of events in the Dragon Age world.

Please read the rest of my post next time.

*ahem*
"It can be argued that the world itself is what the developers wanted to explore further, but that doesn't hold up. Take any element from Dragon Age's world and I guarantee it (or at least something incredibly similar) appears in at least a dozen other fantasy stories. Origins was many things, original is not one of them. The game could easily be set in a different world, have all the same basic elements and lose nothing in the transition."

Now you are going off topic. You want origional in games? Then go live in the 80's. Everything in any game is in another game. Its just about how all those unorigional aspects come together that make uniqueness. (Just like any human is made up of a unique array of non unique DNA)

 

[Tibike77]

Now you are going off topic. You want origional in games? Then go live in the 80's. Everything in any game is in another game. Its just about how all those unorigional aspects come together that make uniqueness. (Just like any human is made up of a unique array of non unique DNA)

Your argument makes no sense. Replace "games" with "music" and then replace "aspects" with "musical notes", and you should be able to see quite easily just how ridiculous that sounds.
And hey, there's far, far fewer musical notes than possible elements in a game, yet people are still coming up with thousands of (granted, most not extremely original, but at least some) new songs each year.
There's no shortage of POTENTIAL originality in gaming (heck, look at the countless small indie games popping up left and right), but the BIG gaming companies don't want to even try to take any risks and instead want to target the largest possible audience (which usually means catering to the lowest common denominator).

 

[Saelune]

Now you are going off topic. You want origional in games? Then go live in the 80's. Everything in any game is in another game. Its just about how all those unorigional aspects come together that make uniqueness. (Just like any human is made up of a unique array of non unique DNA)

Your argument makes no sense. Replace "games" with "music" and then replace "aspects" with "musical notes", and you should be able to see quite easily just how ridiculous that sounds.
And hey, there's far, far fewer musical notes than possible elements in a game, yet people are still coming up with thousands of (granted, most not extremely original, but at least some) new songs each year.
There's no shortage of POTENTIAL originality in gaming (heck, look at the countless small indie games popping up left and right), but the BIG gaming companies don't want to even try to take any risks and instead want to target the largest possible audience (which usually means catering to the lowest common denominator).

You assume I argue different on music than games. I personally embrace the absence of origionallity. I like music that is similar to music I already like. I like games that are similar to games I already like. I also like food that is similar to food I like, incase you wanted to mention that too. Food is another thing that is different using the same. Many indie games seem new, because they are taking alot of inspiration from old arcade games. Many of them I can imagine in an Arcade machine. It just seems different cause it has better tech, and is no longer in the spotlight. One day indie gamers will make WW2 games and be called origional I bet.

 

[Rayne870]

For me the actual mechanics of DA2 are what should have been in DA and DA:O, the only thing that bugs me is not continuing your character between the games, but I do really appreciate that the events/choices of DAO and DAO:A carry over into DA2. And it doesn't bother me that much.

Also we have no proof of lost sales yet, or loss of fanbase. Bear in mind it usually isn't a case of the people who are unhappy with something complaining, as the majority of people in any community are largely complacent or contented. The illusion of an unhappy majority is created by a much more vocal minority. It's very simple sociology.

Here is a kicker, I don't exactly like DAO: Due to the melee mechanics and that 1 mob of any type sounds like 10 mobs constantly snarling. DA2 fixed that and I am very happy with those changes. I had to get by being a fan of DAO by watching my fiance play her mage and only listening to the story elements.

 

[Krantos]

Now you are going off topic.

Um. No, I'm not. The world in and of itself is not the reason I gave to make a new IP, but neither is it a compelling enough reason to keep the same one.

You used The Elder Scrolls as an example, but it doesn't fit. Each Elder Scrolls title took place in a new location, but the basic gameplay was the same from game to game with only subtle changes. Area to Daggerfall introduced the "you get better by doing" but kept the same basic interface and play style. Morrowind reduced the number of skills and introduced 3D, but, again, the bulk of the gameplay remained the same.

That's not true of Dragon Age II.

 

[Eldarion]

I kinda agree. I liked dragon age origins, if we aren't continuing the story with my character from the first game....I'm....not interested.

 

[Saelune]

Now you are going off topic.

Um. No, I'm not. The world in and of itself is not the reason I gave to make a new IP, but neither is it a compelling enough reason to keep the same one.

You used The Elder Scrolls as an example, but it doesn't fit. Each Elder Scrolls title took place in a new location, but the basic gameplay was the same from game to game with only subtle changes. Area to Daggerfall introduced the "you get better by doing" but kept the same basic interface and play style. Morrowind reduced the number of skills and introduced 3D, but, again, the bulk of the gameplay remained the same.

That's not true of Dragon Age II.

Ok, cannot argue with you on that yet. I have not played Dragon Age 2 beyond the demo yet, so I do not know how it plays. However, when it is the same lore, I view it as a continuation, a sequal, so regardless it still is part of it.
Now, here is where I may concede defeat, what exactly do you mean by new IP then? Maybe I am missing something here then.

 

[Krantos]

For me the actual mechanics of DA2 are what should have been in DA and DA:O, the only thing that bugs me is not continuing your character between the games, but I do really appreciate that the events/choices of DA and DA:O carry over into DA2.

Also we have no proof of lost sales yet, or loss of fanbase. Bear in mind it usually isn't a case of the people who are unhappy with something complaining, as the majority of people in any community are largely complacent or contented. The illusion of an unhappy majority is created by a much more vocal minority. It's very simple sociology.

I know I and at least half my circle of friends are not buying it. If that's true there are at least a few thousand more that are the same.

For reference, I have never been one of those shouty people bitching about the game. I think Dragon Age II could be an interesting game if it wasn't a sequel. I, and others I've talked to, think the best way to display our disapproval to the changes is to simply not buy it. Like I said, though, under a different name I probably would have pre-ordered.

As it stands, the game looks like a transparent attempt to garner more sales by attaching sequel status to a game that is, for all intents and purposes, completely different.

 

[Rayne870]

I kinda agree. I liked dragon age origins, if we aren't continuing the story with my character from the first game....I'm....not interested.

You would have totally hated Might and Magic then...never ever the same characters, hell most games didn't take place on the same planet, but it was all set in the same universe with the same over-plot, yet each game/world had it's own "mini" plot and it totally baked my noodle trying to understand all of it.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I think the idea is that the story of the character from the first game is over, and this is like a different viewpoint... I'm a little surprised they just had somebody else at around the same time period, I was kind of hoping for centuries earlier or centuries later.

As for the combat change, it seems to be better done overall IMO, I didn't get to explore the revised loot though, since they didn't LET you change equipment in the demo. I know Mass Effect 1 did loot somewhat poorly and 2, instead of changing for the better, didn't take chances and did away with it completely.

I. LOVE. Loot. I love chopping up tons of demons to find a new interesting item that may function totally different from the assortment of weapons I already have, I love getting new armor that gives a different look and I love getting stuff. If a game does that well, I will be hard pressed to dislike it unless it does a lot of other stuff wrong.

One thing I do agree with is that the character design seemed radically different, why is Flemeth COMPLETELY different from Flemeth from origins? Does she need to accessorize for each encounter like a guy in a turn-based game with too much gear? The only reason I bought that she was Flemeth was the voice and personality, but I'm onto you, Flemeth, now I know there are more than one.

 

[Rayne870]

For me the actual mechanics of DA2 are what should have been in DA and DA:O, the only thing that bugs me is not continuing your character between the games, but I do really appreciate that the events/choices of DA and DA:O carry over into DA2.

Also we have no proof of lost sales yet, or loss of fanbase. Bear in mind it usually isn't a case of the people who are unhappy with something complaining, as the majority of people in any community are largely complacent or contented. The illusion of an unhappy majority is created by a much more vocal minority. It's very simple sociology.

I know I and at least half my circle of friends are not buying it. If that's true there are at least a few thousand more that are the same.

For reference, I have never been one of those shouty people bitching about the game. I think Dragon Age II could be an interesting game if it wasn't a sequel. I, and others I've talked to, think the best way to display our disapproval to the changes is to simply not buy it. Like I said, though, under a different name I probably would have pre-ordered.

As it stands, the game looks like a transparent attempt to garner more sales by attaching sequel status to a game that is, for all intents and purposes, completely different.

The writing and main world is still there, there may be something for you to enjoy in it yet as the main body of DA was the story. I had to edit and add in more stuff to my previous comment, so you might want to read it and check out my different perspective of the game.

The sociology comment still stands though, coming from the WoW forums I have seen hordes of people threatening to quit and boycott and stuff yet the subscription base is still solid at 11 million plus (minus myself but that was due to social drama from the game and not the game itself).

Edit: @Bushwacker2k, I thought the loot systems of both mass effects fit the games. The issue with ME1 was simply that there was too much loot and it became a burden. Getting random items from kills was a great way to not really slow the pace of the game, can you imagine having to manually loot every corpse and pick up 2 guns and a mod or armor from each enemy. The loot boxes/lockers and all that seemed to be ok in ME1. And ME2 had smaller level sections than ME1 so it made sense to have less stuff to hunt for, plus with the weapons I got I felt like I had enough to do the job. Essentially the way I looked at it was the first playthrough on a file in ME2 was that you get 1 weapon and 1 upgrade for each recruit weapon, and 2 upgrades per each loyalty mission. It isn't consistent for every mission but it is pretty close and I did appreciate not having to focus on loot management in ME2.

All of that said though if they tweaked it and put it somewhere in the middle between ME1 and ME2 style I wouldn't complain.

 

[Eldarion]

I kinda agree. I liked dragon age origins, if we aren't continuing the story with my character from the first game....I'm....not interested.

You would have totally hated Might and Magic then...never ever the same characters, hell most games didn't take place on the same planet, but it was all set in the same universe with the same over-plot, yet each game/world had it's own "mini" plot and it totally baked my noodle trying to understand all of it.

Yhea and those games aren't trying to be role playing games. I had a character I poured time and effort into. I had relationships with party members that meant something to me. A more apt comparison would be like saying "well mass effect 2 didn't let you play as your old chara.....oh wait no, it did." I was invested in the world and characters of the first game. Sorry dude, its fine if your exited but I'm just not interested.

That and, this new guy has his own name. So its always gonna feel like bioware's character, not mine. It feels like a step backwards. I mean, in origins I role-played an elf who had a chip on his shoulder about his race's enslavement. I could bring that aspect of my character across by being rude to every human I talked to. That was role play. This game is gonna be like watching bioware's character do things and I only get to decide his general attitude. Its mass effect in a fantasy setting. No thanks, I'll just play mass effect because at least that had continuity across 2 games.

 

[Zaik]

Now you are going off topic.

Um. No, I'm not. The world in and of itself is not the reason I gave to make a new IP, but neither is it a compelling enough reason to keep the same one.

You used The Elder Scrolls as an example, but it doesn't fit. Each Elder Scrolls title took place in a new location, but the basic gameplay was the same from game to game with only subtle changes. Area to Daggerfall introduced the "you get better by doing" but kept the same basic interface and play style. Morrowind reduced the number of skills and introduced 3D, but, again, the bulk of the gameplay remained the same.

That's not true of Dragon Age II.

Each TES game addresses a specific point foretold in the Elder Scrolls themselves(As far as I know, I gave up on Arena and haven't finished Daggerfall yet. However, the Nerevarine returning, attacks from Oblivion, and the dragons attacking Skyrim are all in there.). The link between all of them is the whole thing is already foretold. The fact that they play the same is only as relevant, not more or less.

Also did you play the DA2 demo on a console and jump to conclusions, or did you not play the demo or the game at all and jump to conclusions? The gameplay is nearly the same, except the animations are much less stiff and the combat much less incredibly boring. The only real significant change is the inability to equip armor on your companions.

 

[Krantos]

Ok, cannot argue with you on that yet. I have not played Dragon Age 2 beyond the demo yet, so I do not know how it plays. However, when it is the same lore, I view it as a continuation, a sequal, so regardless it still is part of it.
Now, here is where I may concede defeat, what exactly do you mean by new IP then? Maybe I am missing something here then.

Call it something else. "[Insert Generic Fantasy Title Here]."

The point I was making is: Yes, DAII has the same lore. However, the lore introduced in Origins was not compelling nor distinct enough to justify a sequel on its own merits.

Going back to the Elder Scrolls example, if you changed the name of the world and races, Oblivion would still be a sequel to Morrowind.

Here's something to try: Without using any proper nouns, explain the world of Dragon Age (it's called Thedas, btw).

Done? What do you think? Pretty bland isn't it? We really only hear about Fereldan and, to a lesser extent, Orlais and Antiva. We really never hear about Kirkwall or the Free Marshes in Origins.

Again, the change in scenery isn't the reason I said it shouldn't be a sequel, but it's generic enough that it really can't be argued that the game would suffer from a change in lore.

 

[Rayne870]

I kinda agree. I liked dragon age origins, if we aren't continuing the story with my character from the first game....I'm....not interested.

You would have totally hated Might and Magic then...never ever the same characters, hell most games didn't take place on the same planet, but it was all set in the same universe with the same over-plot, yet each game/world had it's own "mini" plot and it totally baked my noodle trying to understand all of it.

Yhea and those games aren't trying to be role playing games. I had a character I poured time and effort into. I had relationships with party members that meant something to me. A more apt comparison would be like saying "well mass effect 2 didn't let you play as your old chara.....oh wait no, it did." I was invested in the world and characters of the first game. Sorry dude, its fine if your exited but I'm just not interested.

That and, this new guy has his own name. So its always gonna feel like bioware's character, not mine. It feels like a step backwards. I mean, in origins I role-played an elf who had a chip on his shoulder about his race's enslavement. I could bring that aspect of my character across by being rude to every human I talked to. That was role play. This game is gonna be like watching bioware's character do things and I only get to decide his general attitude. Its mass effect in a fantasy setting. No thanks, I'll just play mass effect because at least that had continuity across 2 games.

Might and Magic were definitely rpgs...I'm thinking you mean that new one that had nothing to do with 3DO as the company went defunct like 10 years before Ubisoft made that one.

 

[Saelune]

Ok, cannot argue with you on that yet. I have not played Dragon Age 2 beyond the demo yet, so I do not know how it plays. However, when it is the same lore, I view it as a continuation, a sequal, so regardless it still is part of it.
Now, here is where I may concede defeat, what exactly do you mean by new IP then? Maybe I am missing something here then.

Call it something else. "[Insert Generic Fantasy Title Here]."

The point I was making is: Yes, DAII has the same lore. However, the lore introduced in Origins was not compelling nor distinct enough to justify a sequel on its own merits.

Going back to the Elder Scrolls example, if you changed the name of the world and races, Oblivion would still be a sequel to Morrowind.

Here's something to try: Without using any proper nouns, explain the world of Dragon Age (it's called Thedas, btw).

Done? What do you think? Pretty bland isn't it? We really only hear about Fereldan and, to a lesser extent, Orlais and Antiva. We really never hear about Kirkwall or the Free Marshes in Origins.

Again, the change in scenery isn't the reason I said it shouldn't be a sequel, but it's generic enough that it really can't be argued that the game would suffer from a change in lore.

So because its not expansive enough...it has to start over? Even though DA2 would infact, expand on it. DA1 did not have Kirkwall in it...but DA2 does. Now I can add Kirkwall to lore of DA I know. Ever read a DM guide book for Dungeons and Dragons? It advises for creating your world to start small with a single town or dungeon then expand. Maybe the first was bland, but it seems pretty harsh to not LET it expand while complaining it is not expansive enough.

 

[RatRace123]

They couldn't have just slapped a different title on it and called it a new IP.
It has a lot that connects it back to the overall Dragon Age story, and they'd need to develop a different lore, a different world, new characters, etc.

Then people would claim that it's too similar to Dragon Age, which you said it, wasn't really original, it was Bioware's take on the archetypical fantasy elements, and if Dragon Age 2 was a different IP, it'd be another take on those same fantasy elements. That would garner comparisons to Origins, and make people question why not just make a sequel.

I'd think that the redesigned art style was what they wanted to accomplish in Origins, but didn't have the resources to do that, or they were too far in development, or something. They definitely wanted give Dragon Age its own "feeling" which is what they did manage to accomplish in 2.

So, Dragon Age 2 continues the story of the Dragon Age universe (which is the real star of the series.) with some new touches and a new artstyle and a new cast; it may not be all that connected to Origins, but given what I know about it (I haven't played it yet.) it's a worthy sequel to Origins.