Why Dragon Age II Should Have Been a New IP

[Krantos]

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.

Played the demo, and half my friends still bought it, so am basing what wasn't shown in the demo on their feedback and that of reviews.

Again: II'm not saying the game is bad. I'm just saying it should have been a new IP.

 

[Krantos]

So because its not expansive enough...it has to start over?

ARGH! No! It has to start over because all other parts of it are radically different from the first. Combat - different. Art Style - Different. Dialogue system - Different. Lore - Generic.

Names are the only thing it has to connect it to the first game.

The world is not the reason it should change, but it's also not expansive enough to justify keeping.

If the world were distinct and interesting enough, it would be reason to make it a sequel despite the other changes. In Dragon Age it's simply not.

 

[Rayne870]

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.

What's wrong with introducing new lore to an existing world and expanding on it? The Fable series has used the same world, and yes the games aren't that amazing but it shows you can use the same world, show it from a different aspect and that not all sequels have to be direct sequels with all of the same characters.

Since you have friends that bought it, play it when they are finished and see if you still have the same stance on whether or not it should have been a new IP. I would be interested to hear about the results of that after, even if you stand by your original opinion.

 

[whtkid6969]

To be quite honest, my only complantis that the darkspawn look like crap. In origins, i could actually feel fear, in origins, not so much from the pasty white malnorsched locust

 

[Krantos]

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 think that's actually a really good point.

The only thing I can really say counter to it, is they would have been able to develop a new, more interesting world if they'd made a new one. Already the art style and combat in DAII borrows more heavily from anime than anything western, and frankly it seems a rather awkward meshing. Western Fantasy archetypes and settings, with anime inspired combat and character designs... would have made more sense if it wasn't in a world that was already defined as predominantly western in appearance.

 

[Saelune]

So because its not expansive enough...it has to start over?

ARGH! No! It has to start over because all other parts of it are radically different from the first. Combat - different. Art Style - Different. Dialogue system - Different. Lore - Generic.

Names are the only thing it has to connect it to the first game.

The world is not the reason it should change, but it's also not expansive enough to justify keeping.

If the world were distinct and interesting enough, it would be reason to make it a sequel despite the other changes. In Dragon Age it's simply not.

At this point I think you are just too demanding. A new IP seems too extreme simply because they tried new things and you felt they were boring before. Trying new stuff, radical changes, this is how origionallity, something you said you want, is made. Also, sometimes you need to learn so to improve.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Keeping the same IP does get you more sales from the get-go than making a new IP. Do you know how much it costs to advertise a game? It's a lot of money that could be saved with a sequel. You don't need to advertise as much, or with the same budget you'll reach more players. Game boycotts never works, so I don't see how that could even begin to potentially affect the sales figure.

Why do you think that Call of Duty (a less than stellar franchise by now) is so damn popular? It's simply because it draws from the huge pool of players that have played the previous game. Now, if a sequel can increase the sales of an average game by drawing from the previous pool of gamers, imagine what it could do for such an epic experience that Dragon Age II is.

Just take for example what Dust 514 will be. It's not a new IP as it will be a tie-in with Eve Online, but it will only work simply because it's related to the Eve Online IP. Why would CCP bother to make a new IP when it can draw from a poll of 300000+ dedicated players? It's the same concept. Well known IP = more money.

 

[Starke]

Then, if you have arguments to make, read the rest first, because I probably already addressed a lot of the obvious ones.

Honestly, the same argument is probably at least as valid when regarding Mass Effect 2 as DAO/DA2, and I think that might partially explain the situation on the whole. Bioware has taken to meddling with their sequels far too much, basically in the ways you're outlining. They want to further explore the setting or continue the story or whatever, but they seem to have no idea how to do that without massively altering or undermining the setting.

They changed the mechanics, in both cases, claiming that they were streamlining the systems, but really it strikes me as after the fact meddling. So the short answer, why is it DA2 and not some new IP falls down to two points, 1) they can draw sales in on day one with a sequel far more effectively than they can with a new IP, and 2) because it began as a DA project, so why would it become something else just because they massively overhauled it in development.

 

[Rayne870]

So because its not expansive enough...it has to start over?

ARGH! No! It has to start over because all other parts of it are radically different from the first. Combat - different. Art Style - Different. Dialogue system - Different. Lore - Generic.

Names are the only thing it has to connect it to the first game.

The world is not the reason it should change, but it's also not expansive enough to justify keeping.

If the world were distinct and interesting enough, it would be reason to make it a sequel despite the other changes. In Dragon Age it's simply not.

At this point I think you are just too demanding. A new IP seems too extreme simply because they tried new things and you felt they were boring before. Trying new stuff, radical changes, this is how origionallity, something you said you want, is made. Also, sometimes you need to learn so to improve.

It would also mean virtually any IP would stop at each first game since most IPs usually go through a lot of changes throughout the series. Essentially from what I have observed the first installment is an experiment, the second is adjustment to feedback and what they didn't have time to do in the first. And usually by the third the series is done and has all the polish it should have had, which often leaves people thinking if the first one had the mechanics of the third game it would have been so awesome.

 

[Tirak]

So because its not expansive enough...it has to start over?

ARGH! No! It has to start over because all other parts of it are radically different from the first. Combat - different. Art Style - Different. Dialogue system - Different. Lore - Generic.

Names are the only thing it has to connect it to the first game.

The world is not the reason it should change, but it's also not expansive enough to justify keeping.

If the world were distinct and interesting enough, it would be reason to make it a sequel despite the other changes. In Dragon Age it's simply not.

You are in fact very wrong. The world is a good enough reason to justify keeping. Why? Because as someone earlier referenced D&D, what we're doing is world building. DA:O may be generic, but part of that is because we focus in on a tiny part of the world, on a tiny number of people. Anytown USA is bland and generic, does that mean the US is bland and generic? As the game progresses we learn more and more about the world, the bigger world. More about the cultures and races, things that either weren't or couldn't be explored in DA:O. We build on the world instead of tearing it down and starting a new one.

Your statement about what changed isn't what makes the world. Gameplay, mechanical gameplay does not tell the story in a game like this. Art style, that's easy enough to justify, we're getting a new character perspective which is reflected by the change in art style. Dialogue System still gives you about as much control as you always had, face it all the extra window dressing really doesn't change it, Lore is being built. You're far too impatient. You want to see the whole world in the first act then have people fill in the general parts, but you don't want any generic lore. That's not how this world got built. We saw a small slice, now we're adding another slice, and then we'll add another, and the world will get bigger and bigger and the lore more and more complex. It's story building.

 

[Krantos]

At this point I think you are just too demanding.

That's quite possible, and to be honest, I would like to learn more about Thedas. I think it has a lot more potential than was displayed in Origins.

I guess, I just feel that the other aspects of the game are too dissimilar to the first. It'd be like if they announced Skyrim was going to feature JRPG style turn-based combat, only allow players to play as Nords, and eliminate the magicka mechanic. But then they'd just call it Fable 4.

And, to be fair, Origins was ugly on the consoles (played that first then bought the Ultimate edition for PC when Impulse put it on sale for $25). I can see why they'd want to change the art style, it was just so drastically different that it's hard to consider the two games as part of the same thing.

I do like the new armors, too. Can't stand the over sized weapons, but I guess that's what's popular.

I know almost no one will agree with me on this, but I know I'd have been kinder to the game if it was a new IP.

 

[Saelune]

At this point I think you are just too demanding.

That's quite possible, and to be honest, I would like to learn more about Thedas. I think it has a lot more potential than was displayed in Origins.

I guess, I just feel that the other aspects of the game are too dissimilar to the first. It'd be like if they announced Skyrim was going to feature JRPG style turn-based combat, only allow players to play as Nords, and eliminate the magicka mechanic. But then they'd just call it Fable 4.

And, to be fair, Origins was ugly on the consoles (played that first then bought the Ultimate edition for PC when Impulse put it on sale for $25). I can see why they'd want to change the art style, it was just so drastically different that it's hard to consider the two games as part of the same thing.

I do like the new armors, too. Can't stand the over sized weapons, but I guess that's what's popular.

I know almost no one will agree with me on this, but I know I'd have been kinder to the game if it was a new IP.

Shoulda used that Skyrim example earlier. Now I can better see what you mean, and though I still stand on my side, I now atleast understand your feelings on it.

 

[Snotnarok]

Despite your points, it's the same races, same world, same spell names, same terms, same enemy, same threat.

The gameplay is similar though there's a lot of heavy differences in menus and item workings.

Biggest thing is they fixed a lot by stripping out the players choices in race which I honestly don't mind since the only differences between the races were you were skinnier and taller, shorter and meatier or short and thick as a log with different backstories, but it still didn't matter through much of the game in 1.

And they fixed the my biggest gripe the main bloody character not talking, everyone else does but him/her. It broke every conversation for me.

It's the same game series, it'd be insane not to name it the same thing.

 

[Krantos]

You are in fact very wrong. The world is a good enough reason to justify keeping. Why? Because as someone earlier referenced D&D, what we're doing is world building. DA:O may be generic, but part of that is because we focus in on a tiny part of the world, on a tiny number of people. Anytown USA is bland and generic, does that mean the US is bland and generic? As the game progresses we learn more and more about the world, the bigger world. More about the cultures and races, things that either weren't or couldn't be explored in DA:O. We build on the world instead of tearing it down and starting a new one.

Your statement about what changed isn't what makes the world. Gameplay, mechanical gameplay does not tell the story in a game like this. Art style, that's easy enough to justify, we're getting a new character perspective which is reflected by the change in art style. Dialogue System still gives you about as much control as you always had, face it all the extra window dressing really doesn't change it, Lore is being built. You're far too impatient. You want to see the whole world in the first act then have people fill in the general parts, but you don't want any generic lore. That's not how this world got built. We saw a small slice, now we're adding another slice, and then we'll add another, and the world will get bigger and bigger and the lore more and more complex. It's story building.

*sigh*

You know, when I wrote this, I definitely would not guessed this would be the main topic of contention.

Yes, sequels can and do radically improve the knowledge of the game world.

No, I was not expecting to hear about everything in Origins.

No, I don't fault DAII for taking place in Kirkwall.

The point I have been trying, unsuccessfully it appears, to make is that the world introduced in Origins was not distinct enough that you couldn't use all the same elements in a different setting.

That does not mean they should have changed the setting. Generic nature of the world is NOT the reason I think it should have been a new IP.

With me so far?

My argument was that the other elements are so drastically different that it should have a new setting. My statement about the world was there to say that the setting was not distinct enough that changing the names of things would change the experience or story.

Are we clear on that yet?

 

[pezwitch]

I agree the game should have been a new IP.

Take Warcraft. You start with Warcraft: Orcs and Humans and move to Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness to Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne to World of Warcraft and the moves make sense. There are 8 years between the first game and the last, but take an Orc from Orcs and Humans and a current guard in Orgrimmar and you can see they are the same race. They look related. Jaina in Warcraft 3 is recognizable as Jaina in WoW.

Now take a look at the darkspawn from DA:O and the darkspawn from the DA2 demo. Take a look at Isabela from DA:O and Isabela from DA2. Now, Flemith. There is less than two years between DA:O and DA2 and the changes are very jarring.

And, I don't like the idea of the game being a story told by a dwarf. It pulls me out of immersion and makes the whole game feel more linear, like I'm not really a part of the story, I'm just watching it because the story has already happened and all my playing is just a flashback and may be a lie (if the Incredible Inflatable Breasts are to be believed). And if that was just part of the demo, then fine, Bioware fell down on creating the demo because it annoyed me and reinforced my decision to not purchase or play the game.

I would have felt more positive about the game if the Dragon Age name wasn't attached to it.

 

[omegawyrm]

I understand that a lot of people wanted their stories from DA:O to continue, But there are about a million subtle things that could radically alter the story and tone of a sequel. Not the least of which being that your player character could be dead.

Also Dragon Age 2 is like an anime? WTF are you talking about?

I'm sorry you didn't think the setting was distinct enough, but that's just your individual opinion. At least enough people like the idea of playing in the same universe with some loose connections to their previous adventures that the game got made, so you're out of luck if you're trying to argue that that opinion is objectively correct.

 

[Haydyn]

Which brings me back to my point why making Dragon Age more like Mass Effect was a huge mistake. I preordered the game anyways, after playing the demo and enjoying it. Less than a day later, and I can't be bothered to get on. Why? Many, many reasons. DA2 took the Awakening approach by removing the abiltiy to walk up and begin talking with a party memeber. I spent half the fucking game doing that in DA:O. Secondly, the character set isn't as strong as the first one. The problem is I like most of them roughly the same, making it hard to choose which ones not tho have in the party.

I mean, really. They brought back one playable character, and it was ANDERS! While funny at times, he's just a plain boring healer. I didn't even have a healer my first playthrough for most of the game because I went to the insanely dreadful Tower of Magi last. And not only that, but his duex Ex Machinima Super Kitty save the party Sir Pounce a Lot is gone! GONE! "Gee, Anders, I know that kitty saved our ass a few times defeating the Darkspawn, but we don't feel it is an appropriate pet for the Deep Raods. So we have decided to make sure you will never find him again, even if you decided to leave the order." You know what? Fuck the Grey Wardens! I'm keeping Anders in my party 24/7. Spite is fun!

 

[Krantos]

Honestly, the same argument is probably at least as valid when regarding Mass Effect 2 as DAO/DA2, and I think that might partially explain the situation on the whole. Bioware has taken to meddling with their sequels far too much, basically in the ways you're outlining. They want to further explore the setting or continue the story or whatever, but they seem to have no idea how to do that without massively altering or undermining the setting.

To an extent, but ME2 was at least still about Shepard and the Reapers. And the art style was the same. Less colorful, yes, but character models were at least recognizable.

They changed the mechanics, in both cases, claiming that they were streamlining the systems, but really it strikes me as after the fact meddling. So the short answer, why is it DA2 and not some new IP falls down to two points, 1) they can draw sales in on day one with a sequel far more effectively than they can with a new IP, and 2) because it began as a DA project, so why would it become something else just because they massively overhauled it in development.

Guess you have me there. Dragon Age II did get a lot of free advertising based on name recognition alone. It was only those of us paying attention to the press releases that realized how radically different it was.

As to the last point, we don't really know when in development the changes occurred. Remember the game came out roughly 1 1/2 years after the first. That's not a lot of time to have the mechanics change midway through. I suspect the changes were planned since the beginning, but, obviously, that's only conjecture.

 

[Krantos]

Also Dragon Age 2 is like an anime? WTF are you talking about?

Unrealistic physics, Character design, absurdly large weapons. I mean really:

need I say more?

 

[TilMorrow]

You got one thing wrong! A party member from one of the origins in DA:O returns alongside Anders. Also Justice returns but he is part of Anders cause he possessed him at some point. Also Hawke is related to the mage from DA:O.