Guest_Julian_Kraynog_*
Hey all, this is more or less my first time expressing my opinions about both the games DA:O and DA 2. The amount of time I spent playing these two games made me feel that not leaving a proper feedback to the devs is almost an insult to them.
After playing and finishing both the games simultaneously again , and also just recently, I believe I have a fresh enough "feel" and clear opinions on both games. I would really like Bioware to just take a look at my review and ideas on their franchise so far and nothing more.
Firstly I would like to convey my feelings regarding how both the games turned out overall. DAO was a great game, from the very start, to it's very end (depending on how you would like the both to be, ofcourse). So did DA 2, in it's own way and for the amount of development time put on it compared to Origins. I decided that would divide the review into relevent segments and state my opinions accordingly. I've also added a "Verdict" part for each segment and added suggestions to each of the topics. So here we go...
Player goal - I think the first advantage for Origins over DA 2 in my opinion was that it had a clear goal - the quelling of the blight. Most people at this point would say that the true advantage of this game over DA 2 are the offered choices and customization, but I am willing to bet my money on it when I say that that "clear goal" was the true advantage albiet a hidden one.
I felt DA 2 really lacked this for the following reasons. During the game's prerelease time, all the ads I've seen about it was how the character named hawke would become champion of kirkwall, when in reality, I was made champion 2/3 of the game and was called so, the rest of it's 1/3. So if the goal was not "becoming the champion" what was it? Either I really missed the actual goal or I simply did not get it.
As I remember, in Origins, I was never called Hero of Ferelden until I actually finished the game, and if I even want to hear someone call me that, I had to do the dark ritual, live and hear about it from the King/Queen. This was because the goal in DAO was not to become the Hero of Ferelden i.e. to attain a special title, but to defeat the Archdemon. This clarity of the final goal seemed to be the strong point that DA 2 sorely lacked, in my opinion.
Verdict: It would be nice if Bioware takes precautions regarding DA 3 in this matter. Having a definitive goal clearly compels the player(which it did for me while playing Origins) to reach it with much more motivation and keeps the game fun compared to an unclear one(I remember constantly asking myself why I was going through all this when doing certain quests, a lot of them being main quests), as was the case in DA 2 from my point of view.
Main quests - I think both games have their faults in this aspect.
In DAO, it seemed like you would always go after something that has a very remote chance of existing/happening, let alone helping you gain allies for the blight. The best example here would be the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest. So one would embark on a journey all the way to a remote mountain top where at the bottom sits a village which wasn't even on any map? And you do this because the Orlesian Arlessa said so? I mean it's not that you shouldn't, it's just that you barely find any clues regarding this, to even start your journey. When Sten stopped and confronted me, I felt like he was the only sane person among the whole group to actually stop and inquire about the stupidity of the decision. And then in Orzammar, after all the things you do for either of the dwarwen nobles, you still have to look for the Paragon in the very depths of the deep roads to ask her which one of them she would like to crown? Especially when every other dwarf in the city tells you there's no chance of you finding her. Heck, you can talk to the Legion of the Dead Commander in the Deep Roads, and even he says you got as much a chance of finding one Paragon as there is to find ten. Only the Dalish main quest and the Circle of Magi quest made sense to me, as you can choose to save or quickly terminate the problem to get what you want in either case. I did not hate the game because of this mind you, I was simply astounded as how the Grey Warden, whose immediate goal is to vanquish the blight, pursued, put effort, and dwelled on missions that had such low chances of success. I thought Grey Wardens motto is defeat the blights at whatever the costs, not "whatever... let's go"
.Verdict: Please do not misunderstand me by thinking that I'm whining about a four year old game. It's just that I would like to caution Bioware to place more effort into quest details in their future creations. The Grey Warden is desperate but not so much that he would try to pursue the silliest rumors. To be honest, I really liked what Bioware did with the Journal by adding a Rumors section to it. As you go about the story, the Rumor section gets updated until it's not just a rumor anymore. I would like to this feature continue in DA 3, maybe even some kind of expansion in the way it works. This isn't anything big, more like negligible for me in Origins, but also felt silly while doing the quests.
Now for the DA 2 part. I decided to consider the acts in the game as the real main quests, to simplify my deduction. Of all the three acts, I found the first one to be the most forgiving for some reason. Maybe it's because everyone felt to be emotionally passive in the first act, especially my companions. Anyway my point is that, I felt that ACT 1(or it's goal, to be more precise) made more sense to me than the rest of the two acts. Hawke left lothering with only the clothes he's wearing. Now he needs coin. Bartrand's expedition will ensure coin(the big break), so Hawke needs to find ways to get in. All this contributed to Hawke's "current" goal well enough, but barely as far as the overall plot is concerned. Again, I do not see the end goal for this game. By this point I believe some would argue with me that I did indeed miss the goal and the goal was Varric explaining to Cassandra how Hawke and his actions contributed to the Magi rebellion. This is amusing to me as the Mage responsible for the current state was indeed Anders, not Hawke(her accusations against Hawke to me sounded even more ridiculous when I played a non-Mage character). Even if the Champion did not help Anders in anyway, not accept even a single quest from him excluding the first one, Anders would destroy the Chantry and start the war. This was one of reasons why I felt that the first act had little to no relevence to the overall plot. Cassandra and Varric start off as if it all started with the deep roads, but what really started it was Anders. The idol just added a little bit of fuel to the fire, but was not the cause of it. Regardless I still felt that it was the most sensible act in the game as it's own end goal was clear "get into expedition, get rich, make mommy happy, atleast until she smells the white lillies".
ACT 2 was sorta interesting because of the Qunari(personal interest), but otherwise is completely irrelevent to what Varric and Cassandra were discussing about, in my opinion. The discussion about how Hawke became the Champion was unnecessary. Even if it was, there's nothing more to it than Hawke defeating/making the Qunari leave. This needn't be heard in a very detailed manner from Varric. Unlike ACT 1, this act had no end goal to it, not even a goal as small as "get rich" like in the first. You help Viscount Dumar, help Arishok only to have his men throw lances at you for no other reason than your journal being empty of quests.I also felt that ACT2 was the shortest of the three. So short and simple that I have nothing more to add to it.
Finally, ACT 3. I think the goal here was to explain to the player why Cassandra interrogated Varric in the first place, believed that Hawke was the one responsible even though everyone saw that debacle at the Chantry. By the way the conversation ensued throughout the game and ended after ACT 3, it seemed to me the goal(Cassandra's point in interrogating Varric) was constantly warped until it was "Where is Hawke now?" I might be wrong, but this was the impression I got after finishing the game. The three acts felt somehow very similar to the overall events during the Mass Effect trilogy. Act 1 - Hawke moving up in the world, Mass effect-1 Shepard moving up in the world. ACT 2 Hawke defeating Qunari unrelated to plot, Mass effect 2 Shepard stopping collecters unrelated to plot. ACT 3- Hawke thrown into Mage-Templar war chaos, Mass effect-3 Shepard facing the Reaper war. Please note that this is only a deduction that I found amusing and interesting. I also acknowledge that it's not that simple, just wanted to point it out regardless.
Verdict: I would really like to see quests have a lot more impact or create such an amount than just become gateways to "get on with the story", like they did in DA 2's story. I really liked the small bits of detail in DA O where each of the main quests triggered some sort of change in the outside world. Lothering being destroyed or the encounters with Darkspawn where you team up with the faction(Dwarves, Elves, Mages etc) you just liberated(not to mention the dreams you have in camp and the ambush), weren't much but enough to make you feel like you're going somewhere. I would like to see Bioware expand even more on this idea.
Companions comparision- I believe this is where a lot of people had mixed feelings between both the games. Overall, I felt that Origins companions fared better than DA2, BUT by a very very narrow margin. There weren't a lot of flaws to pick at as far as Origins companions are concerned. This was partly because while they will remain with you until the end(end being death, leaving or end battle), they have only one companion quest each. As far as they were concerned individually, their own problems were solved in a one time only manner at which point they stop complaining, or aren't there to complain anymore.
One advantage Origins' companions provided to DA: O on the whole than the ones in DA 2 is, they prioritized my goal/problems over theirs. This sense of giving my problems more importance than theirs was something I liked in DA: O compared to DA 2. Although I cannot deny the fact that by the time I collected them("picking them up" seems to convey a disturbing message), they acknowledge that what I'm striving for is pretty much the only thing that matters and worthy enough for them to help. Therefore, in this case I will not fault the DA 2 characters to place more importance on their own issues as there is no immediate threat like in DA O. Having said that, I found the personalities of the characters in DA 2 to be a bit too linear and obvious. It would take not more than a handful of conversations to almost completely understand what kind of characters they are, what they prefer and what they don't, not to mention how each of them sings their own song of personal preference, for the entirety of the game. Anders never shuts up about templars, Fenris about magisters, Merril about the dalish, Aveline about Wesley, Carver about me, Isabella about sex. Varric seemed to be the only guy who spends a generous amount of time talking about his brother before moving on.
I still remember the time when I was pulling my hair trying to understand DA O characters, how to raise their approval, and what gifts they like when I first played the game. I spent nowhere near the amount of time trying to understand the companions in DA2. I also remember seeing a lot of posts on the internet where people were asking about the Origins companions and how to please them and not as much about DA 2 companions, only discussions. And this is what I believe was the strong point of Origins companions compared to DA 2. Every companion in DA 2 seemed to reveal his/her nature(even start that way) as easily as they would flirt or have sex with you. I really liked it when approval was simple in DA O. You start at the centre, and depending on choices your companion would either hate you or date you(in a nut shell), especially when too much hate can be a danger where the companion would turn hostile on you(only in some cases), and you would have to kill him/her. Although this doesn't imply that I like everything about this system in DA O.
For example, I do not like how the companions would "confront" you the next time you're in camp. I'd rather see them "confront" me in a scenario where I took yet another hateful path(in their perspective). Then they would spout something close to "I've had it with you" before or after I do the deed and attack me. Leliana and Wynne would do so during the Urn of sacred ashes quest but even that was a tad bit disappointing. Let's say I've ran through many quests with Leliana in my party. Now it's time for UOSA quest and I chose to defile the ashes. Regardless of "what we've been through" Leliana will attack me if I do not choose the intimidate option. Rivalry in DA 2 did not appeal to me as much either. I cannot understand why a character would want to be in a romance with me if he/she does not agree with me on most cases. It never occured to me or people around me in my real life, so I don't see how that works in DA 2(although, it could be that things like that do happen in real life, and I've just never been in or witnessed such a situation). Overall, they were undesirably tranparent and provided little to work for to ensure a serious relationship with them.
Verdict: I do not think companions should be limited to siding with or leaving the player's side only during the grand finale, like in DA 2. Nor should they leave and attack me just because I defiled the ashes or have done something similar, like in DA O. There should be a middle ground here, where any point in the game could be a attack/defend scenario, but it should not happen in a frenzy(like with Leliana or Wynne, no matter how much approval they had). My suggestion here for Bioware is that in DA 3, if possible they should implement an "Involvement meter". The meter rises as long as the companions are involved in matters that the protagonist attends to, or matters where they voice their opinion, regardless of whether or not the player agreed or disagreed with the companion, much like the Paragon/Renegade meter in Mass Effect 3, but this time specifically built for obtaining deeply laid out relationships with party members. Let's take Zevran for example. I recruited him after his assassination attempt on me, but rarely used him, i.e. never took him along with me and involved him in quests. Therefore, he will carry a near-zero involvement meter, which will lead him to abandon me when Taliesen shows up. The same need not happen when his involvement meter is very high but is on Rivalry. He may side with me when we meet Taliesen, but later when I make a decision during a quest which he participates in, it might have the breaking point where he will split from or attack me. Anyway, regardless of whether or not my suggestion is taken up, I believe that the fact remains that companions need to be more versatile when taking sides and all their experiences with the player character must count.
Minor elements- I found it interesting how most of the minor elements I thought could be improved in DA O were actually done so by the developers in Dragon age 2. I am glad for that. Although, I would really appreciate it if bioware referred to the Darkspawn look in Origins and not DA 2 as they were much better in the first game. I was disappointed when I first looked upon those pale zombie-like creatures, barely frightening. Kinda made me feel like as if they miss the Warden and haven't been eating properly since. I also hope you bring back Emissaries and Leaders in DA 3 which were absent throughout the DA 2 game(not including Legacy).
Dialogue wheel- I have always hated the dialogue wheel no matter how many uses/advantages bioware claims it has. But after playing through Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2, I feel that there really isn't much of an option other than that that keeps the dialogue interface clean. My only plea to Bioware is that you include the "full statement" of what my character will say and not the dumbed down unclear version of it. I find it a bit surprising that not many people are bothered about not being able to know what your character is going to say or when your character asks a question when you choose simple options like "No.", during conversations. If you believe the statements will take too much space which is why you use short sentences, then maybe you could add a mechanic where the option simply expands to be the full statement when moused over. Just something to think about.
Anyway, thanks for reading my overly long post if you have. Please do not hesitate to post your opinions on the matter, as long as they are done so respectably. Also, excuse the bluntness of my post, English isn't really my strong suit.
Modifié par Julian_Kraynog, 13 novembre 2012 - 03:29 .
Retour en haut
