60 réponses à ce sujet

[largejack1000]

I've been thinking about this and I'm really curious to know...

 

Sure it had a good storyline and the combat was sound, and it was generally a good game, I'm not knocking it, but why do people talk like it was out of this world? Personally I found the places you could visit very limited, Denerim was small and mostly empty, and the worst part about it was that you traveled via a red line on the map quite literally, interupted only by a single combat sequence from point A to point B. Surely it had a severe lack of exploration and what there was small in scale and very linear??

[Sully13]

Well judgeing buy half the posts ive seen it was either story or fu**ing the party members.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because I could play the character I designed as I designed him. And then I could play again with a very different character and it still worked.

And I really liked the combat.

[Neuromancer]

I really liked all aspects of it. The graphics NOWADAYS make it look shitty but back when it was released it was a solid freaking graphics!

Prolly for me it was the realism of the characters. They didn't feel unidimensional and dialogue options meant something and was thus more realistic.

Eg: Sten gave you 10+ if you thrrstneed to kill him.

Some people in reality react better to more jerk like people or more alpha people and shun goody goody paragon shoes.

[robmokron]

It was how you felt nostalgia from the get go..

What?!

What I mean is how the origins made you feel like you were playing a different character each time. How the origins really affected the main campaign. It was almost like you had played a Dragon age game before origins, and we're looking on how your past choices affected the "new" game. But it was all in one GAME! If that makes any sense to you. Also arcane warrior was a fun spec hahah.

[Fabiano79]

Because it was a comeback of a beloved RPG style of the 1990s that a lot of older gamers used to love; games like the Baldur's Gate series or Planescape: Torment. DAO is not as good as those, but it was the closest a modern game ever achived. It was dense, engaging and adult. What make DA 2 and DAI even more disapointing, with their bright colors and frantic pace.    

[Kaune]

I loved the story, the relationships between the characters and the lore of the world.  

Were the graphics ugly?  Yes.

Did the game's personality more than make up for the graphics? Yes.

[bmwcrazy]

OP, if you think DA:O is small and limited, don't get DA2.

[Coyote X Starrk]

DAO was a great game, but not nearly to the level that some people have put it in my opinion. 

 

I think most people just like to complain. 

[Aaleel]

- I liked the characters, favorite group.

- I like games when you're given a world and can do things in pretty much whatever order you want.  Games where you're looking forward to where is the game going to take me next.  Which is why the repetitive areas and unchanging Kirkwall in DA2 were one of many things that made the game unplayable for me.

- I like putting together an army and actually seeing it in action, this was one of things I hated about ME3.  Seeing the army fighting with you was awesome, and having Eamon, and Irving and others come out in the final fight with the Archdemon was priceless.

- I like longer missions like the Deep Roads I always play it in one sitting,

- I like customizing my companions armor.

- I liked the job choices.  I don't like playing mages but I like playing hybrid mage/warrior jobs like arcane warrior, or mystic knight in Dragon's Dogma.  I liked being able to play a dual wield warrior, S & S, or two hander.

- I liked making a choice and actually having two outcomes

- I liked being able to craft things myself, especially in the field, and not have to be limited to only buying items in a city or having someone make them for me.

- playing as different races

 

I could list more stuff, just love that game, was honestly hooked from the moment I saw that sword in the ground and the music started.

[glosoli]

I've been thinking about this and I'm really curious to know...

 

Sure it had a good storyline and the combat was sound, and it was generally a good game, I'm not knocking it, but why do people talk like it was out of this world? Personally I found the places you could visit very limited, Denerim was small and mostly empty, and the worst part about it was that you traveled via a red line on the map quite literally, interupted only by a single combat sequence from point A to point B. Surely it had a severe lack of exploration and what there was small in scale and very linear??

 

Bolded points are generally what people looks in a decent game. Other points,

 

1. NPCs and followers. Not just the ones you interact frequently along the way, maybe a dwarf around the corner. They were really unique.
2. Morrigan is one of the most interesting individual in the game history for me. Not Sarevok or The Nameless One deep but deep.
3. Lore. I read a lot of in game stuff. For example, finishing an Elder Scrolls game takes a lot longer than it should be, in my case.
4. Player's efforts to bring forces really matters. The difficulty of the end game is affected by your helps and donations to the factions. It's a nice thing to see, even if the effect is not dramatic.

 

For me, mainly it's the great story, very unique NPCs; and the most important point: a game with a character.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

- 6 different starting paths.

- The ability to wear armor and equip weapons regardless of class restrictions most of the time. (There was still attribute restrictions but still)

- Great characters. Loghain is one of Biowares best and all the companions felt like one big family while Merrill/Anders/Fenris around each other made DA2 too toxic for me.

- Great story, even if it was the typical Save-the-world, it was probably one of Biowares best ones.

- Great plot twists. Alistair being Maric's son, The Warden joining (Ser Jory and Daveth's death was a shocker the first time), the Warden sacrifice and Morrigans ritual

- The ability to play as dwarf and elf and actually be able to roleplay as them perfectly in the setting.

- Introduced the most detailed tactic system for companions in any Bioware game to date. Shame DAI threw that in the bin.

- Your choices between what factions you choose actually mattering with them joining you in the final battle. They might not be the best but compare to other Bioware games, your choices at least did something in the end.

- Epilogue slide show might not be to everyones taste but at least we got conclusions instead of annoying cliffhangers and too many unanswered questions.

- A giant epic fight to conclude it all and killing the archdemon felt like a worthy accomplishment.

 

That's from the top of my head. I'm sure they're more people can think off.

[largejack1000]

Well judgeing buy half the posts ive seen it was either story or fu**ing the party members.

[largejack1000]

OP, if you think DA:O is small and limited, don't get DA2.

Don't worry I played it for an hour then packed in.

 

As for all the comments so far, fair enough and thanks for answering.

[Shrave]

I didn't like DA:O's story as much as I liked DA2's story. DA2's story was super character and relationship driven. DAO was your typical save the world from the apocalypse, which while really uniquely done, was still about a hero saving the day yet again. We've seen that plenty of times. DA2, on the other hand, developed one character and his/her companions. You got really attached to the companions, but in DAO, I didn't as much. Combat was certainly better in DAO. The massive waves of enemies in DA2 got annoying. I urge you to finish DA2.

[Fishy]

DAI look fabulous, but let's be honest. It's a wee bit streamlined. The inventory is atroce ( I hate scroller inventory) and there's little thing that made DAO such a great game.

 

In DAO you could steal and you could persuade. The game also had traps and a neat window inventory. They were also environment thingies you could do. Like lightning oil with fire etc and I miss cone of cold.

 

There was also other little goodies like a statistic page and different origins. The game also had a much more ominous/dark art design . DAI and DA2 feel a bit more cartoony.

 

Where DAO suffered was imo the armor department. There was maybe 2-3 type of leather and heavy armor  was lacking too. Once I get the Warden set It was over. Don't get me started on condom mage hat.

 

But overall DAO had a more ''epic'' feel to it and more charismatic NPC ( I'm still at the beginning of DAI though. WIll see)

 

BUT DAI feel a lot less restrictive. So that a huge Plus. Also the world is more immersive. So will see.

 

 

 

[Dahae]

Alistair     

[RedIntifada]

For me the best thing was the lack of a morality meter. Paragon/Renegade, light/dark, open palm/closed fist were too black and white. Sure there are some obviously evil and good decisions in DA games but there are enough shades of gray to make the story not feel "gamey". I really hope they ditch paragon/renogade for the next ME.

[metatheurgist]

Old school RPG mechanics.

RPG gamers made the genre. We bought all the RPG games from when they were basic and had bad graphics, we made Baldur's Gate a smash hit. We liked those games and how they worked.

RPGs games were a house we built from the ground up and filled with things we loved.

Then the filthy casuals decided they wanted a slice of the action (literally). They came into our house, moved the furniture, criticised the décor, spilled food on the carpet. They said this was boring, that was dull, changed everything around until RPGs became yet another action game.

DA:O was a last stand, a brief respite from the siege against the blight. Then the Darkspawn won.

[Echorion]

I preferred the controls, the more grounded/heavy feel to combat and the execution movies with it.

 

I also preferred the more classic RPG elements, the new health potion system and such seems pointless and frustrating to me.

[StingingVelvet]

If you were a PC gamer who grew up on Baldur's Gate, Fallout and the rest of those then Dragon Age Origins was a lovely homage to that type of game. That's why a lot of us loved it. The sequels have made the series much more of a console action RPG series, which is why we are disappointed.

 

That said now we have awesome stuff like Wasteland 2, Divinity Original Sin and Pillars of Eternity to take its place.

[ItsFreakinJesus]

I really liked all aspects of it. The graphics NOWADAYS make it look shitty but back when it was released it was a solid freaking graphics!

Prolly for me it was the realism of the characters. They didn't feel unidimensional and dialogue options meant something and was thus more realistic.

Eg: Sten gave you 10+ if you thrrstneed to kill him.

Some people in reality react better to more jerk like people or more alpha people and shun goody goody paragon shoes.

Origins was ugly back then, too.  Ugly with clunky animations and sluggish combat speed.  But it was fun and engaging in spite of those flaws.

[Remmirath]

Basically, DA:O was the kind of RPG I like. DA II felt much less like an RPG to me, and I felt it had severe problems with the mechanics. DA:I? I haven't played enough of to be sure yet.

Because I could play the character I designed as I designed him. And then I could play again with a very different character and it still worked.

Yes. This most of all for me.

I also found the setting interesting (although that's been true for the rest of the games in the series as well), and I actually enjoyed the combat quite a lot more than I expected, since I'm typically not fond of activated abilities and cooldowns. It was a fairly solid system, and most of the activated abilities were reasonable to be so.