272 réponses à ce sujet

[Erstus]

While I don't really agree with anything you said, this part kinda stood out for me. There are at least two instances where Wardens brutally murder one another, one in the Western Approach where you see the Wardens doing blood sacrifice to summon demons and two at Adamant where there is more blood sacrifice by the Warden Commander (she kills an older Warden) to help bring in the Fear Demon. Nothing was implied, it was just as gory as Origins. Not very gory, but definitely not implied, either.

I thought the Champions of Justice quest was dark. It reminded me a lot of the Redcliffe Castle possession in Origins.

[Erstus]

Really? I never finished the game or progressed far enough. I recently just restarted and I am now on "Here is the Abyss".

The Hinterlands and Storm Coast shared the same music clips and they played few and far between.

[Duelist]

Eh, I think the mage class in DA:O sucks eggs. I just don't find them entertaining in the least, which is particularly damning because you can unleash fiery tornados and huge lightning storms. I just can't bring myself to care. DA2's mage is easily my favorite. I got a kick out of the things I could do to people.

Much as I disliked them, DAO's mages were still a lot better than their archers though that's not saying much.

[ElementalFury106]

Excellent points.

[pdusen]

Subjective views and personal tastes set aside, Dragon Age Origins truly is objectively the strongest game in the series

 

Well, that didn't take long.

[ShadowLordXII]

Well, that didn't take long.

 

Fine, I'll clarify to show that I'm not using rose-tinted glasses.

 

I do subjectively love both games and believe that they are both well-crafted games. Possibly even the best RPGs of their time.

 

But there are inherent and objective (unbiased and prejudiced for a working variant of objective) standards and traits that can determine whether a game is better than another. You're free to disagree, but stating that Origins is a stronger game than Inquisition is not a statement that I made lightly or without validity.

 

One thing that edges out Origins is it's stronger role-playing aspects and the greater freedom to customize your pc as you'd like.

 

The reason I brought up the lack of evil options in Inquisition was because those are decreased options for how to play your character. It's less about being able to commit mass murder and more about role-playing your character that way that you feel that your character would react. And then dealing with the consequences of those choices rather it leads to trouble or even a deadly confrontation with a companion who refuses to stand down because of their beliefs and personality.

 

In Inquisition there's hardly a moment where you can be outright evil and not just neutral. True, there are some cases where you can be cruel such as with Calpernia's master or letting Celene die, but it's a still a fair far-cry from letting children get possessed by desire demons or outright murdering them. There's just something inherently worst about harming children than adults.

 

At worst, you can be a neutral-jerk, but that's an objective downgrade from previous games where you could commit unjustified and cruel acts such as outright betrayal, murder, manipulation, endorsement of slavery, and selling out family members to be abused and/or raped. This doesn't make Inquisition bad, but it is something that harms replay value and as I've noted before, it appears as though this approach was taken to keep from "discomforting" someone.

 

And then there's the class-restricted weapon system that was carried over from DA2...what can I say about it that hasn't already been said? It just makes building your character less fun and engaging because you're somehow always going to end up in whatever pre-subscribed roles that your class already has.

 

As opposed to Origins where your class role was whatever you made it and you had options to make that role work. Warrior as long-ranged support? Oh cool! You can be an archer. Rogue as a front-line tank? It's a risk, but you could make it work. Mages also had a lot of options as to what kind of mage whether it be an debuffer; buffer; anti-mage mage; front-liner; and multiple avenues for offense (elemental; spiritual; blood magic; shapeshifter; nature; and even weapons and armor (arcane warrior)).

 

Are there things that Inquisition does better than Origins? Yes. Better Graphics; Improved Character Creation; A central theme that goes off the beaten trail and makes folks think; the Inquisition Influence system is better than the Skills system though it takes some getting used to; and the Presentation of Combat is better. But Origins still edges out as the objectively stronger game for replay value; role-playing; The Origins; An un-sanitized and yet intriguing atmosphere; a character-build/combat system that allows for exploration and options which in-turn makes things more fun and interesting; and much better implemented and more engaging antagonists (Loghain and the Blight, first and foremost).

[Pallando]

As I've said before, I love Origins, I really do. But alas I find myself no longer willing to play it. Every time I do I find myself forcing it. I keep finding excuses to walk away from the game for hours at a time, like right now for example. When I bought the game I couldn't put it down, I've beaten the game over 15 times. But always find myself getting more entertainment from DAI, even more out of DA2 at times, as unfinished as that game is. oddly enough I don't have this problem with ME1. I haven't played KOTOR and Jade Empire in ages eaither, but I actively try to play Origins and find I rapidly lose interest. I cannot pinpoint when this started occurring or why, but I suspect it's mainly to the simple fact that it's aging a bit poorly, imo. As I said above, characters are always very stiff, they don't move like people. The PC itself might also be contributing at this point. They are literally just a blank husk. They don't even make facial expressions to imply the intent of your response. Even KOTOR and Jade Empire did that for god sake! Then of course theres the single biggest reason of all. That god damned Fade Section!!!! I HATE, LOATHE, and DESPISE that section. It is literally pointless, irrelevant padding in the game. The narrative has to actively stop just to address this stupid situation. PC players, lucky for them, get to skip that nonsense with Mods. Us Console players have no such luck. Then of course there is the fact that if I decide on an US Ending for a Warden, I can't play Awakening with that Save File unless I want be annoyed beyond belief that my character is alive again for no reason.

 

The combat is so boring for me. All you do is just shuffle around, getting into position takes forever and Mages are way too overpowered compared to the other Classes. Really I could go on, but I'm already going to be crucified by the DAO fans in this thread for what I've said already.  

 

Ok. I see.

Maybe it's because I have not finished DAO 15 times, but only 3-4 (plus the missing origins).

These are valid points, but I guess it depends on the weight you give them when assessing the game. 

 

For me, I find it hard to come back to DAI with all that exploration. I like that, but it's no longer fun after the first few times you go everywhere. 

As for the Fade section, it never bothered me, but maybe it's because I play on PC and always knew I could "skip" it if I wanted to... 

 

What you are saying about the mages is funny though, because I feel like the mages are not "flashy" enough in the newest games.

It's in part because the skill trees give (a bit) less options, but also because mages don't have fun spells anymore, like "petrify", "crushing prison" or "mana clash". And the elemental abilities are not as flashy as what you could do with "inferno" or "storm of the century" (although, that was overpowered). 

Also, when it comes to combat, as Bhryaen said, I liked many of the animations, especially the finishing moves for dragons, although it was a bit over the top (but so are some of the new warrior abilities, animation-wise). In fact, I agree with each point Bhryaen mentions...

 

 

It's funny though, because I was going to say that what makes me prefer DAI is mostly the ending. It's anti-climactic and abrupt. Had they put 30 more minutes of gameplay, it'd have been far more satisfying. It was also a bit sad to never see Skyhold attacked, but it may have been too classic. Still, giving you a castle and letting you upgrade it begs for an assault!

 

And when I think about it, the story in ME3 mirrors DAO (less exploration, go everywhere to recruit allies), while DAI is more structured like Mass Effect (explore as much as you want, main story is relatively short, with 2 simultaneous quests at 1 point). But the ending was more satisfying in DAO than in ME3: even if it was not original, it did its tropes well, and like ME2, it let you see the results of what you spent the game building. And I feel that the ending of Mass Effect was more satisfying than DAI's, in part because Saren was a better villain than Corypheus, but also because the last portion of the game was a bit longer and let us enjoy our confrontation.

Spoiler

Not unlike Trespasser...

 

Edit:

Also, exploration in Mass Effect was less "in your face". You didn't have a map of the areas you needed to explore. You had to run across the galaxy to explore new planets... You always could think: "ok, I've seen it all" without your completionist side saying "no, look here!".

[Darkly Tranquil]

As I've said before, I love Origins, I really do. But alas I find myself no longer willing to play it. Every time I do I find myself forcing it. I keep finding excuses to walk away from the game for hours at a time, like right now for example. When I bought the game I couldn't put it down, I've beaten the game over 15 times. But always find myself getting more entertainment from DAI, even more out of DA2 at times, as unfinished as that game is. oddly enough I don't have this problem with ME1. I haven't played KOTOR and Jade Empire in ages eaither, but I actively try to play Origins and find I rapidly lose interest. I cannot pinpoint when this started occurring or why, but I suspect it's mainly to the simple fact that it's aging a bit poorly, imo. As I said above, characters are always very stiff, they don't move like people. The PC itself might also be contributing at this point. They are literally just a blank husk. They don't even make facial expressions to imply the intent of your response. Even KOTOR and Jade Empire did that for god sake! Then of course theres the single biggest reason of all. That god damned Fade Section!!!! I HATE, LOATHE, and DESPISE that section. It is literally pointless, irrelevant padding in the game. The narrative has to actively stop just to address this stupid situation. PC players, lucky for them, get to skip that nonsense with Mods. Us Console players have no such luck. Then of course there is the fact that if I decide on an US Ending for a Warden, I can't play Awakening with that Save File unless I want be annoyed beyond belief that my character is alive again for no reason.

The combat is so boring for me. All you do is just shuffle around, getting into position takes forever and Mages are way too overpowered compared to the other Classes. Really I could go on, but I'm already going to be crucified by the DAO fans in this thread for what I've said already.

No wonder you don't like Origins. The Origins you played on console is quite a different (and worse) experience to Origins on PC. I played both versions (PS3 six times, and PC eleven times) and PC is just worlds better than the console version. I honestly don't know why they ever release Origins on console, it's completely unsuitable for playing with a controller. At it's heart DAO is basically an Infinity engine game that looks like a third person action game, and trying to play a game like that with anything other than mouse and keyboard is just daft. Until you play Origins on PC, you haven't played it the way it was intended.

[TheRevanchist]

No wonder you don't like Origins. The Origins you played on console is quite a different (and worse) experience to Origins on PC. I played both versions (PS3 six times, and PC eleven times) and PC is just worlds better than the console version. I honestly don't know why they ever release Origins on console, it's completely unsuitable for playing with a controller. At it's heart DAO is basically an Infinity engine game that looks like a third person action game, and trying to play a game like that with anything other than mouse and keyboard is just daft. Until you play Origins on PC, you haven't played it the way it was intended.

 

Maybe, but I suspect at this point it wouldn't make a massive difference to me. At the time I didn't have a PC that could handle games of any serious merit. So I played Consoles. I still enjoy Consoles overall and buy games for them I could buy for PC. I personally prefer playing with GamePads than I do with a Mouse and Keyboard. However yes, I am aware it was originally going to be a PC exclusive game. That changed the moment EA bought them, because of course it did.

[pdusen]

snip

Yeah, see, the thing is, everything you just said is actually subjective. Inquisition didn't really have fewer options, just less cacklingly-evil ones, and whether that's a flaw is completely subjective.

As for the class builds being less fun bit... I mean, that is just subjective. There's no argument to have there.

I don't particularly disagree with any of your points, but misusing the word "objective" hurts your credibility.

[Il Divo]

Yeah, see, the thing is, everything you just said is actually subjective. Inquisition didn't really have fewer options, just less cacklingly-evil ones, and whether that's a flaw is completely subjective.

As for the class builds being less fun bit... I mean, that is just subjective. There's no argument to have there.

I don't particularly disagree with any of your points, but misusing the word "objective" hurts your credibility.

 

That does seem to happen a good amount on here. People mistake "I have an opinion on X" with "This is how things really are". ​

[ArianaGBSA]

Origins is objectively better if you care about a bunch of stuff.
DA2 is objectively better if you care about another bunch of stuff.
DAI is better if you care about another bunch of stuff.

Technically DAI wins in most comparisons because even considering the age difference I think it was the most "hardware heavy" game they ever made "at launch", the first I needed to upgrade my PC to handle on high/ultra. Also it seems that "objectively" it has more content and offers player more freedom, a world for you to shape and an organization for you to build and so on.

But for a Bioware game coming from their previous works DAO wins hands down. So I would not call it objectively better in general, only when it comes to very specific features that people who played cRPG in the past tend to like. Character development is obviously and ridiculously superior (objectively superior, it offers more options for you to customize your character and these options matter, 100%, in and outside combat), tactical combat works and have proper complexity and dialogue and choices are handled in a way that you have freedom to role play your character with no restriction of chosing "how (s)he talks" (an issue from DA2 and DAI because of voice actors).

When I think outside of my "preferences box", no DAO was not the best. But anyone who is in these forums for the past 4 years (since DA2 launch) know that for an impressive amount of people those things gone from the series matter a lot. It took me a long time to come to terms with the changes and I'm only willing to do so in Inquisition because of Trespasser (I couldn't find a single redeeming feature in Inquisition until Trespasser) but now I'm encouraging people to leave Origins as that masterpiece it still is because it is not coming back, ever.

In my opinion the racial origins in DAO are better than the whole of Inquisition from a storytelling point of view, it made you connect with your character in a way that they only addressed in DAI in Trespasser but it is not enough to do it after hundreds of hours of a bland character, it is completely different from having this connection at the beginning of the game. It is wonderful. But again, let me Sera it a bit for you, Dragon Age series became "too big to like", and thats it, Sera is right about people who thinks too much of themselves and that's how I feel about DA now.

As much as I hate this direction as in my previous post I advise a humble resignation, good games won't ever happen again and there is nothing people can do about it, either you accept it or feel the pain with each new game they make. I'm done feeling frustrated so I just zen buddisthedly accepted DAO was the last great game of human kind, from now on only things like Inquisition or worse will come out (most probably worse) so you better start liking this kind of "game".

Edit: Talking about big companies of course, crowdfunding is providing us with amazing cRPGs, probably the best ever made. I just think it is sad to think Bioware will never make a good/playable game again, but either you accept it or will delusionally expect something that will not happen, much like expecting ETs or Jesus to get you on top  of a building.

[Snowy-Ninja]

We were supposed to get raids on our keeps but wasn't it scrapped because last gen consoles couldn't deal with that sort of thing? Or They just just dropped it, a lot of what they could have done seems to to have been dropped in favour of last gen consoles. Thats why the later DLC's really started picking up, Trespasser showed us what Inquisition could have been. 

 

Character/Companion death does not make a story interesting. Take mass effect, the Kaiden and Ash moment always felt needless to me. In ME2, anyone of our companions could have died if we did not take the time to get to know our companions and didn't take care with the final mission. That is what Dragon Age should look at, its a series that focuses a lot on companions and having such choices would make much more sense. ME3 showed us that while characters deaths can be emotional (yes I'm still not over mordin or legion) you have to ask did we actually need them? Their stories and their deaths were inspirational and very emotive, but to me they always felt like Bioware were taking this stick and battering Shepard emotionally with. Death is only good when used smartly. 

Why do we need to see the wardens being ritually sacrificed? Seeing the darkspawn murder and butcher people wasn't disturbing or in your face, it was expected for that is their nature.

If anything Hawkes story was much more disturbing. They were a normal person just like you and me, yet they had to deal with their mother who had been turned into a zombie, they had to watch Orsino turn into that Harvester, then their was Meredith and her mad rampage. Not to mention Anders betrayal that lead to the deaths of so many innocents. All that was shown because it was personal to hawke, it was the motivation for that character to keep on fighting. But the wardens are just people to the Inquisitor, their is no emotional attachment.

 

Like death slaughter, blood, gore should be used in a controlled way. If you use it to much it looses its effects. Both Hawke and the Warden's story got progressively worse, the warden's story could end in a happy "we saved the day" way, their death or the death of their warden companion way. But Hawke's never got a happy ending, they became Viscount they had to deal with paranoid templars, they supported the mages they had to flee their home. Hawkes happy ending came years later at the end of Trespasser. The Inquisitor entered a broken world and fixed it, they got the happy ending and lightness because its not about darkness consuming the world its about bringing the light back into Thedas. 

 

You could argue Solasmancers never got their happy ending, but that only happens if your Inquisitor is so emotionally dependant on Solas that they can't see all the good the Inquisitor did. 

As for the Inquisitor being evil. That makes zero sense. The warden didn't have to be a good person just a good warden, which means using any method to slay the Archdemon. The wardens don't have to follow the laws of the land, they answer only to their superiors. Story wise it makes more sense that the warden would take a much more pragmatic approach. Hawke meanwhile could be evil because who did they answer to? Really who? Its laughable that Hawke got away with all the stuff they did in the game. It shows just how bad Kirkwall was, how it needed a more effective leader and guard. It was broken and so Hawke could be evil or good because again like the warden they do not obey the law of the land, even if one of their friends works for the law. 

 

Roll in the Inquisitor who can't be a blood mage because it makes no sense story wise. Imagine walking out of the explosion at the start of the game as a Qunari apostate blood mage? Yeah I can't see either Cassandra or Cullen allowing you to live or trusting you ever again. The Inquisitor is constantly followed by a Seeker of truth, they ware under watch from the Chantry, from Orlais and Ferelden. All eyes are upon the Inquisitor. From a story point of view it makes no sense. You are the outsider the free marcher settling the problems of Orlais and Ferleden.

Its not about being "PC" its about telling a story that makes sense. 

[vbibbi]

We were supposed to get raids on our keeps but wasn't it scrapped because last gen consoles couldn't deal with that sort of thing? Or They just just dropped it, a lot of what they could have done seems to to have been dropped in favour of last gen consoles. Thats why the later DLC's really started picking up, Trespasser showed us what Inquisition could have been. 

 

I'm not sure I believe this. Remember that the game was originally planned to release a year earlier, right before current gen consoles came out. So Bioware would have planning the game as an old gen base with current gen enhancements. It was only when they got another year that they would have tried to build in the newer technology into the game, and they officially stated that the extra year allowed them to add multiple PC races.

 

I think it's more along the lines of "let's create keeps and have them be interactive" while planning the game, then realizing it wasn't possible or they didn't have enough time. THEN when they got a year extension and current gen had been around for a while, they said "Oh wait, we COULD have implemented these features if we had been developing the game on current gen FROM THE BEGINNING".

 

The development period of DAI unfortunately fell in between the ending of old gen relevance and current gen launch. Most of the scapegoating of old gen is irrelevant because when DAI started development, there was no current gen to work with. It's just an easy way for people to sigh and say "these cool features which may or may not have been in the game were cut because of old gen".

[Rekkampum]

 

The following rant was meant to be a replay to this topic: http://forum.bioware...-fanbase/page-5

 

But since it was off-topic and honestly a bit-disjointed, I made my own OP to share a thought that I've had for the past year.

 

To a degree, I can see the "alienated" OP's sentiment even if I don't completely agree with his point.

 

Subjective views and personal tastes set aside, Dragon Age Origins truly is objectively the strongest game in the series and yet Bioware appears to be deliberately stepping away from the aspects of that game that made it great and made it successful to where the franchise was born.

 

I know that someone is going to try to direct me to the FFXIII objective review to try and tell me that there's no such thing as true objectivity. And while that's technically true, that doesn't mean that it's not possible to judge a game by it's inherent qualities and standards to determine how it compares to other games of greater or lesser quality within it's genre and without prejudice and biased judgement. 

 

For instance, while I personally love Return of the Jedi the best of all of the Star Wars movies, I can acknowledge the Empire is the better crafted, directed and produced movie in the whole trilogy. I can also say that I kind of like the Prequel movies even while acknowledging that there's a lot in those movies that are of low quality.

 

So with that out of the way, I have noted a gradual and not-so gradual shift away from the aspects of Origins that made Dragon Age great for no other good reason than just to be "different" or to try and appeal to other fans of other genres. Change isn't always bad, but when it takes away something from the experience rather than add to it, then the change is not justified and it makes it appear as though you either picked the wrong solution to problem or you broke something that didn't need to be fixed in the first place.

 

The shift is most obvious between Origins and DA2. Some of it makes sense considering that the story was on a smaller scale and BW was rushed by EA to cash in on the success of Origins by making a sequel as quickly as possible. But others simply weakened the game's quality and paint DA2 as a decent/good, but painfully inferior successor to Origins.

 

Worst yet, DA2's gameplay stripped out several features and traits from Origins such as less specializations; Skills are gone; Weaker writing especially in Act 3 as the story relies on heavily restricting player agency and forcing drama into the story for the sake of drama; introduction of class-restricted weapon styles and talents; no party equipment; an art style that made the game seem less realistic and gritty; A central conflict that devolves into a dark vs dark situation without an incentive to be invested; a streamlined inventory system; and need I explain everything wrong with what was done to the darkspawn? Signs of a failed attempt at marketing what should have been a spin-off into a sequel.

 

Then we get to Inquisition which manages to take some steps back to Dragon Age's roots and implement a few welcome changes and refinement of some attempts by DA2 which actually work this time around. All of which accumulates to Inquisition being the second strongest in a series with overall good games. But Inquisition is also deliberately distancing itself from Origins including a lighter tone despite the stakes and danger; restricted abilities; continued class-restricted weapon styles (no dual-wielding warriors for instance); removal of healing magic which is pointless; Skills are still gone; and a deliberate stepping away from the darker aspects of Thedas that made this world so compelling and interesting.

 

Let's see...No Blood Magic specialization; No Brothels; No Desire Demons despite the demon invasion (Imshael doesn't count); Apart from Haven, there's no "All your base are belong to us" moments or threats to the Inquisition or the player; and None of your companions can die with the exception of Blackwall (if you don't rescue him and you can't execute him even though passing as a grey warden sounds like a crime worthy of death or at least heavy punishment) and one other companion in Trespasser depending on your choices (not revealing that one); and despite ample opportunity, your Inquisitor doesn't have the option of dying.

 

Dragon Age Inquisition does have disturbing stuff that's in your face. But most of the darker aspects are either absent or presented in a way which creates distance between the event and the player. For instance, the grey warden sacrifices aren't directly shown, but merely implied. While in Origins and DA2, they take detailed care to show you what's happening or time's taken to show the immediate aftermath.

 

The big difference is that the Inquisitor himself has no option to partake in the darker sides of humanity and is restricted to being neutral at worst. As opposed to DA2 or Origins where your Warden/Hawke could be an evil and selfish murderer who could kill their own companions or even the innocent including at least two instances of deliberate child-endangerment and/or murder.

 

In short, the next Dragon Age game needs to be as deep as both Origins and Inquisition without abandoning the things that made the series great in the first place. To be willing to take risks like DA2 without losing sight of your franchise's roots as an RPG. Without fear of offending people or making people uncomfortable because your content isn't the most "PC". To be willing to look into the darker aspects of the series and explore and show them for all of their ugliness and horror.

 

Also is it too much ask for the developers to be willing to leave something alone that isn't broken rather than changing an aspect of the series just for the sake of change and nothing else?

 

Also, bring back dual-wielding warriors. Seriously. And Spirit Warriors. Both were awesome. They will only make what will be a great game better.

 

 

Some of these points are interesting, but I have to disagree on the art style commentary. Origins was run-of-the-mill vanilla high fantasy with no personality of its own. You could've replaced Darkspawn models with Uruk'hai and I wouldn't have seen them as out of place. DA II completely reworked that and made the world it depicted feel distinct. Also, while I can definitely agree the third act was pretty abrupt and lacked a sufficient build-up, the rest of the story was a breath of fresh air because you weren't some nobody getting a ragtag group of companions to save the world from evil - like virtually every Bioware plot. You were just a guy or gal trying to survive during the Blight in a foreign place with your family members who fell into hard times and got entangled in a lot of political intrigue. DA II was like DA:O's origin stories on steroids. I did like how Origins subverted a few tropes and their characterization of Loghain and your pals, etc., but outside of that I really can't see it as being so objectively superior to the others, as they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

[Draninus]

May i ask a question. Why does everyone want a Origins 2? Being a console player i found Origins combat to be sluggish and boring (I mained a mage), I very rarely if at all used to tactical wheel. Yea the amount of content to dive into was there to mess with and the dark spawn looked threatening. Really tho the only thing keeping me interested in Origin was the story and companions. The faster paced combat and voiced protagonist to me was a welcomed change in Dragon Age 2. 

I know i'm probably going to receive some frack for this, But i consider Inquisition and DA2 fair more superior than Origins.

 

I don't think anyone is looking for an "Origins 2".  What some of us were looking for in this game however was something with a similar feel that felt like an evolved version of the original game.  Instead what we received was a 500 mile wide, 1 inch deep game that is only connected to the original because of the lore.  This isn't surprising considering the original game in this series was the last from Bioware before it was polluted by EA.

[ShadowLordXII]

Yeah, see, the thing is, everything you just said is actually subjective. Inquisition didn't really have fewer options, just less cacklingly-evil ones, and whether that's a flaw is completely subjective.

As for the class builds being less fun bit... I mean, that is just subjective. There's no argument to have there.

I don't particularly disagree with any of your points, but misusing the word "objective" hurts your credibility.

 

Then by all means, counter-argue rather just say that I'm misusing the word objective when I've already pointed the criteria with which I'm attempting to utilize a working variant of an objective judgement.

 

As I've said before, true objectivity may be impossible, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to make an unprejudiced and unbiased judgement to determine that one game is better than another. I even acknowledged that Inquisition does some things better than Origins despite personally loving both games, so do you care to elaborate or do you want to continue the whole subjective-objective ring-around till we both grow bored?

 

 

Some of these points are interesting, but I have to disagree on the art style commentary. Origins was run-of-the-mill vanilla high fantasy with no personality of its own. You could've replaced Darkspawn models with Uruk'hai and I wouldn't have seen them as out of place.

 

Wrong. Origins' personality and style was one of a high/dark fantasy that both reconstructs and deconstructs cliches and tropes of high fantasy and portraying it in an approach that was effective.

 

When crafting the story's tone and mood, Bioware took plenty of inspiration from George RR Martin's dark, edgy, pessimistic and realistic "A Song of Ice and Fire" or "Game of Thrones" for simplicity. The game's visuals and art style was also influenced by the hyper-charged and tense fantasy paintings of the late Frank Frazetta (who lead artist Yusuke Nakano cites as an influence for the Legend of Zelda) who also gave form to heroes such as Conan and John Carter of Mars. They took these two main inspirations along with a few others and used them to construct their own original high fantasy epic with strong undertones of tension and realism.

 

If you're going to call Origins a vanilla run-of-mill high fantasy, then explain to me why the Warden can't fix the various inherent problems in Thedosian society? Or why there's a risk of death for him and his companions depending on his choices which all carry heavy risk and often won't have a third option where everyone's happy and safe. Or why two out of three endings involve either the hero dying or sending someone else to die and since their soul is destroyed, they won't even go to Dragon Age Heaven or Hell. They're just...gone.

 

In a generic fantasy story, a Giant Eagle would fly in, kill all of the darkspawn and cure the hero with magic-moonbeam tears of healing. (No disrespect to Tolkien)

 

As for the darkspawn...that's an entirely new topic, but for brevity let's say that the so-called generic darkspawn models in Origins were more intimidating, capable, and had an appropriate atmosphere for a horde that all of Thedas fears. Whereas most of the redesigns in the sequels for the darkspawn tried too hard or not hard enough at all resulting in the darkspawn now resembling Silent Hill rip-offs or puddies from power rangers (particularly the hurlocks) bereft of the menace and power that they had in the first game with the exceptions of Shrieks and Ogres. (the former of whom are only present in the Descent DLC)

[Erstus]

It iritates me when people call Origins a "generic high-fantasy". That could not be a more flawed and unin formed opinion.

As for the aesthetic changes made to the Darkspawn - I'm undecided on how I feel about it. I liked the original Darkspawn models. It looked like a menacing Horde from the underground depths. That said, I also like the newer models as well. The newer models look more like what the Chantry describes happened to them.

[TeffexPope]

Sorry OP, you don't get to pretend that your opinion is the only truth. But I do appreciate you putting your Origins favoritism early in your post so I don't waste my time reading a wall of text!

[ShadowLordXII]

Sorry OP, you don't get to pretend that your opinion is the only truth. But I do appreciate you putting your Origins favoritism early in your post so I don't waste my time reading a wall of text!

 

Then why are you wasting time posting on an topic whose OP you clearly either didn't read or take the time to actually understand?

 

Better yet, just leave the discussion if you have nothing productive to add.

[pdusen]

Then by all means, counter-argue rather just say that I'm misusing the word objective when I've already pointed the criteria with which I'm attempting to utilize a working variant of an objective judgement.

Why would I counter argue when whatever I said would be equally subjective, and I don't totally disagree with you regardless?

[Almostfaceman]

I don't think anyone is looking for an "Origins 2".  What some of us were looking for in this game however was something with a similar feel that felt like an evolved version of the original game.  Instead what we received was a 500 mile wide, 1 inch deep game that is only connected to the original because of the lore.  This isn't surprising considering the original game in this series was the last from Bioware before it was polluted by EA.

 

You definitely come across like you were expecting an "Origins 2" and you definitely see things in Origins that I don't see. Bioware was putting out games that were rushed before they merged with EA, just check out Baldurs Gate or Baldurs Gate 2, both of which have mad amounts of mods with tons of features putting back in content that was cut. The video game business is was it is, there's always an unfinished, buggy product because financial pressures don't facilitate a more perfect product. I see all the games as having one great strength, which is the great story that is Thedas. It's why I keep buying more chapters.

[Rekkampum]

Then by all means, counter-argue rather just say that I'm misusing the word objective when I've already pointed the criteria with which I'm attempting to utilize a working variant of an objective judgement.

 

As I've said before, true objectivity may be impossible, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to make an unprejudiced and unbiased judgement to determine that one game is better than another. I even acknowledged that Inquisition does some things better than Origins despite personally loving both games, so do you care to elaborate or do you want to continue the whole subjective-objective ring-around till we both grow bored?

 

 

 

Wrong. Origins' personality and style was one of a high/dark fantasy that both reconstructs and deconstructs cliches and tropes of high fantasy and portraying it in an approach that was effective.

 

When crafting the story's tone and mood, Bioware took plenty of inspiration from George RR Martin's dark, edgy, pessimistic and realistic "A Song of Ice and Fire" or "Game of Thrones" for simplicity. The game's visuals and art style was also influenced by the hyper-charged and tense fantasy paintings of the late Frank Frazetta (who lead artist Yusuke Nakano cites as an influence for the Legend of Zelda) who also gave form to heroes such as Conan and John Carter of Mars. They took these two main inspirations along with a few others and used them to construct their own original high fantasy epic with strong undertones of tension and realism.

 

If you're going to call Origins a vanilla run-of-mill high fantasy, then explain to me why the Warden can't fix the various inherent problems in Thedosian society? Or why there's a risk of death for him and his companions depending on his choices which all carry heavy risk and often won't have a third option where everyone's happy and safe. Or why two out of three endings involve either the hero dying or sending someone else to die and since their soul is destroyed, they won't even go to Dragon Age Heaven or Hell. They're just...gone.

 

In a generic fantasy story, a Giant Eagle would fly in, kill all of the darkspawn and cure the hero with magic-moonbeam tears of healing. (No disrespect to Tolkien)

 

As for the darkspawn...that's an entirely new topic, but for brevity let's say that the so-called generic darkspawn models in Origins were more intimidating, capable, and had an appropriate atmosphere for a horde that all of Thedas fears. Whereas most of the redesigns in the sequels for the darkspawn tried too hard or not hard enough at all resulting in the darkspawn now resembling Silent Hill rip-offs or puddies from power rangers (particularly the hurlocks) bereft of the menace and power that they had in the first game with the exceptions of Shrieks and Ogres. (the former of whom are only present in the Descent DLC)

 

"Wrong. Origins' personality and style was one of a high/dark fantasy that both reconstructs and deconstructs cliches and tropes of high fantasy and portraying it in an approach that was effective."

That's how you interpret their work, not solid fact. And this has what to do with the art style implemented, which follows the well-worn Eurocentric tradition of high fantasy? There's absolutely nothing about how elves appear - lithe, fair-skinned, with pointy ears that travel in forests - that deconstructs or reconstructs the trope. The only twist concerning them is that they're persecuted and oppressed, or in general, that magic is not something to be trusted but constantly controlled and regulated. There are a few other divergences, such as an ambiguity regarding the theological aspects of the societies depicted as there's no conclusive evidence the Maker does or doesn't exist; a broader sense of morality that doesn't always present clearcut solutions; a more comprehensive depiction of sexuality that thankfully doesn't erase those who aren't heteronormative. The prevailing religion is matriarchal in contrast to its inspiration. Otherwise, the dwarves are still stock traditionalists that are short, burly, and drink alot. The Darkspawn are standard fare Always Chaotic Evil, and so on. There were very few things apart from the occasional shades of grey and pretty provocative choices that follow BW's storytelling in how it characterizes morality and the other things that differentiate it. It doesn't mean Origins is bad overall; it does a swell job of carving its own niche with what it uses. Of course, this is my opinion, and interpretation of the work. It's hardly definitive.

 

"If you're going to call Origins a vanilla run-of-mill high fantasy, explain to me why the Warden can't fix the various inherent problems in Thedosian society? Or why there's a risk of death for him and his companions depending on his choices which all carry heavy risk and often won't have a third option where everyone's happy and safe. Or why two out of three endings involve either the hero dying or sending someone else to die and since their soul is destroyed, they won't even go to Dragon Age Heaven or Hell. They're just...gone."

 

You clearly missed the part where I said I was referring to the art style. But I'll bite. Even in classical fantasy stories, the civilizations do not always get along with each other - that's in fact a staple of the genre- danger threatens the hero(es) and they have their own personal sacrifices to make in the fight against a great evil. The latter applies to the rules in their world, and it's clear based on that which is established very early in the story that the Warden would live a shorter life than the average person. That's the price of the power needed to kill Darkspawn and the Archdemon. 

 

"In a generic fantasy story, a Giant Eagle would fly in, kill all of the darkspawn and cure the hero with magic-moonbeam tears of healing. (No disrespect to Tolkien)"

 

That's just bad writing. But since you brought him up; the Aegles of Manwe appeared because they were a literal deus ex machina and would not be allowed to interfere until the great struggle was completed (Frodo destroying the One Ring). The hero Frodo actually never recovered from the burden of the One Ring - much like his uncle didn't- and eventually left with the Elves as a result, forever parting with his friends. So even in "generic" fantasy - as if one could call what became one of the gold standards for current high fantasy nowadays "generic" - there are sacrifices being made.

 

As for the last issue - which I already addressed - you simply prefer the original art style. I honestly don't. That's more a matter of taste and preference, so I won't waste my time debating that. I do think though that this conversation illustrates that Origins and how it is interpreted is far more subjective than you claim. Both of us consider it to be a great game, but for differing reasons - although similar in a few cases. There is nothing "objective" about that at all, because we - and by extension, others who experience it - each have own our ideas and standards of what is or isn't good or effective and what the "best" ideally should resemble.