Just stating the obvious. I am replaying Origins now, and wow! What a big difference in the storytelling, even after so many times of playing it, and beating the game. It seems to get even better, especially having to return to it after taking a long break from the series.
Great post!
Thanks for clearly outlining key differences, not only in the base story itself, but the plot lines, quality of the V/O used to orchestrate the plot/story and all the tie ins!
-9000/10!
Would definitely not read another post you make!
I absolutely agree with every point you listed! I especially like the part where you start playing origins and your empirical evidence about both origins AND 2!
Well done mah boy! This is the forum post all true warriors strive for!
I'm just saying that The archdemon and Knight-Commander Meredith are far better antagonist than the pruned up tainted Darkspawn.
I'm just saying that The archdemon and Knight-Commander Meredith are far better antagonist than the pruned up tainted Darkspawn.
...
The arch demon wasn't DA:O's antagonist.
It was loghain.
...
The arch demon wasn't DA:O's antagonist.
It was loghain.
Duncan will cut you down where you stand for that abomination talk right there.
I'm just saying that The archdemon and Knight-Commander Meredith are far better antagonist than the pruned up tainted Darkspawn.
Hahahahaha
I'm just saying that The archdemon and Knight-Commander Meredith are far better antagonist than the pruned up tainted Darkspawn.
Duncan will cut you down where you stand for that abomination talk right there.
Not really no. Loghain is the main antagonist of DA:O. We get multiple cut scenes of his machinations.
The arch demon is evil but it's not sentient enough to be an "antagonist"
I'm just saying that The archdemon and Knight-Commander Meredith are far better antagonist than the pruned up tainted Darkspawn.
That's because Cory was never the true villain.
This guy is.
But Origins was so sloooooooooooooow...
(and some of the writing was baaaaaad.....)
I'm just saying that The archdemon and Knight-Commander Meredith are far better antagonist than the pruned up tainted Darkspawn.
We need an antagonist like Gaunter O'Dim from the new Witcher 3 DLC. Although he represents only the classic devil, he is better than the bad guys in DA.
Yes, I agree. Though OP, your argument does need some work. Your only evidence is your opinion.
That's because Cory was never the true villain.
This guy is.
Cory's the arch demon and loghain's the solas.
For a rather poor example. Loghain at least did some good at one point.
But Origins was so sloooooooooooooow...
(and some of the writing was baaaaaad.....)
Speed doesn't make a game better. Some of the best RPGs use turn based combat.
Has nothing to do with combat style. I love turn based combat games (last game I played was Shadowrun: Hong Kong which is an amazing turn based game). I don't love combat where after giving an order I have to wait 30 seconds for anything to happen because of the slow run/battle animations.
But Origins was so sloooooooooooooow...
(and some of the writing was baaaaaad.....)
Same could be said about Inquisition with all of those mindless and meaningless fetch quests, and gathering up so many plants, rocks, Shards and bottles.
The writing was extra bad considering the fact that I seem to remember hearing nothing but repeated lines coming from the Orlesian soldiers in the exhaled plains.
Same could be said about Inquisition with all of those mindless and meaningless fetch quests, and gathering up so many plants, rocks, Shards and bottles.
Yeah, if you're a completionist, it's hard to get more slow than DA:I. There's currently a thread about how long everyone's first playthrough was, and a significant number are over 150 hours. Most of that is not story time. Basically, if you do even most of the stuff in DA:I, the story will feel very slow and... sort of jagged? It doesn't flow. Too much downtime between main missions. Bleh, I'm tired. Bed time.
This is where you want to be http://forum.bioware...on-age-origins/
*chugs some Conscription ale after reading OP*
I certainly like Origins a lot more than Inquisition (it remains my favourite game ever) but to be fair, Origins had the advantage of not having any built up story baggage to deal with, so the writers had a lot more freedom to move and do interesting things. It's also worth noting that Origins seems like it was made with the view that it might be a one off (even though the devs had plans for more, there are no guarantees in the gaming business; except CoD perhaps), so they did things that they might have otherwise not done had they known there would definitely be more sequels.
Yeah, the baggage isn't the problem, it's actually the boon. The story in Inquisition is subpar not because of it, but in spite of it. It's greatest problem I find is that (without the DLCs) there isn't any story outside of the main plotline (which peaks at the end of Act 1 and just wavers after that). And there isn't much of a main plotline either, there are, what, 6 main story events plus some connecting minor quests, and the companion quests(one or maybe two for each), most of which aren't particularly good either. That's not a lot. But it wouldn't even be a problem if there were some meaty side quests to back it up, but of all the 10 giant open worlds, none have any. They even botched Imshael, turned a decent antagonist from the book into a go-here-kill-this banal quest. The second greatest failing of this game is that they went open world and screwed it up horribly. Unlike the Witcher, which not only kept the quality of its storytelling in 3, it actually improved on it, Bioware opted for an open world filled with menial fetch-quests. And it's first greatest mistake is that it took a brilliant concept (turning the old RPG cliche of being an upstart hero on its head, and putting you in charge of an entire army), and squandered it completely. They took a great idea and made a cheap gimmick out of it.
The only reason I'm still playing this is because of the baggage, because Origins got me invested in the lore, which, granted is rather intriguing. But that's it.
You can see this in the many and varied ways that the characters' stories could end, which made for a convoluted web of possible scenarios they have had to deal with ever since. In DA2, and even more so in DAI, characters fates have been far more restricted to limit the web of future possibilities the writers need to account for in future games. While it makes sense from a design standpoint, it does mean that the breadth of RP options and story paths is inherently more limited, but it's an inevitable consequence of it being part of an ongoing series.
That's not really an excuse to have choices this simplistic. The way previous choices carried over was okay, but the actual choices you make in this game are mostly lacking: most are glorified cosmetic changes. And as to the web, a simple way of solving it would be not creating one in the first place. Have a few storylines which carry over to the next game, and have the rest of them end in this one. Problem solved, not everything has to affect everything else in the game. And if you do it right, most people won't even notice.
In the end, you simply have to accept that Origins was a unique, special game that, for a whole slew of reasons, is unlikely to be repeated. That doesn't mean Inquisition is bad, it's just a product of the framework within which it is created, so enjoy it for what it is, rather than lament what it isn't.
I'm sorry, but with the Witcher 3 being what it is: the pinnacle of choice-based RPGs (until now at least), beating even DAO, you can't expect me to not fault Bioware writers for being, well, bad, here. And yeah, it actually means it's bad... well, okay, not bad per se, but insufferably mediocre. Safe. Inoffensive. And a letdown. I actually have more dislike for Inquisition than I have for DA2 at this point. Not because it's worse(it isn't), but because, while DA2 could have been waved aside as a blunder, DAI cemented the fact that Bioware lost its umph.
I truly hope they make some changes in the future, and the next game will actually have some balls and/or heart put into it (instead of this corporate cowardliness). Or at least if they try to copy other games' success, at least take cues from the right places, and not try to be a poor single-player MMO clone of Skyrim (Cause you know what everyone was clamoring for? Single-player MMOs).
Retour en haut
