Does anyone else think Dragon Age is a huge disappointment?

[thantor3]

In many ways, I assess an RPG almost the same way that I assess an anime: at the end, did it make me think, did the characters evolve organically and did I care about them, and did I feel something noteworthy at key points and at the end? To all of this in terms of DA:O I would emphatically say yes.

It has been almost 8 years since I played the BG series and PS:T, so I cannot meaningfully make detailed comparisons. But I felt the same way when I finished DA:O as when I finished those games or the Witcher or The Longest Journey or KoToR. Which is to say moved, engaged, and upleveled in some way. I decidedly did not feel this way when I finished, say, Diablo II or NWN or Syberia or the burdensome slog that was Icewind Dale.

In my study of information management, one of the primary ways that humans organize information flows is through stories. In fact, each of us encapsulates the story of our lives in what we could call the primary narrative. One theory of human relationships holds that the inevitable power struggle that happens in every romantic relationship is not primarily about sex, or money, or children, or possessions, but which partner's narrative - which version of reality - will dominate the lives of the newly forming couple.

What I consider to be a good RPG is one that allows me to step into a narrative that is worth my time - that is worth "living" in and teaches me something. Like any good story it needs to be interesting, exciting, and engaging - with a fair amount of surprises. But it also needs to present me with difficult but intriguing choices - especially ethical and moral choices - and I think DA:O does just as well in this regard (if not better) than the BG series. I am not as concerned about the graphics or whether I can dual class or the replay value. What I want is a great ride. And, for me, I got that in DA:O.

So, big thumbs up here.

[Ronan]

I liked Dragon Age. The combat was nice and while the game could use a little less level scaling your enemies were pretty well thought out and interesting.

Yor companions were also quite interesting. Sten and Morrigan are my favourites. The gifts were a bad idea for the most part. I did pretty much every decision Alistair didn't like except the one which he wouldn't forgive and ignored him a lot and still he liked me because I gave him a few pretty amulets, statues and a shield. On the other hand I did accidentally insult some of my companions so it was nice to fix that.

The main plot was decent even if a bit boring. Save the country from an overwhelming enemy force. I liked the missions, but at times it was a bit too straight forward.

What I didn't like about the game was that you couldn't really change the world at all. All the options were alike and nothing you did really changed anything. Your choices didn't have consequences. You'd think that being a Blood Mage would change something or that somebody would notice. Especially when you hear about how terrible they are all the time. I also wished that you would have been made to sacrifise something somewhere even once.

This game does not have a lot of replayability value, but it was interesting to play through once.

7/10

The expansions might change my score upwards if it complements this game well.

Note: I would rank only BG2: SoA higher than DA:O from the BG series. BG was not really that good and BG2: ToB was pretty much as good as DA:O.

[masteralef]

Honestly, there's exactly one issue with DAO that I've had with pretty much all the Bioware/Obsidian non-IE RPGs, which would easily add replay value for me if they fixed it:

Number of party members. I'd really like to play with 5 or 6 in the party at once, instead of 4. Especially when there are only 2 rogue choices and only 2 mages, one of whom is almost essential unless your own character is a healing mage. Being able to have Leliana/Zevran and Wynne in your party the whole time, plus 2 or 3 other characters (instead of just one) would make me want to replay a whole lot more (after all, if half of my party is largely the same game after game, why would I want to replay it?)

[Revan1993]

Just bought a PS3 WITH of course DA:O, and I'm really enyoing it.
I don't get your problem...

[Scottg]

Just bought a PS3 WITH of course DA:O, and I'm really enyoing it.
I don't get your problem...

I think what masteralef was suggesting is that for the most part the party members you select will almost always be the same from one game after another, offering less variety on a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. play-through for the game.

I'm mostly finding that is the case as well, though this is largely due to the fact that I don't like playing anything other than a mage (..after trying several other class configurations out). And of course if you are stuck in that particular rut - then even your origin is the same over and over again.

[masteralef]

Just bought a PS3 WITH of course DA:O, and I'm really enyoing it.
I don't get your problem...

Pretty much what Scottg says above me: you generally end up with a fixed party:

Warriors (tank or DPS) will generally have Wynne and either Leliana or Zevran, with the 3rd spot left open for tank or dps, whichever you didn't pick.

Rogues (dual wield or archery) will generally have Wynne, leaving two slots open. But if you're playing the traditional style (tank, dps, rogue, healer), then one of those two slots would go to Alistair or Shale, as a tank, leaving only open open slot.

Mages (DPS) would generally have Wynne (healing), Alistair/Shale (tank), and Leliana/Zevran (rogue).

Mages (healing) would typically have Leliana/Zevran (rogue) and Alistair/Shale (tank).

All of this means that your reasonable ability to, say, toss Oghren, dog, Morrigan and/or Sten together in a party and see what happens is severely curtailed, since you'll probably end up with only one of them in your party. It would be a lot more pleasant to have a few more characters available for your active party in order to improve interaction and improve replay value.

[fable]

All of this means that your reasonable ability to, say, toss Oghren, dog, Morrigan and/or Sten together in a party and see what happens is severely curtailed, since you'll probably end up with only one of them in your party. It would be a lot more pleasant to have a few more characters available for your active party in order to improve interaction and improve replay value.

...and you will, bucko, soon, and for a low, low fee! Gotta love them DLCs, huh? Excuse my sarcasm, but the fact that one party NPC was already made available via DLC only leads me to think it would be an easy way for Bioware to make more money. Which means they've definitely thought about it, too, and that the deed won't be far behind.

[Xandax]

Pretty much what Scottg says above me: you generally end up with a fixed party:

Warriors (tank or DPS) will generally have Wynne and either Leliana or Zevran, with the 3rd spot left open for tank or dps, whichever you didn't pick.

Rogues (dual wield or archery) will generally have Wynne, leaving two slots open. But if you're playing the traditional style (tank, dps, rogue, healer), then one of those two slots would go to Alistair or Shale, as a tank, leaving only open open slot.

Mages (DPS) would generally have Wynne (healing), Alistair/Shale (tank), and Leliana/Zevran (rogue).

Mages (healing) would typically have Leliana/Zevran (rogue) and Alistair/Shale (tank).
<snip>

Funnily enough - none of my playthroughs have your "generally" groups.....

[dragon wench]

Funnily enough - none of my playthroughs have your "generally" groups.....

Ditto here. I have numerous characters, and my groups are very varied. I also switch the NPCs out frequently, just for the different banters, and I find it works fine. You just need to adjust your strategy accordingly.

The only NPC I don't really use much is Sten, just because I don't care for him and since I play mostly "good" characters, it's a poor fit.

Sure, for some people, ensuring you always have the standard balanced set up makes for an easier game, but I've found that basically any combination is doable.

A lot of it is about making sure your group works together well as a team, either by using the auto settings or by micro-management (I tend to combine the two).
I'm somewhat reminded of an MMO in that quite often a good group will succeed no matter what if they are focused and well organised.

However, I do have to ask.. for those people who find party choices restrictive, are you on PC or console? I don't always take advantage of it, but being on a PC can offer more flexibility owing to mods. For example, being able to bring Dog along as a summon makes a difference, as does being able to respec your party.
But, you can still mix up your group without the above mods, it just takes a bit of thought duirng battles

[Scottg]

Here is a good example of that repeated character use..

Lelianna.

*Unless* you have a lock-pick rogue, you are "stuck" with Lelianna.

You can simply choose to not open chests, or delay opening them for a LONG time (..also requiring you to go back through those rather extended and annoying dungeon pathways).

HOWEVER, there are also some plot-specific locks that should be picked, AND a character with the lock-pick talents is more able to locate/disable traps.

The traps can *mostly* be handled by one of the few other early characters like Alister, Morrigan, or Sten - with the Traps skills. But frankly they won't be as capable. Lelianna, (accepting Alister), can be acquired about as quickly as any of them., and is far more suited to disarming traps.

Zevran is not only *not* capable of becoming a party member until after "fielding" an ally group, but also does not have *any* of the Trap skills OR the Lock-pick talents.

The net result then is that unless you want some game-play hassles OR a rogue character, that you are almost certainly going to have Lelianna for almost 40% of the game (..at the minimum).

[Xandax]

I had Minsc in every single playthrough of BG1 and BG2 as well. Some NPCs are more fun then others. I had Jaheria in party as well.
I often ended up with the same 4 party members, my main character and one random to do their quests.

In DAO - I do not care about traps to be frank. I'll just send somebody in to get stuck in them. Only if my main is a rogue do I bother with disarming them for the XP bonus.
Locked chests - most of them at lower level contains little to nothing useful, so it is for sell-loot and a small XP gain.

You can easily play through DAO without the usage of a rogue if you wish. The reason to not wish it indicates to me much more a power-gaming approach - aka wanting all loot and/or all XP.

Wynne, I rarely use because I spec Morigana as a healer as well and potions are plentiful.

Alistar I mostly always use, but that is because of his role in the story more then anything. It wouldn't feel right for my Gray Warden to let the other last one stay "at home".

Saying the game promotes the same group structure seems more like people choosing the same group structure for those benefits, then actually what is viable.
And as said - in BG and BG2 I always ended up with the same party as well.
It is a product of how you play moreso then what the game "makes you do".

[Scottg]

In DAO - I do not care about traps to be frank.

You can easily play through DAO without the usage of a rogue if you wish. The reason to not wish it indicates to me much more a power-gaming approach - aka wanting all loot and/or all XP.

Saying the game promotes the same group structure seems more like people choosing the same group structure for those benefits, then actually what is viable.

But traps *are* a part of the game, as are locks, and treasure, and experience, etc..

You can do without, but then you are limiting your gaming experience - and in a manner that largely eliminates a central character to the RPG format: the Rogue.

I personally consider *not* using them as "power gaming".

Rogues are supposed to be a bit weaker from a melee perspective, but offset their weakness with versatility - again, particularly with Locks and Traps. The penalty of course is having a party that isn't quite as impressive offensively as it could be. In other words a "weaker" non-power gamer party.

Limiting those benefits limits the game. This isn't about doing "everything", rather it's about interacting with the game as intended - to achieve a more complete and immersive experience.

[dragon wench]

Though speaking of rogues...

One thing that strikes me is just how overlooked they seem to be, they are not just lock and trap disabling monkeys...
You can:
1)Have your rogue go into stealth mode
2)Scout ahead and lay traps around enemies
3)Sneak off a ways
4)Hurl grenades at said enemies who will be simultaneously hurt by your traps and the bomb you have just thrown..

Great fun, and mages, for all their immense power, have little to do but minor mopping.

This is what I mean about adopting strategy accordingly... Yes, mages make the game much easier, but you can get by without one; hence, you can vary your party around quite a lot. It's all about fully utilising your NPCs and the abilities you've been given.

[Scottg]

Though speaking of rogues...

One thing that strikes me is just how overlooked they seem to be, they are not just lock and trap disabling monkeys...
You can:
1)Have your rogue go into stealth mode
2)Scout ahead and lay traps around enemies
3)Sneak off a ways
4)Hurl grenades at said enemies who will be simultaneously hurt by your traps and the bomb you have just thrown..

Great fun, and mages, for all their immense power, have little to do but minor mopping.

This is what I mean about adopting strategy accordingly... Yes, mages make the game much easier, but you can get by without one; hence, you can vary your party around quite a lot. It's all about fully utilising your NPCs and the abilities you've been given.

Yes, there capability is vastly over-looked.. BUT,

1. It takes F O R E V E R, for them to get *good*.
2. They are "gold hogs".

#1 I can understand. Versatility takes a long time to get good, and multi-party RPG is designed to rely on the talents of others.

#2 However was a bit "over-cooked" with respect to normal gaming. Expensive recipes AND ingredients?

[Xandax]

But traps *are* a part of the game, as are locks, and treasure, and experience, etc..

You can do without, but then you are limiting your gaming experience - and in a manner that largely eliminates a central character to the RPG format: the Rogue.

I personally consider *not* using them as "power gaming".

Rogues are supposed to be a bit weaker from a melee perspective, but offset their weakness with versatility - again, particularly with Locks and Traps. The penalty of course is having a party that isn't quite as impressive offensively as it could be. In other words a "weaker" non-power gamer party.

Limiting those benefits limits the game. This isn't about doing "everything", rather it's about interacting with the game as intended - to achieve a more complete and immersive experience.

Traps and locks are a part of the game as a side quest is. Optional. I can't remember a single chest I had to pick to solve the main quest. Chests were for loot and XP.

Your complain was that the game forced you to use characters.
*Unless* you have a lock-pick rogue, you are "stuck" with Lelianna.
Only if you wish to open the locks.
In BG2, I also was forced to have a lock picking rogue in my party if I wanted to pick locks.

As for traps - they can be dealt with a number of ways. Only if you want the XP for disarming the trap would you care about the rogue aspect. Hence - the powergaming aspect.
Just as in BG2.

You can - if you want to experience a different type of game - easily play without using Leilanna for example. Just as you in BG2 could take other groups of people.

Now - I can understand you want more party members, more content, more dialogue, a bigger game and what not. However the jist of the issue is exactly the same as in any other class based RPG.

If you want the classes with you that your main character doesn't represent (if you want a rogue when you're not a rogue), you're "forced" to use the NPCs of those classes.

As said - I rarely, if ever, used the "generally" group layout you set up, which means that it is indeed possible to go with other companions for the experience of it. If one wants to.

[fable]

Your complain was that the game forced you to use characters. *Unless* you have a lock-pick rogue, you are "stuck" with Lelianna.
Only if you wish to open the locks.
In BG2, I also was forced to have a lock picking rogue in my party if I wanted to pick locks.

But in BG2, you had a choice of Jan, Yoshimo, Edwin, Aerie, Haer'dalis, or Nalia to open chests, which gave you a lot of options on whom to include in your party for this purpose. In DA:O you have a grand choice of one party NPC who can. (Unless you run a bashing mod, which isn't germane to the discussion.)

So the choice would seem to be to forego a part of the pleasure of hack-n-slash exploration--discovering more items--or form a party in which you're severely constrained by the lack of variety in function, and must include that character. One good lockpicker; one good healer; one good attack mage. That's what DA:O supplies. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I always felt that I could cover all the party basics in BG2 in a broad range of ways, and this added at least something to replayability. In DA:O, I don't feel that I'm provided with this. Does it matter? To some, no. To others, including myself, definitely.

[dopeme]

I'm going through my first playthrough of Dragon Age Origins and I'm not disappointed so far. Despite the number of hours put in, apparently I've only finished 33%.

For me, it actually does feel like the spiritual successor of Baldur's gate 2. I don't have the nostalgic feeling of playing baldur's gate since I only played it about 6 months ago and haven't even finished it yet. Honestly, both of the games really play similarly.

1. I can't say I'm relatively new to the genre, having played even a bit of curse of the azure bonds way before. But the first game of this type that actually finished was Icewind Dale II. Not much story, but I miss the game more than the others (I even stopped playing planscape after an hour into the game). I definitely think nostalgia is a huge factor.

2. I think most of the people are simply complaining about the lack of characters available. Either it's limited to four players per team or there are only 9 or so companions available. But I honestly think it comes down to the lack of customization that may fail to add to replay value.

I myself am into powergaming, that's why I almost always pick rogue as the class for my main character - there's experience in traps and extra gold in chests. However, what I like about Dragon Age Origins is that it is a very forgiving game. Unlike Baldur's Gate, once a character dies, they die. Ressurection is quite a hassle for me causing me to reload instead. There are experience penalties to whoever is or is not in your team.

I think Dragon Age remedies this quite well. Everyone gets the same level of experience whether or not they're dead or not in your party. Because of this I don't feel the need to be bound by the Tank-Rogue-Mage-Healer Formula. It's okay if I have four warriors because most of the battles are balanced anyway especially if you use the right tactics. The battle system in essence allows for a degree of flexibility from the traditional team set-up. And If I do get bored with a current team, it's easy to replace them at camp because they all have the same level and are easily accessible.

The tactics system makes me more comfortable in what companions do as well, making micromanaging less of a hassle. (I think to target a cluster, there is the enemy has number of allies option?)

3. Sidequests: I honestly can't see the distinction between all these games. I felt that Baldur's gate sidequests were also fetch it - go back quests and battle this there - come back. If there's a red dragon maybe there's flemeth (also there's a bug with her - she didn't attack me after killing Leliana ).

4. Character development - Relatively the same but it has the approval system which is a nice touch. The gift system can be abused (I have Morrigan, Alistair, Wynne, Lelliana, Sten, Zevran hovering at around 100 currently), but you have the option not to use it at all to fully reflect your choices throughout the game.

All the character's in Baldur's gate and dragon age origins are caricatures in one way or another, but I feel that Dragon Age Origins particularly excels in voice acting and subsequently better develops their characters. The script can really be humorous in some sections because of the manner of its delivery. (Female Edwin is still a blast of course )

5. Graphics - I don't play games like these primarily for the graphics anyway. If graphics were the prime consideration then DO definitely wins over Baldur's, Planescape, Icewind Dale etc. But it is sufficient and character expressions are good enough to similarly convey feelings and the mood.

6. I just can't help but notice a lot of people limiting themselves to the traditional formula. You don't need an attack mage. A healer can be helpful, but you can just make the character into an arcane warrior just as well and make the healing a minor function regulated by the use of good tactics.

[Xandax]

<snip>That's what DA:O supplies. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I always felt that I could cover all the party basics in BG2 in a broad range of ways, and this added at least something to replayability. In DA:O, I don't feel that I'm provided with this. Does it matter? To some, no. To others, including myself, definitely.

It is what DAO offers for the obvious reasons that it isn't BG2 and it isn't an old text based game where just adding more similar NPCs but with different alignment is possible fast.

But saying you must take the character along with you is wrong. You choose to take them.
You don't need a healing mage, you don't need lock picking, you don't need trap disarming. You can take a diverse team if you so choose and still be successful in the game.

And it is fine it isn't enough for you in DAO; that's how we all know it is with games. They don't cater to everybody.

[fable]

But saying you must take the character along with you is wrong. You choose to take them. You don't need a healing mage, you don't need lock picking, you don't need trap disarming. You can take a diverse team if you so choose and still be successful in the game.

Certainly an RPG group-style traditional game can be played without a thief, a healer, a mage, etc. You also don't need to get better weapons, or more spells. You don't need to buy items. There are any number of things one can do without in an RPG, if one wants to. My point wasn't that any of this was impossible, but that many of us like a selection of potential party NPCs to fill the same roles if we choose to have them, and DA:O simply doesn't supply these. The comparison to such games as BG1, BG2, KotoR 1, KotoR 2, etc, is apt: these games supplied that broad duplication of functionality among potential team members. You may not care, but I certainly do.

And it is fine it isn't enough for you in DAO; that's how we all know it is with games. They don't cater to everybody.

I'll remind you of this when you complain next about some expected, standard functionality missing from an upcoming RPG.

[Selina]

I like Dragon Age very much and I understand why we don't have more NPCs. It's simply a LOT more work to integrate high quality companions into DAO than it was to do so in say BG2. (Besides that not all companions in BG2 had the same quality)

Despite that I would still have loved to have some more choice. At least one more companion of each class and maybe one additional party slot would really have added a lot to the game.

Sure, there are mods to fix some of these shortcomings like the dog whistle mod which adds dog as a permanent summon or the respec mods which allow one to customize a companion to ones liking, but those don't feel the same as more actual companions and/or more party slots would. (Unless you can picture Wynne as an offensive caster or Morrighan in the main healer role to give just two examples)

Nevertheless I really enjoyed DA:O and am happy that I bought and played the game and will probably play through it a few more times. (Have slowed down a lot after the second one though)