Does anyone else think Dragon Age is a huge disappointment?

[dragon wench]

I think Selina hits an important point: Every character in Dragon Age is well developed, this is not the case in BG2 (Cernd anyone? Yoshimo.. despite playing a central role? Imoen, despite a harrowing experience?).
Moreover, the voice acting for DAO's party recruits is outstanding (as is true for most of the NPCs in the game).

This is one reason why I have mixed feelings about the current expectation for voice acting in games.. it's far more expensive, which translates into greater budget constraints, and therefore, less choice in recruitable party members.
At least, though, the voice acting in DAO is of a high calibre. When it's well done, voice acting is like graphics and music, it adds significantly to immersion.

When voice acting is done badly, however... it serves to bring an entire game down (or even further down in certain examples..)

[fable]

When voice acting is done badly, however... it serves to bring an entire game down (or even further down in certain examples..)

What gets me is when developers put huge amounts of time and energy into a game, then use their own voices for the speaking parts. I don't want to make a sweeping generalization, but it's been my personal experience that in no game done like this has the voice acting been other than appalling. There was even one (whose name I fortunately can't recall) a few years back where one of the devs started laughing at some of their own bad lines, and that was kept in. Of course, this was panned by the reviewers, even the fanboy types (though they probably didn't get free flights to NYC for a demo which explains why ).

I don't see the need for voicing, myself. I have nothing against it, but I've got an imagination, and there's no better tool for conjuring up just the right voice and inflections than that. So when I read players actually commenting on TES Nexus or PES that they won't play a given Oblivion mod because it's not voiced, it's not just the rudeness of it that floors me; it's the way they'll forego perfectly good entertainment if it doesn't leave anything to their own brain to fill out.

DA:O has excellent voicing, in my opinion, and I noted as much in my review. It could be done differently by other actors, but I don't think it could be bettered. Still...if I could have read the remarks instead of heard them, with the music going in the background, I'd have been just as pleased with the effect.

[dopeme]

Not having text during conversation is a mixed bad IMO.

I can be rather impatient at times. I prefer to read than hear the conversation because reading is faster by at least 50%. Sometimes I do just skip some of the conversations in DO because I'm a bit impatient.

But on the other hand, I am forced to appreciate the depth of the characters involved. And I really am forced to feel that these characters are real. That's why despite Alistair being somewhat comparable to Aerie, I like Alistair better because he seems better voiced. His reactions to everything make him a somewhat realistic character. It that makes sense at all :laugh:

[Ashen]

I don't see the need for voicing, myself. I have nothing against it, but I've got an imagination, and there's no better tool for conjuring up just the right voice and inflections than that.

I am one of those who doesn't see the need for voicing at all.

I prefer to read through the text and leave everything else up to my own imagination. Probably the same as infinitely preferring books over movies but anyway, definitely do not see the need for voicing at all. I am always tempted to hit escape in order to get it to hurry up and in the end it just annoys me more than letting me enjoy it all.

Just started the game by the way, and am feeling a bit iffy about the thing but am willing to play it through and see how it goes. I didn't have any particular expectations really so nothing to let me down. I did notice the somewhat lacking graphics which unfortunately stands out quite a bit with the new screen I've got - don't get me wrong, I don't care about it, but I did expect more as Oblivion some 4 years ago looked better than this. The story - the most important part for me, seems good so far but am just starting as I've said. Either way since I've just completed BG II this just inspired me to go back and replay O once this is done ... when I find the time for it.

[Scottg]

I think Selina hits an important point: Every character in Dragon Age is well developed, this is not the case in BG2 (Cernd anyone? Yoshimo.. despite playing a central role? Imoen, despite a harrowing experience?).
Moreover, the voice acting for DAO's party recruits is outstanding (as is true for most of the NPCs in the game).

This is one reason why I have mixed feelings about the current expectation for voice acting in games.. it's far more expensive, which translates into greater budget constraints, and therefore, less choice in recruitable party members.
At least, though, the voice acting in DAO is of a high calibre. When it's well done, voice acting is like graphics and music, it adds significantly to immersion.

Yes, as I've mentioned before - DA:O sets something of a new standard here.. BUT,

Was it necessary, and is it complete?

Necessary?

A fair bit of the dialog is lengthy for companions and is not terribly necessary for *either* a compelling character or story-line. Additionally most of the dialog "trees" are relatively "static" i.e. they don't "arise" at certain events, and it *feels* more like working through a game dialog tree than actually having a conversation (..NWN2 was similar in this respect). On the other hand there are the "love interest" and personal quests/ dialogs that *are* compelling and that are not entirely "static".

Complete? (..or perhaps better said: is there something lacking?)

There are 2 significant (NPC) problems here.

1. While there are "chats" between party members, they are only "one-on-one", there is no *group* interaction. (I *think* BG2 actually had the "group" party-companion discussion on rare occasions.) Further, the player should be able to interject a comment or two on occasion during these "chats" (..though I've not seen this capability before).

2. NPC's (non-companions), are a little *to* limited in their dialog. The dialog is persistent to the point of being absurdly repetitive. Here they didn't provide enough dialog and voice-acting. (..on the other hand the voice acting is so good that almost each individual *is* individual.)


This leads me to the opinion that:

They spent to much time generating dialog for companion actors, and to much money for their services (to do a lot of unnecessary voice-acting). They didn't spend enough time/money on dialog and acting for non-companion NPC's, nor enough "code" for generating different dialog at different times.

[Scottg]

I am one of those who doesn't see the need for voicing at all.

I prefer to read through the text and leave everything else up to my own imagination. Probably the same as infinitely preferring books over movies but anyway, definitely do not see the need for voicing at all. I am always tempted to hit escape in order to get it to hurry up and in the end it just annoys me more than letting me enjoy it all.

Books are different. There is enough dialog and thought expression to develop a character. Not so with most games (or films).

If you find you are skipping over dialog, it probably isn't because of the voice acting, but rather that the dialog is *boring*. Blame the writers. ..Same thing with films.

[Ashen]

Books are different. There is enough dialog and thought expression to develop a character. Not so with most games.

If you find you are skipping over dialog, it probably isn't because of the voice acting, but rather that the dialog is *boring*. Blame the writers. ..Same thing with Movies.

I think along these lines - I don't need a voice over if more text, which would be possible as huge amounts of money are saved by not doing the voices, is there. Also, my own personal take, i.e. my imagination always beats the voices, I don't particularly care who's doing them.

We can blame the writers for some things though on the other hand, if there's more money, and perhaps more time too, sent their way it should turn out better.

I skip the voices, or rather have the urge to do so, as it simply takes too much time for my liking. I am a very fast reader, and as such, I feel the time wasted to hear something 'acted' is not worth it, especially if the 'acted' parts are a bit generic, which is the feeling I am having right now with DA:O.

[Scottg]

I think along these lines - I don't need a voice over if more text, which would be possible as huge amounts of money are saved by not doing the voices, is there. Also, my own personal take, i.e. my imagination always beats the voices, I don't particularly care who's doing them.

We can blame the writers for some things though on the other hand, if there's more money, and perhaps more time too, sent their way it should turn out better.

I skip the voices, or rather have the urge to do so, as it simply takes too much time for my liking. I am a very fast reader, and as such, I feel the time wasted to hear something 'acted' is not worth it, especially if the 'acted' parts are a bit generic, which is the feeling I am having right now with DA:O.

I'm not so sure that "huge amounts of money" are spent on voice acting. In fact with the budget of games like this, it's probably a *very* small percentage. Perhaps more than the writers make, but that is sadly customary in most multi-media entertainment.

As for the writers, yeah - better writers need to be acquired for these games. Why spend money on a B-list actor (for voice acting), and NOT spend money on better writers? It's not like there aren't many choices (though there may be for script-writers). The game's development time is long enough, and the scripting short enough, that you could easily retain the services of some of the better *book* writers.

Btw, "generic" ='s *boring*. (..and I'd bet you skip over a lot of text in most books as well. I know I skim a fair bit of a book's non-essential and boring passages.)

[fable]

This leads me to the opinion that:

They spent to much time generating dialog for companion actors, and to much money for their services (to do a lot of unnecessary voice-acting). They didn't spend enough time/money on dialog and acting for non-companion NPC's, nor enough "code" for generating different dialog at different times.

I would agree. DA:O's dialog is a series of set, scripted pieces for the most part dropped into the story. There are of course exceptions used to advance the plot, but the "characterful" sections amount almost always to nuggets of personality that stand out for having no relationship to the actual plot-in-progress or anything else going on around you.

An odd comparison that bubbled up in what's left of my mind is PS:T. I think that would make a fitting argument for being fully voiced, since most of the lengthy dialog involved progress of the mini-plots--and when your party members spoke up, it was either to take active part in these plots, or to further one of their own.

[Tenser]

I cant agree with the notion that DA:O would be a disappointment:

- Interface: As good as to be expected from Bioware. No comparison to the micromanagement hell in NWN2 (I am almost dead, but I just have to kill that group of opponents half a map away, even if they havent seen me yet and my group was actually fighting another group of opponents already), for example. Or the awful interface of PS:T (the main character has to walk at the front for no apparent reason. There is no way to disable the stupid AI. And if you want to hit a button, you have to hit a very small area).

- Rulesystem: Bumpy, not too well balanced yet, Warriors and Rogues lack customization options, the whole skillsystem is simply a misdesign, but overall its already fun and a nice challenge.

- Graphics: More than good enough for a roleplaying game. All these people talking about console graphics -> lol. You believe roleplaying games should have the same graphics as shooter games. Ever compared the playtime of a RPG with a Shooter ? Thats why RPGs dont have the same graphics. Except if you play games like Morrowind or Oblivion which actually have very little story and just hide it by allowing you to play endlessly.

- Story: Now thats state of the art. Couldnt be much better. Many Party NPCs with backstories, great main quests, nice sidequests, and good overall story content - I think the last game that had a compareable amount of high quality quest content was really Baldurs Gate 2 itself.

[fable]

Or the awful interface of PS:T (the main character has to walk at the front for no apparent reason. There is no way to disable the stupid AI. And if you want to hit a button, you have to hit a very small area).

There's a button to disable the AI, and you can change your party formation so that your PC isn't at the front. In fact, I never used the AI while playing PS:T (over, and over...).

[Ashen]

I
- Graphics: More than good enough for a roleplaying game. All these people talking about console graphics -> lol. You believe roleplaying games should have the same graphics as shooter games. Ever compared the playtime of a RPG with a Shooter ? Thats why RPGs dont have the same graphics. Except if you play games like Morrowind or Oblivion which actually have very little story and just hide it by allowing you to play endlessly.

I don't see why an RPG can't have good graphics, it's not as if this is reserved for shooters and it somehow isn't an RPG if it does have good graphics.

It's been 4 years since Oblivion came out and I do expect graphics of that quality by now when it comes to these huge games by well known devs. It doesn't mean a player can't enjoy a game with poorer graphics, BG II is still my fav, right along with DF, but at this point in 2010 they could have done better graphics than this. It looks rather poor in higher resolutions and with a good screen ... well. I'm a tad lazy but I'd take a screen for you to see how it is on my LED - blurry and well, not good.

And really? Little story in MW? Ok.

[dragon wench]

I've never viewed graphics as central to gaming experience..

That being said, I don't get why so many people have a poor opinion of the visuals in Dragon Age. At least, if they are playing on a PC...

I have my settings more or less cranked to maximum with AA at times 4 and a resolution of 1280 by 1024, and frankly, I think they look fine. The faces are *much* better drawn than those in Oblivion, they show more detail, and they have actual expressions that change appropriately as emotions or opinions shift. (In Oblivion you need to download mods so that NPCs don't all look like identical inbred, constipated chipmunks)
As far as the landscape goes, I don't think it is a whole lot worse.
Indeed, unless you install graphic replacers for Oblivion, much of the game, especially distance, is blurred. (even on top settings)
Moreover, I think the ambient light effects are better in Dragon Age, they feel much more real somehow.

OK, so you don't have trees swaying in the wind... Big deal.. If you have an actual story, and there's no need to wander aimlessly through a long series of identical landscapes that contain little of interest.. then yes, I suppose trees swaying in the wind do relieve the tedium somewhat.
It reminds me of a road trip I once took through the Texas Panhandle. It was so monotonous that we'd, for example, all exclaim at once, "Oh look! A tumbleweed!"

[DesR85]

- Graphics: More than good enough for a roleplaying game. All these people talking about console graphics -> lol. You believe roleplaying games should have the same graphics as shooter games. Ever compared the playtime of a RPG with a Shooter ? Thats why RPGs dont have the same graphics...

Not sure about the others but I do not recall saying that the graphics are bad. I remember saying that the graphical options are very limited, even when compared to console ports, at least the good ones, and PC games in general. Other than that, the graphics are optimised and the art direction is good.

[fable]

Not sure about the others but I do not recall saying that the graphics are bad.

Nor did I. The graphics in DA:O are very atmospheric. I complimented them highly in my review, though I thought the NPC animations were at times stiff, and the gridlines too obvious.

[Xandax]

<snip>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.<snip>

Well - lets noticed this:

KOTOR: 9 NPCs (not counting Trask).
NwN1OC: 6
NwN1 SoU: 3
Mass Effect:7
Mass Effect 2: 12

NwN2:OC 11 (not counting plot NPCs from intro and the like)
KOTOR2: 12 NPCs (where 2 times 2 are are mutual exclusive, bringing the number down to 10)

and so on ..... compared to DAOs: 10

If I wanted to use a Scoundrel NPC in KOTOR1 - I had Mission
If I wanted to use the thief in NwN1 - I had Tomi.
Similar patterns in KOTOR2 and NwN2.

We can even start pulling Fallout 1+2, PS:T into the equation as well.

It very much seems this "expected and standard feature" is based fully on expectations from Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2.

And especially when comparing their level of detail and personality and involvement with earlier games.
So the argument seems to be "not enough for me" and "I have to use the rogue so I get the same party" - when expecting the "standard" features from BG and BG2. And not actually missing a "standard" feature.

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

Go right ahead.

[fable]

Well - lets noticed this:
KOTOR: 9 NPCs (not counting Trask)...

You're offering elaborate comparisons here on the number of NPCs in each game, which would be fine, if we are discussing that--but we aren't. As I mentioned before in our discussion, several of us are pointing to a dearth of duplicative functionality among DA:O's party NPCs. That's the issue, such as it is. I'll restate:

Xandax: 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.

fable: 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.

Can't say I've seen anybody claim that the problem is far fewer NPCs in DA:O. But again, if you want a lockpicker, you've got one to choose from. If you want a cleric-style mage, you've got one to choose from. One per function. You brought up the need to have a lockpicker with you if you wanted to do this in BG2, but I responded by pointing out that you had a choice of six different characters who could fill the role admirably in the game. Here, you have one. That's the kind of comparison we are discussing.

You argue that Bioware/EA has provided more "personality" to DA:O's NPCs than in previous games, but again, that misses the point. Bioware could have left in a mage spell to open chests, just as some games have (including a few of their own), which would provide duplicative lockpicking functionality--and it wouldn't have meant adding a new NPC to the group. They chose not to. Again, if you want a lockpicker, you're constrained to use one NPC. I'm not suggesting this is a major matter by itself, but I find it curious you can't perceive where the point lies: that it's a good thing to provide duplicative functionality among potential party members, so that some players at least feel less constrained to carry around just one character when they want a specific activity.

[Xandax]

As I said - you had one scoundrel in KOTOR. You had one rogue in NwN.

Again - the foundation of your expectations looks to be based solely and only in BG and BG2.
Which makes the "standard expected features" seem rather hollow because it is not standard in Bioware games at least, and also not really in Obsidian pick ups or if we take the Black Isle into account as well. Outside BG and BG2 the pattern seem rather clearly the same.

It is fine people want the diversity of BG and BG2, but to claim it as standard, and thus expected, when the list shows it isn't really standard is the point.

[Scottg]

As I said - you had one scoundrel in KOTOR. You had one rogue in NwN.

Again - the foundation of your expectations looks to be based solely and only in BG and BG2.
Which makes the "standard expected features" seem rather hollow because it is not standard in Bioware games at least, and also not really in Obsidian pick ups or if we take the Black Isle into account as well. Outside BG and BG2 the pattern seem rather clearly the same.

It is fine people want the diversity of BG and BG2, but to claim it as standard, and thus expected, when the list shows it isn't really standard is the point.

Um..

Were *you* not the one that suggested BG2 originally (with respect to lock-picking)?

i.e.

"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."


and THEN fable replied:

"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.)"


BG2 was the focus you presented, and therefor is the "standard".

You can add-in other games to compare - but look to *functionality* (as fable described it), not simply class structure. I've never played KOTR, but NWN surely had additional functionality beyond the rogue class for lockpicking.

[Aqua-chan]

Ladies, ladies! I'm all for the discussion, but I feel the conversation is moving out of the "Quality of DA" and into the "Arguing Semantics of Each Others' Posts" area.

Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, both sides have expressed their opinions clearly. The onset of "but you said blah blah blah first" is always a sign things are going downhill, so let's please not do that.