Does anyone else think Dragon Age is a huge disappointment?

[fable]

Apologies for getting off-topic, but Fable, if you think 'beauty mods' for DA:O are shallow, clearly you have not plumbed the dephts of NWN animation and graphic mods. You might want to remain ignorant in this matter.

I will keep that in mind. My problem is that I regularly visit TES Nexus for Oblivion mods, since it's the best source. They've added DA:O mods as well, and while there's no lack of them coming in, almost without fail they all tweak facial appearances[/url]. I've also seen disparaging comments up in the modding areas of Bethsoft's official forums from people who could do the work, but regard DA:O as offering shallow and linear gameplay. For which there is some justification, if you remember that the focus in Morrowind and Oblivion is on the environment as a whole, and not on NPCs.

(And someone used the term 'back then', regarding the 'dental problem'... The game is set in a fictional universe, where magic actually works and so on, so whatever happened to people's teeth here surely is irrelevant.)

Not to mention that are a huge range of still more important "realistic" values for the early European Renaissance that go unrepresented, because they're boring and irrelevant. DA:O has no more to do with that period than your Society for Creative Anachronism or similar lot, where people whose ancestors were peasant farmers play dress up. And that's fine with me, as I wouldn't have liked to play a game where I was forced to juggle more than 15 different simultaneous monetary systems, check in at an inn by sunset every night, or deal with fleas, ticks, and lice on a regular basis. I'll pass. Oh, and the bathrooms: well, the less said about them, the better.

[dragon wench]

I wouldn't have liked to play a game where I was forced to juggle more than 15 different simultaneous monetary systems, check in at an inn by sunset every night, or deal with fleas, ticks, and lice on a regular basis. I'll pass. Oh, and the bathrooms: well, the less said about them, the better.

I can just see it now.. "the perilous Dire Tick." Wait... wrong game.. the "Darkspawn Tick" then..

Somewhat more on topic: Having played a bit more, one thing that doesn't really sit right with me is the way you can basically buy party members in order to increase their approval. I don't think the notion of gift-giving is a bad one, but I think it should have been linked to your persuasion skills at the very least, and maybe a companion's opinion of you should already be at a certain level before they'll even accept a gift.

But, otherwise still very impressed with the game, both in implementation and story:
I like the way each character you create has their own "page" which means auto-saves can't overwrite one another, so far I've found DA:O to be extremely stable, and I'm really enjoying the mage class. This has to be the first game I've ever played where mages are a force to be reckoned with right from the beginning. Sure in games like SOA arcane casters can become extremely powerful, but at lower levels that isn't at all the case.

[QuenGalad]

Not to mention that are a huge range of still more important "realistic" values for the early European Renaissance that go unrepresented, because they're boring and irrelevant.

Or just not worth replicating. I get testy when people treat fantasy settings like historical re-enactment, because a) that severly limits their possibilities and b) there's a whole range of human behavior and suchlike (aforementioned lice) i'd rather leave in history and not revive as something worthwhile.

On the gift system subject, a friend of mine suggested it would be much better if the stuff you're giving in exchange for npc's "feelings" was actually some more powerfull items. If you had to give it up, choosing their liking over some advantage for yourself, money etc, it would mean something. As it is, you're giving them bones and a pat on the head, which makes sense, but only for the dog.

[Da_venom]

i love giving bones to other companions the dog doesn't need em anyway

he is the only NPC that doesn't get bonusses and doesn't seem to mind whatever you do!

:>

the dogs presents are just extra presents for your other party members

[Elevoros]

(And someone used the term 'back then', regarding the 'dental problem'... The game is set in a fictional universe, where magic actually works and so on, so whatever happened to people's teeth here surely is irrelevant.)

I missed the part where the powerfull and oppressive order of the Templars (no historical reference here?) was letting the mages to cast dental whitening spells on the mouth of every flea ridden peasant...in fact I remember a conversation with a powerfull mage NPC who was not allowed to fix his bad eyesight due to the restrictions on magic (blood magic which intervenes directly to the human body)

The game may be set in a fictional universe, but I think that, if you compare it to other RPG's, DA:O creates, willingly, very clear historical analogies.(regarding only the history of the humans of-course)

[fable]

The game may be set in a fictional universe, but I think that, if you compare it to other RPG's, DA:O creates, willingly, very clear historical analogies.(regarding only the history of the humans of-course)

It employs the same cliches as the rest, for the simple reason that cliches are well-known because the largest number of people relate to them. There are no specific historical analogies. One ruler rises to power by betraying his leader, for example? Think back: your own Herodotus wrote of people like that, often. Here it's s just a generic character element in a plot. History's more specific.

[Elevoros]

It employs the same cliches as the rest, for the simple reason that cliches are well-known because the largest number of people relate to them. There are no specific historical analogies. One ruler rises to power by betraying his leader, for example? Think back: your own Herodotus wrote of people like that, often. Here it's s just a generic character element in a plot. History's more specific.

In the "visual arts" and in litterature an artist may use a general theme for his creation. He will not be as specific as an historian, because that's not his goal.

A video game like DA:O has elements of these two artistic categories. It does not contain a specific historical analogy or comment, but there are plenty of things which stand between the characterization of a "fantasy cliche" and "a specific historical fact".

For example, Orlais. The analogy with medieval France is more than clear. The name reminds me of the city of Orleans, which is of great significance for the medieval history of the region, the equestrian aristocracy of the Chevaliers (knights in French) the capital Val Royeaux ( perhaps a reference to the rulers of Orleans from a point on, the house of Valois-Orleans) and so on...(let's not forget the french accents )

The Tevinter Imperium (Roman Empire) and the Church of Andraste (Christianity) The schism between the two Chantries (Catholic and Orthodox churches) the Exalted Marches ( Crusades) (Feudal System, Landsmeet of the Nobles in Ferelden etc) and many more...

Here there is a quite loose, very inacurate but existent historical analogy which goes beyond the typical cliches of CRPG's and makes the game feel like an alternate and distorted history of Europe with the standard fantasy elements (elves,dwarves,dragons and the generic type of villain, the darkspawn)

This is what happens when someone is trying to create an entire fantasy world from the begining...either willingly or subconsciously they will be influensed by a) previous games/art/litterature ( for example, Tolkien and his philological references throughout his writing b)of their conception of history. Either way these,loose, references in medieval history are there.

And in a futile attempt to stay in topic, I will say that this, the historical analogies, is one of the many reasons, which make me think that DA:O is NOT a huge dissapointment, but an excellent game.

I apologise for the long post.

[fable]

Not at all; no apology necessary for length of post. But if I understand you correctly, you are praising the game for historical analogies that only truly exist in your advanced understanding. You mention Orlais, the Chantries, etc: but these are names adrift without meaning in DA:O, taken for their sound value--not to please people such as yourself or myself who have read up on history. In short, I would suggest these aren't analogies. They are soundscapes. For there to be true analogies, it wouldn't be the names that were reproduced, but an in-depth reproduction of complex historical situations. To put it another way, we wouldn't have needed to encounter a character named Joan, we could have simply been tasked as diplomats to aid in resolving a conflict between a powerful sacred authority, a more powerful occupying secular power, an occupied nation, several conflicting elements within each, and a person accused of heresy who has admitted to such.

[GoldDragon]

Confirmed by a Bioware Dev: Dragon Age: Origins has been loosely based upon Historical Europe.

There was a Thread about it on the Official forums. An interesting read, to be sure.

[fable]

Confirmed by a Bioware Dev: Dragon Age: Origins has been loosely based upon Historical Europe.

Well, um--yeah. I mean, that's a given, no offense meant. Just like so many other RPGs. Churches? Knights? Mages? Blessings? Individual names and place names, titles of positions? The class structure? The clothes? Familial structures? The basic conceptual and semantic terminology of RPGs in general is woefully stuck on a bland "fake medieval" European model. But this doesn't mean DA:O paid any more attention to actual specific historical situations than any other RPG. If you want specifics in DA:O, look instead to the treasurehouse of European myth and legend, and especially to the enormous amount of fantasy fiction that has appeared in the last 30 years or so.

[Elevoros]

But this doesn't mean DA:O paid any more attention to actual specific historical situations than any other RPG.

I never said it paid attention to specific details! All I'm saying is that since, propably, the authors behind the game's script are neither historians nor, from what I know (and forgive me if I'm wrong), first class writters, and they had to create an entirely new world from the begining, they have used several "norms" and historical facts known to the average high school graduate/RPG gamer ( Roman Empire, Crusades, Feudalism etc.) and added several fantasy elements to it (all time classics). The result was brilliant! ( if you are history/RPG/high fantasy nerd like me :laugh

In this way, a double sense of familiarity is being achieved: to a real historical past and to previous "sword and sorcery" reads and games. Most RPG's, but not all, are simply using "soundscapes" like you mentioned, or a visual, "fake", medieval facade to support their world.
Here, the fact that a new world has been created, forced the developers to enrich it with norms and elements from the actual, real middle ages. It's not a re-enactment nor a history lesson. It simply contains a little more history from what I've seen on CRPG's lately... (something slightly similar happens to the Elder Scrolls series I think but not in that degree)

Maybe this is why they have stated the obvious by saying that their game was based on the european Middle Ages! ( if someone could provide a link for that thread I would be gratefull!)

Oh...and I think that I saw a little of Jeanne D'Arc in Andraste just a little!

[kozeph]

Oh...and I think that I saw a little of Jeanne D'Arc in Andraste just a little!

actualy they make a reference to jeanne a lot of times especialy in orlesean history, if im not mistaken liliana has a tale about a woman who dresses like a knight and fights in a turnament of chivaliers and wins but then she is cought and brutaly murdered only to be taken pity by a prince who gives rights to woman in orleans.

I see andraste more akin to christ than anything else.

yes im a background freak, thats one thing i liked about DAo that the actually made the effort for a deeper background and history for the setting

[fable]

I never said it paid attention to specific details! All I'm saying is that since, propably, the authors behind the game's script are neither historians nor, from what I know (and forgive me if I'm wrong), first class writters, and they had to create an entirely new world from the begining, they have used several "norms" and historical facts known to the average high school graduate/RPG gamer ( Roman Empire, Crusades, Feudalism etc.) and added several fantasy elements to it (all time classics). The result was brilliant! ( if you are history/RPG/high fantasy nerd like me :laugh

The results in this respect are identical to that of many other RPGs. Not to belittle the game (I agree that the writers are nowhere near first class, but very few first class writers get involved in writing games, after all), but it does what the others have done: use generic historical place names, people, and relationships. If there's anything special here, any of those "very clear historical analogies" you point to above, I've yet to hear them articulated. Nor with respect do I see them.

Here, the fact that a new world has been created, forced the developers to enrich it with norms and elements from the actual, real middle ages. It's not a re-enactment nor a history lesson. It simply contains a little more history from what I've seen on CRPG's lately... (something slightly similar happens to the Elder Scrolls series I think but not in that degree)

What norms of the Middle Ages? I can't find any in DA:O, and I've read up pretty well as an amateur on the European Middle Ages and early Renaissance over the last 35 years. I'm not arguing that it's a poor game, but its faux-medieval setting is as real as anybody else's.

Now, if you were casting about for a game that actually made use of early Renaissance historical materials in some genuine fashion, I'd suggest Darklands. An older RPG from 1992, it set out to present a central Europe not as it existed, but as in some respects it existed in the imaginations of the inhabitants of the period. There are witch cults gradually taking over villages; Templars looking to summon forth some great demon; and the occasional dragon, awakened before the final judgment, appears to heat up towns. You lead a band of four, with skills that include praying to various saints (and accruing various temporary advantages), and alchemy--the potions you slowly acquire being named after actual or rumored alchemists (such as Raymond Lully) of the period. There are encounters on the roads with bandit groups, false priests, vain bishops, knights willing to engage in a casual joust if you've got a trained and mounted one with you, etc. The music is also exceptionally appropriate, much of it drawn from 14th and 15th century sources: Mit ganczem Willem" by Conrad Paumann, Dufay's "L'homme Arme," etc.

None of this makes Darklands a game of with clear historical analogies, but it does take a clever and imaginative approach to actually integrating some basic research done on the period and place (the German States) into an RPG.

[Elevoros]

Now, if you were casting about for a game that actually made use of early Renaissance historical materials in some genuine fashion, I'd suggest Darklands.

Thanks! I will certainly give it a try, it sounds interesting. There is also "Lionheart", which you most likely know very well...( I can't say that I particularly liked that one though)

but it does what the others have done: use generic historical place names, people, and relationships. If there's anything special here, any of those "very clear historical analogies" you point to above, I've yet to hear them articulated. Nor with respect do I see them.

Despite the danger of being pointlessly argumentative, I must still insist that there are historical "references" (and not "analogies" because I agree that the term, in it's mathematical sense, requires a more specific relation between the "objects" of analogy) with which the Developers clearly wanted to cause to the average player a sense of familiarity with the actual history of Europe in the Middle Ages and not simply to make another generic medieval RPG! That was a part of their marketing campaign after all, in the Official Forums, with their posts about the game being based on the "History of Europe". It was their clear intention to escape from the standard medieval setting of an average RPG, now of it worked...it will be judged by the gamers.
I agree that, to a degree, it does what the others have done. But I must respectfully disagree that I have not mentioned any of these "enhanced references". To me the correlation between "Orlais" and "Orleans" or Valois-Orleans and Val-Royaux, for example, is something which I have not seen in another generic-medieval fantasy RPG and goes beyond a simple "sound scape". Or the persistent "overtones" about Jeanne d'Arc in many Orlesian legends. The specific details of the feudal system which governs Ferelden ( and the participation of the player to it's politics) the transition between a morally bankrupt powerful Tevinter Imperium to the superficially pious Chantry of Andraste ( Roman Empire and Christianity) I can even see the game criticizing, for example, the Catholic Church through these fictitious references. So in conclusion I think that this "faux-medieval" setting is unusually enriched with historical elements!

But then, maybe my experience is simply limited....

What norms of the Middle Ages? I can't find any in DA:O, and I've read up pretty well as an amateur on the European Middle Ages and early Renaissance over the last 35 years.

I have not even been around for 35 years When I used the term "norms"(A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical) I was referring to elements like Feudalism which is, in my opinion, depicted with considerably high detail, if you compare to other RPG's and is a typical element of the middle ages, in the mind of an average gamer.

[fable]

Thanks! I will certainly give it a try, it sounds interesting. There is also "Lionheart", which you most likely know very well...( I can't say that I particularly liked that one though)

I reviewed it here. My reactions, too, weren't positive.

Despite the danger of being pointlessly argumentative, I must still insist that there are historical "references" (and not "analogies" because I agree that the term, in it's mathematical sense, requires a more specific relation between the "objects" of analogy) with which the Developers clearly wanted to cause to the average player a sense of familiarity with the actual history of Europe in the Middle Ages and not simply to make another generic medieval RPG! That was a part of their marketing campaign after all, in the Official Forums, with their posts about the game being based on the "History of Europe". It was their clear intention to escape from the standard medieval setting of an average RPG, now of it worked...it will be judged by the gamers.

We can drop this if you like, but one doesn't determine the accuracy of a fact by a vote. As for a marketing campaign, you and I and most of the people here are savvy enough to know how much to rely upon comments from that. Especially this particular marketing campaign, which seems to have been the most maladroitly managed in quite some time.

I agree that, to a degree, it does what the others have done. But I must respectfully disagree that I have not mentioned any of these "enhanced references".

I don't recall putting words in your mouth, nor did I mean to. Can you point to instances of this, please? The quoted remark above about "very clear historical analogies" is from your own comments. That said, I know translation can be difficult at best, even when someone speaks a foreign language as well as you do.

To me the correlation between "Orlais" and "Orleans" or Valois-Orleans and Val-Royaux, for example, is something which I have not seen in another generic-medieval fantasy RPG and goes beyond a simple "sound scape".

You're still just mentioning the transpositions of names and places, though. Which other RPGs have always done just as well. The Ultima series had numerous references to La Morte d'Arthur. Lionheart puts Machiavelli in as a quest giver, who instantly confides his dastardly plans to you, a newcomer, and hires you to protect him from thugs. Baldur's Gate II uses djinni, and attempts to give them speech patterns resembling the verbal ones transcribed into the Thousand Nights and a Night. There's a guild system in Morrowind, with competitive and cooperative versions. Challenge of the Five Realms, that introduced a fighter and pickpocket based on the real John Fastolfe (whom Shakespeare caricatured in John Falstaff). And so it goes...that's just off the top of my head. Mentioning Mordred, or Valois-Orleans, or florins, or mandrakes, or herbal poultices, or incorporating the usual feudal cliches (which actually predates the Middle Ages, and were part of the Roman familial hierarchal structure from the Republic period), are just the standard bit of icing that RPGs have had since the 1980s. The in-depth history just isn't there, in DA:O or elsewhere.

...I can even see the game criticizing, for example, the Catholic Church through these fictitious references.

Or the Eastern Orthodox Church of Moscovy. Or of Constantinople. Or the Gnostic Church under Valentinus, or attacks on "false Protestantism" by the Puritans, or on "false Christianity" in modern times by Pentacostals. Or even Bacchic worship in Rome, as Suetonius described. What you mention are generic comments in the game about a corrupt empire, a materialistic church, that hold true for a huge number of references anybody cares to place upon them. To have any depth, we wouldn't here a mention of an empire gone corrupt; if it were a direct reference to the Roman Empire, we would expect to see plenty of examples in different aspects of the game showing precisely how it was corrupt, and it match across to the reality. There's nothing like that. And if you were to tell me, "Well, why should I expect this realism or depth?" please to remember, I wasn't the one claiming it exists in DA:O.

Now: if I say to you, "Hey, McCain ran for president. The fact that he lost clearly was meant as a comment by the entire US on the victories and losses of the Irish myth hero Cú Chulainn, as can plainly be seen," you'd ask me--I hope--for more than just enthusiasm and references to power, empire, and Irishness, wouldn't you? And I'd frankly be wrong.

I have not even been around for 35 years When I used the term "norms"(A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical) I was referring to elements like Feudalism which is, in my opinion, depicted with considerably high detail, if you compare to other RPG's and is a typical element of the middle ages, in the mind of an average gamer.

Except that feudalism *wasn't* the European norm during the Middle Ages. That's a common error. It was present, but the Middle Ages was a period of social experimentation the likes of which haven't been seen before, or since. There were a huge variety of communes, democratic communities, dictatorships, kingdoms, rule by gerentocracy--even a Jewish semi-theocratic state in the southern Ukraine. Feudalism is much older, and really came into its own in Europe much later. And it shows up in nearly every RPG I can think of. There are no instances of medieval norms explored in any game, because all the various stuff thrown together from several hundreds of years and thousands of miles apart into any RPG, including DA:O, is pleasant window dressing, and absolutely nothing more. And that's as it should be. Any real historical analogies or in-depth content from the Middle Ages or Renaissance would inevitably bore a game audience--including me. You don't go to a comic book about Disneyland with expectations of reading Les très riches heures du Duc de Berry, nor should you.

[Elevoros]

I don't recall putting words in your mouth, nor did I mean to. Can you point to instances of this, please? The quoted remark above about "very clear historical analogies" is from your own comments. That said, I know translation can be difficult at best, even when someone speaks a foreign language as well as you do.

I never said that you did! I'm afraid that I was "lost in translation" here. I simply admitted my mistake in using the term "clear analogies" instead of "references" on comments. I meant to say that I think that I have in fact articulated these things (historical references about Orlais, Tevinter,Exalted Marches etc) and I disagree with you saying that I didn't because you do not see them as such but you perceive them as generalized names taken from history for sound value.

You see, some times, terms or words of greek origin, like "analogy", are used in a quite broader sense in every day greek

You're still just mentioning the transpositions of names and places, though.

No, I disagree. What I see in the case of Orlais, is structured and systematic references of many elements which refer to the medieval Frankish Kingdom and on Medieval France, clearly revealing the Developers intention to create a correlation with the aforementioned historical entities.

Or the Eastern Orthodox Church of Moscovy. Or of Constantinople. Or the Gnostic Church under Valentinus, or attacks on "false Protestantism" by the Puritans, or on "false Christianity" in modern times by Pentecostals. Or even Bacchic worship in Rome, as Suetonius described.

The structure of this "Chantry" with the one "Divine" as it's supreme leader, clearly points out to the Pope and the Vatican. The administrative structure of the Orthodox churches is quite different, not to mention the others! I would like to throw the ball back at you here by saying that you maybe do not see that simplistic reference precisely to the Vatican here, because of your advanced understanding which goes way beyond the average gamer!

Except that feudalism *wasn't* the European norm during the Middle Ages.

I am currently on a trip, far away from my library back home...but...from what I remember the "Feudal period" was only one part of the Middle Ages but one of the most influential ones. It thrived within the Frankish kingdom and later on the Holy Roman Empire, France and on Norman England. It was not around for the entire duration of the period we call "Middle Ages" and in many places similar systems persevered long after the 15th century (end of the Middle Ages). They were some of the most important and great states of Western Europe at the time , so that stereotype about the entire middle ages being the age of feudalism was created in the minds of non specialists around the world. It is also connected with "knighthood" after all, a factor of much interest to the average RPG developer. The still feudal structure of the French landowners during the 18th century was one of the many factors which favored the French Revolution of 1789 after all...

Since we share common interests, I would like propose you to check out the book : "The Evolution of the Medieval World: Society, Government and Thought in Europe, 312-1500" by David Nicholas if you haven't read it already!

if it were a direct reference to the Roman Empire, we would expect to see plenty of examples in different aspects of the game showing precisely how it was corrupt, and it match across to the reality.

It is not a direct but an indirect reference. I see many visual references to the Roman Empire with the Tevinter ruins in the Ostagar Wilds, for example. With medieval villages built across majestic ruined buildings (Lothering) and "imperial highways" ,a very characteristic novelty the Romans introduced in Europe were the roads. And the the Tevinter is called "Imperium"
These are not enough to form an "in depth" historical analogy but they are enough in order to lead the mind of the average gamer towards the Roman Empire.

[Aqua-chan]

Gents, may I suggest starting a new thread for your conversation, given how we've really strayed from the original subject at hand?

[Scottg]

I can't believe I'm saying this but this game isn't much different from Drakensang and the game of year should be Risen, not Dragon Age.

anyone else feel disappointed?

Frankly, it's difficult to compare the 2.

Dragon Age is multi-party, Risen is main character only (..apart from a few quests that provide additional support - but support you have NO control over).

Dragon Age has as much emphasis on Magic as Melee for offensive capability. Risen is far more slanted to Melee than Magic.

Dragon Age you can create your own character; Risen is main character only (Male).. some have described as "Jason Statham". (..though the Risen character is more of an "wuss".)

Dragon Age you know the basics of game mechanics, Risen however *tries* to teach you as you progress.

Dragon Age was derived from a turn-based system where "stop-motion" tactics are often utilized (with the pause button). Risen doesn't have a pause button.. you can effectively pause, but doing so takes you to the generic load/save screen with absolutely no interaction capability.

Dragon Age is a "map" loaded world. Risen is a full "world" (..but limited to an island, though not small). (..in fact as far as over-all surface area from both, Risen handsomely exceeds Dragon Age.)

Graphically it's a "toss-up". Both have some rather excellent qualities - but they are different. Dragon Age has *much* better character textures and facial features. It also has *much* better animations. Dragon Age has more advanced *textures* in general (..as far as smoothing and shading things up close). They are comparable on "softened" distance views however. Risen doesn't have characters with over-sized hands or extended forearms. Risen has *monster* detail of flora - and there is LOTS of it, though is generally primitive with fauna - i.e. characters, animals, skeletons, etc.. Vertical structures are on par with each other, Risen has the "edge" on ground detail and textures, but not by a lot. Risen has outstanding sky and shore-line/water views, and Dragon Age doesn't.

Characterizations, dialog choices, and voice-acting.. are somewhat similar. Dragon Age is overall *better* with stronger personalities, better voice acting, and better dialog "choice" scripting. IMO Dragon Age sets something of a new standard here with voice-acting and cut-scene scripting, whereas Risen is only good to average. Surprisingly though, Risen's character population is fairly large with distinct personalities (motivations and emotional behavior). However with Risen you don't get to "delve" into *any* character's personality in detail, like you can with Dragon Age companions.

Dragon Age combat feels gimmicky (..the various talents for melee and the user interaction). Risen combat feels *real* (..at least for a 3rd person perspective). In fact Risen's melee combat is one of the better real-time combat systems (..though I've read that "Mount and Blade" is better still). Archery is similar to, though not as good as others (..like Morrowind with 1st person perspective). What really sets Risen's combat system apart from most others I've played isn't entirely the system itself, rather it's that the system is overall *good* (..MUCH better than Dragon Age), and that the opponent AI sets new standards IMO. Really, what ever AI developers are in Piranha Bytes group *really* know what they are doing. (..even "rats" in this game can "own" your @ss.)

Magic for both games is both excellent and poor. Dragon Age's *offensive* Magic is rather excellent with multiple spells, spell combination's, varied effects, excellent animations for those effects, and perhaps most importantly the ability to be effective at virtually any point in the game (..and to become a real "force" as early as level 5). Risen however is unbelievably poor in this respect. There are only *3* offensive spells in the game (..4 actually, but you can't use the last spell until *very* late in the game). Those 3 spells are exceedingly similar - single shot types with secondary effects: either knock-back, splash damage, or freeze effects. Moreover those secondary effects generally are useful only until your skill level in them is high, and worse - it's difficult to get any 1 of these 3 spells high in level. Compounding this issue for Risen, you don't even have access to these 3 spells until about 10-30% of the way into the game (..and to be at all effective generally guarantees it's closer to the 30% marker). On the other hand Utility spells are virtually absent in Dragon Age. Risen however has Telekinesis, "Invisibility"/Illusion, Levitation, etc.. AND the effects are not only useful, but interact in the world well and look pretty cool. Both Games have Transformation spells available, but Risen's are generally *much* more useful, and are not simply a substitute for all offensive ability.

Leveling is more refined and better thought-out in Dragon Age. Risen has some of the right ideas for greater realism, but the net effect is a bit poor by comparison. For both this isn't simply a matter of difficulty - i.e. Dragon Age is somewhat difficult at any level and in Risen it's extremely difficult early-on and not as difficult latter-on (..depending on how well crafted your character is and your own user skill). With Dragon Age, leveling has several components: attribute points, skill selections, and talent selections - each separated and fairly self explanatory. Risen however levels purely on a point based system.. spending the points however you want (..though always costing gold as well). In Risen even if you want to level-up just with melee weapons, there are precious few clues to suggest choosing strength attribute, sword skill or axe skill: which is preferably when and why? It's at once to restrictive (few points and few skills), while being far to lax in telling you what you receive for what you've "spent" (..and moreover there are non-combat competing areas to spend your points, potentially leaving you with a "gimped" character at any point throughout most of the game).

Questing and Experience.. Beyond the Origin quests (and even many of those are fairly lame), and the 2nd chapter, most of Dragon Age's quests are "venture here/kill whatever". IMO that represents about 10% of Dragon Age. By contrast at least 30% of Risen's game-play have quests with real meaning and are not "go here/kill this". In fact killing of *people* is generally a "no-no" in Risen. Furthermore while Dragon Age's quests provide some experience, Risen's quest (in total) generally provide more, and almost enough to offset killing for experience for that 1st 30% of the game. Note however that there is plenty of wildlife to kill in Risen, it's just that it's not that easy to do that (at least for almost half of the game). On the other hand Dragon Ages quests propel the story forward, whereas Risen's quests develop the character of the story.

Story-line and Plot? Basic story-line in both is good, but by no means great. Plot however is better in Risen: various events in Risen reveal the story-line (..i.e. "unfold" if you will, and are not always obvious). In Dragon Age the events generally are *contrived* for leveling and pretty much "stated up front".

Conclusion?

In the end I'd rate both about a 7 out of 10, but for different reasons. If you are looking for something more like Morrowind yet with a tighter story and script - Risen's what you want. If you want something more D&D'ish - then Dragon Age is what you want.

[Dereth]

Having more fun playing through BG2 for the godknowshowmany'eth time, than playing DA:O. Couldn't even go through it twice. The lack of spells/abilities/classes/items/shops/areas etc. just didn't do it for me. :/

[Scottg]

Having more fun playing through BG2 for the godknowshowmany'eth time, than playing DA:O. Couldn't even go through it twice. The lack of spells/abilities/classes/items/shops/areas etc. just didn't do it for me. :/

Yeah, BG2 is just a better game. But DA:O is also pretty good.. once.

I'm sure you know about Planescape Torment.. but have you played Wizardry 8? (..I don't think it's as good as BG2, but it's close - very close, though different.. and you can play it more than once.)