Grunker
RPG Codex Ghost
Fix'd.DA:O looks like an improved Neverwinter Nights 2 with a shitty toolset to me.
Fix'd.DA:O looks like an improved Neverwinter Nights 2 with a shitty toolset to me.
Yes, I rushed it. In my defense what I said is at least slightly less debatable than the original. In spite of worse beastiary and a rules system that failed in multiple levels, including achieving some of its stated goals, DA:O did at least have a more functional UI and the camera didn't cause suicides across the world. Meaning it was functional.Fix'd.DA:O looks like an improved Neverwinter Nights 2 with a shitty toolset to me.
Grunker that's pretty much what I meant, except both games having little in common. Aren't both experiences fundamentally similar? Wouldn't DA:O being a post-IE RTwP game that doesn't play like ass qualify as an improvement?
But it does.DA:O doesn't actually play like ass.
Brace for the Grunkening.But it does.DA:O doesn't actually play like ass.
Brace for the Grunkening.But it does.DA:O doesn't actually play like ass.
Grunker said:Origins gets a lot of flak on the Codex, and while it certainly deserves some, it seems to get it for all the wrong reasons. DA:O is a mechanically tight game with adequate character progression, fluid and tactical combat, fun spell combinations and diverse companions. Its writing ranges from good to sub-par, and it has both excellent encounters and some grindy, copy-pasted ones.
While that may not sound like a glowing review, it is in fact much more than can be said of most RPGs in DA:O's subgenre - that of isometric, epic scale RPGs. Perhaps the reason Dragon Age: Origins is so universally dismissed on the Codex (though still loved enough to make it onto the top 70 list as #33) is that it is not the kind of flawed gem that the Codex so obviously craves. Rather, DA:O never does anything brilliantly, save for a few bits of C&C and some instances of world-building, but it also doesn't do anything all that terribly. Most of what it does, it does merely effectively.
As a result, DA:O is one of the alarmingly small number of polished and well-rounded RPGs, and one that does not share many of its contemporaries' problems, such as the streamlining and simplification of every single game mechanic. Oh, and Vault Dweller said it was the best RPG since Arcanum, so there's that.
Did it, really? To me it was basically KotOR without lightsabers, and one tacked-on, pretty much completely useless "tactical camera" didn't really change that fact. The combat was MMO-influenced tank/DPS/healer garbage with HP bloat and cooldowns and the non-combat parts were hardly any different from BioWare's other games. Maybe it's the fantasy thing that got some people hooked, but the setting was so bland that I never got anything out of it.It was a kind of soulless experience, but at least it tried to emulate a style of game that people had been craving for a while.
Did it, really? To me it was basically KotOR without lightsabers, and one tacked-on, pretty much completely useless "tactical camera" didn't really change that fact. The combat was MMO-influenced tank/DPS/healer garbage with HP bloat and cooldowns and the non-combat parts were hardly any different from BioWare's other games. Maybe it's the fantasy thing that got some people hooked, but the setting was so bland that I never got anything out of it.It was a kind of soulless experience, but at least it tried to emulate a style of game that people had been craving for a while.
Did it, really? To me it was basically KotOR without lightsabers, and one tacked-on, pretty much completely useless "tactical camera" didn't really change that fact. The combat was MMO-influenced tank/DPS/healer garbage with HP bloat and cooldowns and the non-combat parts were hardly any different from BioWare's other games. Maybe it's the fantasy thing that got some people hooked, but the setting was so bland that I never got anything out of it.It was a kind of soulless experience, but at least it tried to emulate a style of game that people had been craving for a while.
I've criticized DAO for its banal MMO combat as well, but that doesn't change the fact that it had a lot more demanding and tactical combat than KOTOR. Not exactly shooting for high standards here, but there it is. People were yearning for the next Bladder's Gate, a fantasy party based RPG of epic scope. DAO was the closest thing they got.
they all have mmo combat. difference here is DAO is like WoW when DAI is more like TERA/GW2Did it, really? To me it was basically KotOR without lightsabers, and one tacked-on, pretty much completely useless "tactical camera" didn't really change that fact. The combat was MMO-influenced tank/DPS/healer garbage with HP bloat and cooldowns and the non-combat parts were hardly any different from BioWare's other games. Maybe it's the fantasy thing that got some people hooked, but the setting was so bland that I never got anything out of it.It was a kind of soulless experience, but at least it tried to emulate a style of game that people had been craving for a while.
I've criticized DAO for its banal MMO combat as well, but that doesn't change the fact that it had a lot more demanding and tactical combat than KOTOR. Not exactly shooting for high standards here, but there it is. People were yearning for the next Bladder's Gate, a fantasy party based RPG of epic scope. DAO was the closest thing they got.
DAO ....had MMO combat....ummm okay??? Not sure which mmo's you play but DA2 and DA:I resemble mmo combat a hell of a lot more. Meh honestly i think DAO gets too much hate on the codex...Its still by far the best shit Bioware has released for ages and I at least had some fun playing it which cant be said about DA2 or the vast majority of new AAA RPG's.
Your grunker mind tricks won't work on me. So basically you defend it by saying it's boring and mediocre but that's okay since there are so few games around? I disagree about spells being fun, that the combat demanded much tactics, that the character progression was enough and that it was mechanically tight though. Maybe you just have low standards?Origins gets a lot of flak on the Codex, and while it certainly deserves some, it seems to get it for all the wrong reasons. DA:O is a mechanically tight game with adequate character progression, fluid and tactical combat, fun spell combinations and diverse companions. Its writing ranges from good to sub-par, and it has both excellent encounters and some grindy, copy-pasted ones.
While that may not sound like a glowing review, it is in fact much more than can be said of most RPGs in DA:O's subgenre - that of isometric, epic scale RPGs. Perhaps the reason Dragon Age: Origins is so universally dismissed on the Codex (though still loved enough to make it onto the top 70 list as #33) is that it is not the kind of flawed gem that the Codex so obviously craves. Rather, DA:O never does anything brilliantly, save for a few bits of C&C and some instances of world-building, but it also doesn't do anything all that terribly. Most of what it does, it does merely effectively.
As a result, DA:O is one of the alarmingly small number of polished and well-rounded RPGs, and one that does not share many of its contemporaries' problems, such as the streamlining and simplification of every single game mechanic. Oh, and Vault Dweller said it was the best RPG since Arcanum, so there's that.
Your grunker mind tricks won't work on me. So basically you defend it by saying it's boring and mediocre but that's okay since there are so few games around? I disagree about spells being fun, that the combat demanded much tactics, that the character progression was enough and that it was mechanically tight though. Maybe you just have low standards?