Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

[POLL] Let's settle this - did you buy Dragon Age: Inquisition?

Did you buy Dragon Age: Inquisition?

  • Yes

    Votes: 65 10.8%
  • No

    Votes: 536 89.2%

  • Total voters
    601

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
DA:O looks like an improved Neverwinter Nights 2 with a shitty toolset to me.
Fix'd.

:hmmm:
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.

And their toolset really was shitty, just ask sea.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
DA:O and NWN2 have little in common IMO. While NWN2 has a massively improved ruleset in terms of complexity and customization, DA:O doesn't actually play like ass. It has, for example, functional combat rules and camera, while NWN2 suffers under infinite movement-issues and a notorious camera.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
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?
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
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?

I guess it depends on what criteria you use. If you're talking about RPGs I guess they share more than most. I meant in the little box of "RTwP." There I think NWN2 and BG2 have more in common actually, it's just that the first is shit and the second is awzum.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
DA:O doesn't actually play like ass.
But it does.
Brace for the Grunkening.

The wonderful thing about being me is that I talk so much that I can often just quote something and spare myself the trouble of saying something new.

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.
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
13,999
Location
Platypus Planet
I never even really thought about the DA series after playing DAO. 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. DA2 and 3 stopped trying to cater to a niche of gamers who like a certain genre and instead focused on trying to be appealing to gays and narcissists. BioWare didn't even have the decency to give somewhat decent production values to DA2 and 3 like they did the ME series.
 

ERYFKRAD

Barbarian
Patron
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
28,241
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I'll say this for DA: O, I was paying more attention to the fights as fighter in it than on BG2 or any of the DnD games, really.

That much, it did.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
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.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,164
Its because console gamers have a different standard than PC gamers. In retrospect, KotOR was already quite popamole but console gamers treat it as if it was the fucking Shakespeare of video games, and for them Mass Effect and Dragon Age are just a continuation of that.
 

Medic

Scholar
Patron
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
134
Not proud of myself, but I have. Didn't play after prologue though.
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
13,999
Location
Platypus Planet
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.

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.
 

Branm

Learned
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Ottawa
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.

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.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
2,234
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.

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.
they all have mmo combat. difference here is DAO is like WoW when DAI is more like TERA/GW2
 

norolim

Arcane
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1,012
Location
Pawland
Not planning to buy it new. If in the future someone finds a way to play it without Origin, I might buy a used copy to see what it is all about for myself.
 
Unwanted

Goat Vomit

Andhaira
Andhaira
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
391
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?
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
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?

It's not boring. It's also firmly above average. So no, I didn't say any of those things.

If DA:O didn't have tactical combat and fun spells, which RTwP RPGs, in your mind, did? And don't say Jagged Alliance ;)
 

Pony King

Educated
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
93
Since it is discussed anyway,

Grunker
Which DA:O encounters did you think were excellent?
I mostly remember them ass dull and uninspired, but it is possible that I forgot some or have different values when judging encounters.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
Since it is discussed anyway,

Grunker
Which DA:O encounters did you think were excellent?.

A few of the top of my head:

- there's a huge encounter in the deep roads with a gemlock caster around a fireplace, a few soldiers in between and some hidden archers on a small hill to your left. Very fun fight to manage and win.

- the fight with the master of the anvil is also very nice.

- in the dungeon where you unlock arcane warrior there's a fight with a wraith that casts fireballs and CP, a few trapped corridors between it and you and lots of undead to halt your approach.

- there's a fight with a shapeshifting demon in the fade whose crowd control effects are really nasty.

- the fight against the waves of undead in Redcliffe is challenging - especially before you really learn the system.

- the fight with the revenant in redcliffe is also p. cool.

- the fight where Zevran ambushes you for the first time is awesome.

There are a few more, those were just off the top of my head.
 

Pony King

Educated
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
93
Thanks.
I suspect that there is some disconnect between your experience and mine since you label fights difficult that I found unremarkable. Specifically I think it might have been because I played on hard difficulty rather than nightmare (was that the name? highest difficulty), and I'm wondering if I should try it again. What was your experience, if you had any, with the highest difficulty? What does it add to the game?
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
One man's difficult is another man's easy, and there are few to no RPGs that can't be broken by the use of certain tactics. The fights I found difficult on Hard back then are trivial for me today on Nightmare.

If you didn't like the game, your experience is unlikely to change from Hard to Nightmare, IMO.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom