Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate Edition

[GruntMark]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="juggaloninjalee" data-cite="juggaloninjalee" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="30423" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Would you ever play with 3 fighters and a mage then?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yep, that was my pretty typical party.</p><p> </p><p> Me with dual swords + Leliana + Someone with lots of health and armour to get out front and take the hits + a mage.</p><p> </p><p> But the game would have been easier if Id benched Leliana for the other mage, from a purely "how to build the best party possible for fighting" perspective.</p><p> </p><p> But I bias myself towards taking characters I like and bench ones I dont.</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GruntMark" data-cite="GruntMark" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="30423" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yep, that was my pretty typical party.<p> </p><p> Me with dual swords + Leliana + Someone with lots of health and armour to get out front and take the hits + a mage.</p><p> </p><p> But the game would have been easier if Id benched Leliana for the other mage, from a purely "how to build the best party possible for fighting" perspective.</p><p> </p><p> But I bias myself towards taking characters I like and bench ones I dont.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah I do that too. I can see myself using 3 fighters and a mage. Me and Alistair for sure with Morrigan unless I like the other mage more. Then a 3rd fighter I'm sure. Alistair will probably be the take all damage guy.</p>

[BHK1978]

I tend to have a party with Leliana (so she can open up stuff for me), the other mage (Not sue you got that far yet to know who it is but I use them to heal my party), myself, and either Alistair or Sten. I find the Dog to be useless. And I never use Morrigan because her character has never done a whole lot of damage for me.

[juggaloninjalee]

No I haven't met anyone other than Alistair, and now Morrigan.

[D-Lyrium]

Mass Effect makes me a sad panda, because for ages I put off buying Mass Effect 2 because the original was so damn boring, and now I've played ME2, I realise I could've been playing it months ago.

 

ME2 is one of my favourite games, ME probably one of my least favourite. It's like the Deus Ex series in reverse.

 

As for Dragon Age... very rarely has a game snagged me in it's grasp and pulled me in quite as much. And very, very rarely have I felt such affection for a computer game character as for Leliyana (or Alistair, for that matter).

 

I really enjoy the story in ME2, though. Yeah, it's cliche, but almost everything is cliche these days. It's told really well (even if sometimes the voice actors don't seem to know how to read certain lines). The characters themselves might not be as deep in ME2 as in DAO, but they DO a lot more STUFF during the game.

In DAO, the only real difference they make to actual gameplay/storyline is through their class skills, and throwing out the odd conversation between themselves when you walk past a trigger point, or very occasional dialogue option during a cutscene. Whereas in ME2, the characters you select for a mission changes how the mission plays out quite a bit in terms of dialogue and story (particularly Mordin on missions like Jacob's father's side-mission. I took him on Grunt's too actually, he amuses me, though he was a bit useless in the latter case).

 

So yeah, DAO has the better/more detailed characters, but ME2 utilises the ones it has FAR better.

 

Having said that, both games rate very highly with me personally. If I had to choose between them, it would be hard. I'd probably go with ME2, though. Sorry Leliyana, please forgive me my darling. :'(

[crayon]

Quick: name an RPG or RPG series that surpasses DAO or Mass Effect in polish or quality. I'll wait.

 

Quick: name me a time when you haven't used some form of this pseudo-conversation catchprase to make someone's opinion look silly. No hurry. (Get back at me at any time between now and me finishing the post.)

 

Seriously though:

 

Not since the heyday of Ultima has there been an RPG of this level of quality. Seriously. When one of the biggest publishers in gaming jumps at the chance to buy a studio specifically because of its RPG reputation for quality but calls buying another studio (with a more mainstream IP) "like trying to catch a falling knife", there must be something there.

 

There is something there, and it's the fact that that Bioware makes products that make a lot of money, while Harmonix' Dance Cental is still relatively unproven and the latest iteration of their most known IP sold less than John Cena when he's in superman mode. (Incidentally, Rock Band 3 is an amazing game for the rhythm genre--with oodles of "quality", I might add... just a shame that their specific genre in the toilet (ref: Activision ceasing the GH franchise).)

 

You may not like the setting, you may not like the graphics, you may not like the genre, but saying either of these two series (the most successful RPGs in gaming right now. Not even The Elder Scrolls can really compete, except with the modding community) lacks polish is disingenuous and is easily disputed by every metric available. You want designers to reinvent the wheel without realizing that doing so impacts accessibility which impacts the bottom line. If Joe Gamer can't even figure out how to get started in a game or how to proceed from point to point, the game tends to fail. That's why you don't see an abundance of puzzle type mechanics in any mainstream RPGs anymore. Portal is good but Portal isn't in the same solar system as the things Bioware (and Bethesda) produce. And if the formula Bioware uses offends you so much, you might want to skip ME3. I won't spoil the basic plot but while deeper than the previous two games, the script itself isn't revolutionary in theme or scope.

 

All of this I totally agree with, however.

[The Final Countdown]

I watched a live developer's chat for DA2 a couple of hours ago. I want to play the game. NOW. Hurry up and get here, March 8th!

[Remianen]

Hey, hey, don't get your shorts in bunch. I like both series and games. It's just Dragon Age has a great story, good gameplay, but is buggy and unpolished. As for Dragon Age, I played it 3 days a week, starting from 10 in the morning to 10 at night. It was a fun game, but the second one looks like it's going to be nerfed. And no DAO makes ampulator a sad panda. As for Mass Effect, Mass Effect was typical and unrorginal. Good? Yes. But very cliche. Mass Effect 2 was just awesome, though. As a game, it blows the first one out of the water.

 

I can like something, and recgonize its weaknesses. It is what it is. I list Mass Effect 2 and DAO as some of the my favorite games, along with Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective, and the Phoenix Wright Series.

 

Here's why I bristle at the 'lack of polish' and similar things. Gamers, as a whole, say they want one thing and when it's given to them, they reject it. That's RISK and it's something most studios aren't willing to take on. Thus, instead of revolutionary gameplay, we get evolutionary gameplay (think: Madden). If you've ever wondered why the innovative features are coming largely from small, "unknown" studios and developers, it's that reason right there. When Joe Developer is making a game, he's making it because he loves making games and wants to see a particular thing on the market. He usually doesn't have a publisher telling him not to do X or Y, stick to A or B. If you go to a GDC, you'll see a dozen of these guys (and girls) with their games that boggle the mind but don't have major publishers attached to them. Look on STEAM and you'll see hundreds of these games. There's a reason for that. Big publishers want games that move units. Complexity does not move units.

 

So you knock one of the only major developers with the stroke to hold out for quality and depth and polish (the very thing Blizzard built its rep on) and it makes it seem like these things aren't worth holding out for. Bethesda has a similar formula btw, but it leverages its modding community to extend the life of each of their games. There are still people actively playing (and modding for) Morrowind, for example.

 

I will agree that DAO could've developed their characters more. By the end, the only person I cared about was Morrigan (and maybe Shale). But, as it was told to me, that was the whole point. Her actions at the end were supposed to evoke a particular emotional response because of her background and history with my character. If everyone had been developed and focused on like Morrigan (with her attitude and mommy issues and such), it would've been harder to get that response for ONE character. Mass Effect is written for you to have a connection to ALL your crew members (or as many of the crew as possible). That's the reason for the loyalty mechanic/missions in ME2. The romance subplots are meant to add the possibility of complications to the rest of the relationships (hi Miranda and Jack). Garriott did it with Ultima (the morality conundrums) and this is just a more neutral advancement of that mechanic.

 

Have you ever considered that the reason DAO characters are designed/written the way they are is because the writers intended for DAO to differ from ME in significant (if subtle) ways?

 

Quick: name me a time when you haven't used some form of this pseudo-conversation catchprase to make someone's opinion look silly. No hurry. (Get back at me at any time between now and me finishing the post.)

 

*shrug* I think it is silly to lambast these two games for 'lack of polish'. I'm a gamer and have been into RPGs since the Commodore Vic-20 was 'the new flavor'. I've played hundreds of them. But I also have friends who work on these projects so I get a different perspective than folks who just cop whatever the newest highly hyped title happens to be. There are tons of mechanics and gameplay devices designers are dying to use but they can't because these things would jack up a game's complexity and/or dent its accessibility (according to the publisher, who's writin' the checks). And since most people don't bother buying games with features that differ from the norm unless it comes from a name they've heard of, the publishers' views are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

There is something there, and it's the fact that that Bioware makes products that make a lot of money, while Harmonix' Dance Cental is still relatively unproven and the latest iteration of their most known IP sold less than John Cena when he's in superman mode. (Incidentally, Rock Band 3 is an amazing game for the rhythm genre--with oodles of "quality", I might add... just a shame that their specific genre in the toilet (ref: Activision ceasing the GH franchise).)

 

Lemme clue you in on something. Rock Band: The Beatles made lots of money. It didn't make as much as many people were projecting (because many of those people were seemingly high on cocaine with their projections. 4 million units in a year? REALLY? Gimme some of what you're snortin'), but it just about met the internal expectations. Problem is, there's nowhere else to go. Who's bigger than the Beatles?

 

Also, there are reasons ME2 is far and away better than ME1: budget and focus. ME1, as the first game in a planned trilogy, had to be relatively simple and easy to get into. Once it was successful, they could go whole hog on the second installment (since now you've got a built in fanbase). This is different from games that "spawn" sequels. In the latter case, the first game does so well, they feel the need/desire to do a sequel (much like movies) but the first one was designed in standalone fashion. ME is supposed to get better with each iteration. I'd say they've accomplished that thus far.

[juggaloninjalee]

Remi you make good points.

 

This game has some glitches but I really do like this game and find myself wanting to figure out more and more of what's been going on. Saw my gf play in the Fade and I didn't like that at all. Looked annoying to me. I have avoided it so far but will go into the Face probably tonight when I play again for a bit.

[The Final Countdown]

Remi you make good points.

 

This game has some glitches but I really do like this game and find myself wanting to figure out more and more of what's been going on. Saw my gf play in the Fade and I didn't like that at all. Looked annoying to me. I have avoided it so far but will go into the Face probably tonight when I play again for a bit.

Yeah, have fun with that. I HATED the Fade. That's the biggest thing that has kept me from doing a 2nd playthrough of the game as DA2's release date nears. I just have no desire to go through the Fade ever again. If only I had the PC version, and could make use of the 'Skip the Fade' mod.

[ampulator]

Here's why I bristle at the 'lack of polish' and similar things. Gamers, as a whole, say they want one thing and when it's given to them, they reject it. That's RISK and it's something most studios aren't willing to take on. Thus, instead of revolutionary gameplay, we get evolutionary gameplay (think: Madden). If you've ever wondered why the innovative features are coming largely from small, "unknown" studios and developers, it's that reason right there. When Joe Developer is making a game, he's making it because he loves making games and wants to see a particular thing on the market. He usually doesn't have a publisher telling him not to do X or Y, stick to A or B. If you go to a GDC, you'll see a dozen of these guys (and girls) with their games that boggle the mind but don't have major publishers attached to them. Look on STEAM and you'll see hundreds of these games. There's a reason for that. Big publishers want games that move units. Complexity does not move units.

 

I have no idea how this relates to "lack of polish". If you think it's a euphenism for nerfing games, it's not. What I mean is, they didn't enough of the kinks and balancing. And the amount of bugs.

 

So you knock one of the only major developers with the stroke to hold out for quality and depth and polish (the very thing Blizzard built its rep on) and it makes it seem like these things aren't worth holding out for. Bethesda has a similar formula btw, but it leverages its modding community to extend the life of each of their games. There are still people actively playing (and modding for) Morrowind, for example.

 

I never knocked the developer... I only "knock" the game itself. Don't take my comments about the game and extend it to the developer.

 

I will agree that DAO could've developed their characters more. By the end, the only person I cared about was Morrigan (and maybe Shale). But, as it was told to me, that was the whole point. Her actions at the end were supposed to evoke a particular emotional response because of her background and history with my character. If everyone had been developed and focused on like Morrigan (with her attitude and mommy issues and such), it would've been harder to get that response for ONE character. Mass Effect is written for you to have a connection to ALL your crew members (or as many of the crew as possible). That's the reason for the loyalty mechanic/missions in ME2. The romance subplots are meant to add the possibility of complications to the rest of the relationships (hi Miranda and Jack). Garriott did it with Ultima (the morality conundrums) and this is just a more neutral advancement of that mechanic.

 

Here's your other mistake. I LIKE Dragon Age more, but I think Mass Effect 2 is the better game. And second, I do understand your point on the characters and characterization, but I neverh had a problem with the characters OR the characterization of Dragon Age OR Mass Effect 2.

 

Have you ever considered that the reason DAO characters are designed/written the way they are is because the writers intended for DAO to differ from ME in significant (if subtle) ways?

 

Yes.

[BHK1978]

Yeah, have fun with that. I HATED the Fade. That's the biggest thing that has kept me from doing a 2nd playthrough of the game as DA2's release date nears. I just have no desire to go through the Fade ever again. If only I had the PC version, and could make use of the 'Skip the Fade' mod.

 

Yeah screw the Sloth Demon! That was the one thing I hated about the game as well, that and the Brood Mother.

[crayon]

Lemme clue you in on something. Rock Band: The Beatles made lots of money. It didn't make as much as many people were projecting (because many of those people were seemingly high on cocaine with their projections. 4 million units in a year? REALLY? Gimme some of what you're snortin'), but it just about met the internal expectations. Problem is, there's nowhere else to go. Who's bigger than the Beatles?

 

Thanks for cluing me in on RB: The Beatles making lots of money, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at...? Wasn't your original point using Harmonix's IP as some kind of contrast to show that Bioware must put out a really quality product if EA would rather acquire them than HMX?

 

You just stated that there was nowhere to go after RB: The Beatles (a point I personally contest, given that the music industry continues to be financially viable post-Beatles (even if noone has their same level of legendary status and broad appeal))--a game released two iterations prior to RB's current lackluster sales and the waning interest of rhythm games, I might add--which really does nothing to prove Bioware's quality. All it does is prove that acquiring Harmonix would be financially unsound, and none of that due to their level of "quality".

 

I mean, it's cool that you're personally invested in what's going on in the industry and have insider hook-ups and stuff, and I totally agree that Bioware has a great level of quality going on, and can sympathize with the constraints big budget devs are under, but I'm yet to see any correlation between Harmonix being passed on and Bioware being acquired that proves the greatness of DAO or whatever the product of the original argument was.