this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
169 points (93.3% liked)
Gaming
20006 readers
8 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
deleted by creator
Simplicity to access the content is important, but I'd argue just as important is they've tried to make the games simple and appealing to everyone, and they end up not really appealing to anyone. Make an interesting game for the people that want it. Don't make a game no one wants.
Jack of all trades, master of none.
It genuinely feels like the notion of a pure triple AAA RPG is slowly being torn down by publishers chasing the wide audience of action game fans who will ultimately not care that much for the end product.
Yep. Just look at Bioware. BG3 would have been theirs if they didn't go the action game route. In the past they made BG and SWTOR, but then they made DA: Origins (not an action game, but moving that direction) and then Mass Effect. At that point they never went back from that direction. They've been successful most of the time, but I feel it can only last so long, because it isn't really made for anyone anymore. I think we can see that now.
Dragon Age's drop in reputation had nothing to do with launchers, given many if not most players were on console.
"Simplicity" is arguably what killed it, because they had an excellent formula with Origins, and "simplified" it to the point it lost its identity as a true RPG.
For me I loved Dragon Age 2 beacuse I came from Mass Effect and the streamlined effect totally felt like an ME game to me. Also loved the idea of setting things in one city it was something different. Totally get why people don't like it tho.
Inquisition was excellent and underrated
Inquisition wasn't quite as bad, I actually enjoyed it because it made an attempt to walk back some of the "streamlining" from 2, though obviously they both pale in comparison to Origins.
I was kind of hopeful they'd rediscovered their identity somewhat with Inquisition, but 4 looks like that hope was misplaced. They doubled down on abandoning the RPG in favor of the overly simplistic button masher with a smattering of RPG elements that are more or less meaningless.
I disagree. I preferred 2 and 3 to 1. Obviously YMMV and that's fine
Aye, let's agree to respect each other's opinion. No matter how wrong yours might be.
(joking of course, I actually like 2 a lot despite how clearly unfinished and rushed it was, although I really really disliked 3 except for the romances and the character interactions)
I always enjoyed the story of 2. Origins and 3 both fall for the same story beats aka "You are the Chosen One. Only you can save the World."
Origins, you are the last of the Grey Wardens in Felderen. Only you can reunite everyone to stop the Blight.
3, only you can close the rifts, reunite everyone, and stop the Big Bad guy.
In 2n Varic actively mocks that in the beginning. Hawke is portrayed as the Chosen One. When challenged, Varic admits that he made it up. Hawke is a nobody in beginning, only kicks start the mage and templar war because of the people that they associated started everything. Cough Anders Cough Hawke really just stumbles from adventure to adventure because of their companions.
It's a story about unintended consequences and how small events can lead into big events.
2's biggest failure was the over use of the same assets. The is cave/house/ruin is the same layout all the other cave/house/ruin. It was fine when it made narrative sense however that it is only for a minority of the time.
It's always weird to me when people talk about video games as if story is the single most important aspect.
Personally I think 2's biggest folly was abandoning the deep RPG in favor of overly-simplistic hack and slash. A mistake 3 somewhat attempted to correct, and for that, I'll take its weaker story because I enjoy playing it much more. And if course 1 blows them both out of the water in terms of RPG gameplay.
I liked Varic in 2 but that's about it. The asset recycling was absolutely mad.
I will agree that the asset reuse in 2 was bad. But I loved the game for putting me in completely different shoes from the norm. The settiing of the character as refugee was unique
Yeah I love the second one also. Liked the characters better, I like the contained story, combat was more fun I thought, Etc...
Wasn't it dragon age 2 where the level design got super repetitive though? It felt like they kept reusing the same exact level design in ways that didn't really make sense.
Yes, 2 had a lot of re-used locations. Some of them did make sense, as the story was almost entirely set within a single city, so certain locations are bound to pop up multiple times, especially as the game takes place over a decade or so.
But the real reason, 2 was developed and rushed out the door in like a year or something? It was a ridiculously short amount of time to develop a sequel to a game as big as DA:O. Unsurprisingly, this led to a LOT of re used assets and locations.
But though it obviously had failings, I, like some others, would probably put DA2 as the high point for the series telling really character driven stories with the most compelling cast of characters.
I've heard that, and it's reasonable however I found the level design in the first one could be a little repetitive as well so I thought some of the criticism was somewhat unwarranted.
And this is the problem. The original game was made for people into RPGs (technically Real Time with Pause RPG).
The sequels gave a middle finger to those people by chasing simplistic, action focused combat with minimal RPG aspects. Hence why people despise them.
I strongly disagree. I've been playing crpgs from literally the very first of them. I'm very definitely "into rpgs" and I love all the DA games
Oh yes, I played a mage in both and the difference was startling. In the first part you have immensly powerful spells, that could also backfire hard because the game had friendly fire. At high levels you could wipe everything on the screen, including your party. In the second, friendly fire was gone so you could blast away and suddenly you spun around like a kung-fu master for some reason.