Dragon Age : Origins - An utter disappointment ?

[Lacsapix]

DAO is best game I played since well ever...

first I disliked it and trew it away.
then I played it again.
then I was in love with it.
now we are maried

it takes some time but inside that game is a lot of fun.

 

[frago roc]

Xbox version, nuff said.

Xbox version had the shittest graphics of all the options. You are just a fanboy, aren't you?

My mistake, I thought ppl were smart enough to assume by me saying "xbox version" I was refering to why ppl where whining about the game. ofc the pc version is better.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

DA:O took me a while to get into it. At first I was definitely disappointed, but eventually I was hooked.

 

[jackpipsam]

it isn't CoD! and thats a good thing

 

[Rensenhito]

Well if I am wrong, then please explain why, rather then just claiming that my points are invalid.

The thing is, there's no such thing as a wrong opinion, so there's no way we can convince you of anything contrary to what you already think. In fact, I'm pretty sure you came here to hear an echo of your own sentiments. Nothing wrong with that, it's human nature to seek out like-minded individuals.
Anyway, I quite enjoyed Dragon Age, myself. I found the combat to be deep and rewarding once I got a few levels under my belt, and the leveling system was very solid and easy to work with. As far as the dialogue, yeah, it was pretty stilted a lot of the time, but at least the characters were well thought out instead of being one-dimensional twigs.

 

[Jimbo1212]

After playing this game for a few hours I stopped playing when I realised that I was completely bored.
Can someone please explain to me why this game has received so much praise. All I found was that the combat was terribly repetitive with no grounds for creativity and very similar to the combat found in WoW. On top of this the graphics are shockingly bad along with the conversation menu. What possessed bioware to take a step backwards and use a generic and resultantly bad conversation system over their innovative mass effect conversation menu?

And I played it on the PC. It still has terrible graphics. Why was a game like this released in 2009 when it could have easily been released in 2006/7?

The combat is nothing like in WoW. Did you even play WoW?


Bioware games all tend to be the same.
Great story, decent to good graphics, bad combat.


If you're a graphics whore who always skips over every bit of story and dialogue in games to get to the action, Bioware games aren't for you.

It is almost identical. 1,2,3,4, move to back of npc whilst being outnumbered, 1,2,3,4, rebuff. How is that not like WoW?
And the graphics are bad, go look at the requirements.

 

[Funkysandwich]

I've done one playthrough and enjoyed it, but I can't be bothered playing it again.

Not sure why, I had some fun with it though.

And what's with the bitching about the requirements? It doesn't ask much.

 

[zHellas]

America, You've got House. That's the best TV doctor anyone could ever ask for. Why do you need Who as well?

Okay, you just made me think of a fight between Hugh Laurie and David Tennant. I'm not sure if I should thank you or hit you on the head...

OT: The graphics are good(at least okay), and the storyline is fine. The only thing I hate about it is the Fade part of the Broken Circle, but people would have probably been angry or annoyed if they could only go into the Fade & explore it as the Mage in his/her intro.

 

[Red Right Hand]

And I played it on the PC. It still has terrible graphics. Why was a game like this released in 2009 when it could have easily been released in 2006/7?

What? Did you honestly just ask that question? Graphics aren't the only thing that designers spend their time on. If you think that graphics is all that matters then it's no wonder you didn't enjoy the game. Also, the graphics really aren't that bad. Not everything has to have Crysis level fucking graphics.

 

[chaos order]

Because one of them might cure you of you're massive bigotry.

Also, in the spirit of things I feel it necessary to point out that they are also doing an American version of Shameless.

Bigotry? Yeah, love you too... I just really get carried away and aggresive when it comes to Dragon Age, dunno it just hits a nerve with me.

I haven't heard too good things about Shameless, but... just the concept.

Leave our shows alone, we leave yours American!
I haven't seen C.S.I. Birmingham, or something like that.
Random thought: If there were to be an English House, they'd have to get an American who everyone thinks is English to play Dr. House.

isnt hugh laurie english? LOL

 

[Shycte]

I loved it. But it takes a certain taste to do so.

 

[Frenger]

You're still not getting the point. Bad =/= worse. It's not pedantic, it's the whole point of the argument. I'll give a basic example: I ask person A and person B if the graphics in Dragon Age are good. Person A says the graphics are bad. Person B says the graphics are good. Therefore it cannot be objective, as '1 + 1 = 2' would be.

Yes, your statement is born out of ignorance and unwillingness to accept other's opinions, despite how sarcastically you want to put it. Graphics are not as important to me because I hold gameplay to be more essential to my enjoyment of the game. That's my explanation.

What games are you comparing DA too?
It runs maxed out on a 8800 GTS and is only DX 9 ergo it is bad.
Maybe not 10 years ago, but even in 2008 that is bad. You may claim it is opinion, but I will stand by my facts and hope you realise that your opinion is ignorant as you obviously have no understanding of graphics and what you are talking about.
Also, you may want to grab a dictionary as I have given a valid reason for why I feel graphics to be important yet you have not. The only view point (or lack of) you have given is " I don't care cause l0l". Maybe if you explain why immersion in an RPG is not important, then I will consider your view point. However, after asking you to clarify this point numerous times and you still have yet to deliver an answer which would be found out of a playground, I doubt I will have better luck.

FFS. You compared the game mechanics to WoW, a concept is over 30 years old. But graphics matters? Always? People still play games that are 5- 10 years old, when there are top-of-the-line games out there. People still play Counter-strike 1.6 and Starcraft, yet those games have have absolutely dreadful graphics. What are you getting at? All I see here is that you believe hardware is more important than the games they run on. Man, I rather play Dwarf Fortress than Crysis any time of the week. Immersion *IS* in the eye of the beholder. Graphics are worse than new games, and sometimes even old ones, but the "fact" you point as are not infact... err, a "fact".

It's an opinion. On a technical standpoint, there is nothing "bad" about the graphics in DAO, or Starcraft, or Civ 2, or Ultima IV. Why? Because they do the job. If the graphics doesn't load properly, then I guess it's bad(had no glitches in DAO yet, plenty in RRD, but that's expected). I had screentearing on Half-life 2, but not Quake 1 on the same machine. Guess Quake 1 had better graphics then... OR NOT. Maybe it's a faulty driver, or maybe Quake runs differently than Half-life 2, since they are on two different engines. Or better yet, they are two separate games, 6-7 years apart. Hell, I get less graphical errors in Baldur's Gate than Mass Effect 1. Damn, they can't make decent graphics these days...

also,

On topic, yeah, Dragon Age was pretty good. Liked KOTOR better, though.

A 30 year old concept?
That is my point. It is dated and boring as sin.
Why do people play old games? Because they are cheap and/or nostalgia. Within 10 years new games do come out that progress the genre, yet people stick with the old games as that is what they are familiar with - not because it is better. Look at DOW, look at MW 1. Yet people still play CS and StarCraft.
Again, graphics helps with immersion. Unless someone can explain why something looking more realistic does not help, then I will keep calling you people cheap. And the quality (not immersions, don't know where you read that ) of graphics is a fact as it is technical and you can simply compare the maths.
On the technical side, DA graphics are bad. To argue they do the job is to argue why move to colour film? Black and white worked right? Screen tearing? Learn to use V-sync....As you do not know about this, I feel that yet again I am debating with someone who has no knowledge of the topic at hand. Every heard of polygon count? Texture resolutions? Thought not.

Well, to be perfectly honest, MW2(or any "modern" shooter) is built on a concept that is 15- 20 years old aswell, so that is old as sin too. Every game are built on some idea that have been conjured up the past 20-25 years. The rest of your arguments are irrelevant too, at least to me, as I don't give a shit about them. I do know what polygon count, texture resolution mean. But why should I care about that if that's the last thing on the list, if on a list at all. I just bought Civilization 5. Do you honestly believe I cared about the graphics when there are more changes to the game than what meets the eye(or ears). Hell, I still play Civ 2 on my shitty netbook, and that game was released 1996.

Good graphics are fine, no argument from me here, but I honestly don't care what a game looks like, I want a game that is fun. If you don't like playing games with "bad graphics", then don't. But trying to impose an opinion as "fact" is just silly. And there is no math behind your argument, no matter how hard you try.

PS. Honestly, I would love to see those numbers. And a reason why I (or anyone) should care.
DS.

 

[Liberaliter]

Not an utter disappointment, you just didn't enjoy it.

 

[Jimbo1212]

It is almost identical. 1,2,3,4, move to back of npc whilst being outnumbered, 1,2,3,4, rebuff. How is that not like WoW?
And the graphics are bad, go look at the requirements.

I guess you're the type that let the computer handle the decisions of the other three characters.

A game's requirements don't make the graphics bad.
Are you saying they're bad because they required so much?

I have to wonder how many games you actually play, or at least, pay attention to.

Oh my god, please tell me there is a typo somewhere in the quote "A game's requirements don't make the graphics bad." Such horrifically low specs = bad graphics compared to any game nowadays. If it only needs at 8800GTS to run it at full, then it is horribly dated by all genre's.
Why are you saying the game required a lot of power??? What computer are you running it on and what games are you comparing it to?

And I played it on the PC. It still has terrible graphics. Why was a game like this released in 2009 when it could have easily been released in 2006/7?

What? Did you honestly just ask that question? Graphics aren't the only thing that designers spend their time on. If you think that graphics is all that matters then it's no wonder you didn't enjoy the game. Also, the graphics really aren't that bad. Not everything has to have Crysis level fucking graphics.

Sorry for not wanting to pay for a half arsed game. If I am going to part with my money, I want everything to be done well. It is not asking much now is it.

FFS. You compared the game mechanics to WoW, a concept is over 30 years old. But graphics matters? Always? People still play games that are 5- 10 years old, when there are top-of-the-line games out there. People still play Counter-strike 1.6 and Starcraft, yet those games have have absolutely dreadful graphics. What are you getting at? All I see here is that you believe hardware is more important than the games they run on. Man, I rather play Dwarf Fortress than Crysis any time of the week. Immersion *IS* in the eye of the beholder. Graphics are worse than new games, and sometimes even old ones, but the "fact" you point as are not infact... err, a "fact".

It's an opinion. On a technical standpoint, there is nothing "bad" about the graphics in DAO, or Starcraft, or Civ 2, or Ultima IV. Why? Because they do the job. If the graphics doesn't load properly, then I guess it's bad(had no glitches in DAO yet, plenty in RRD, but that's expected). I had screentearing on Half-life 2, but not Quake 1 on the same machine. Guess Quake 1 had better graphics then... OR NOT. Maybe it's a faulty driver, or maybe Quake runs differently than Half-life 2, since they are on two different engines. Or better yet, they are two separate games, 6-7 years apart. Hell, I get less graphical errors in Baldur's Gate than Mass Effect 1. Damn, they can't make decent graphics these days...

also,

On topic, yeah, Dragon Age was pretty good. Liked KOTOR better, though.

A 30 year old concept?
That is my point. It is dated and boring as sin.
Why do people play old games? Because they are cheap and/or nostalgia. Within 10 years new games do come out that progress the genre, yet people stick with the old games as that is what they are familiar with - not because it is better. Look at DOW, look at MW 1. Yet people still play CS and StarCraft.
Again, graphics helps with immersion. Unless someone can explain why something looking more realistic does not help, then I will keep calling you people cheap. And the quality (not immersions, don't know where you read that ) of graphics is a fact as it is technical and you can simply compare the maths.
On the technical side, DA graphics are bad. To argue they do the job is to argue why move to colour film? Black and white worked right? Screen tearing? Learn to use V-sync....As you do not know about this, I feel that yet again I am debating with someone who has no knowledge of the topic at hand. Every heard of polygon count? Texture resolutions? Thought not.

Well, to be perfectly honest, MW2(or any "modern" shooter) is built on a concept that is 15- 20 years old aswell, so that is old as sin too. Every game are built on some idea that have been conjured up the past 20-25 years. The rest of your arguments are irrelevant too, at least to me, as I don't give a shit about them. I do know what polygon count, texture resolution mean. But why should I care about that if that's the last thing on the list, if on a list at all. I just bought Civilization 5. Do you honestly believe I cared about the graphics when there are more changes to the game than what meets the eye(or ears). Hell, I still play Civ 2 on my shitty netbook, and that game was released 1996.

Good graphics are fine, no argument from me here, but I honestly don't care what a game looks like, I want a game that is fun. If you don't like playing games with "bad graphics", then don't. But trying to impose an opinion as "fact" is just silly. And there is no math behind your argument, no matter how hard you try.

PS. Honestly, I would love to see those numbers. And a reason why I (or anyone) should care.
DS.

I never mentioned MW2..?
Games are built on ideas, but then those ideas are developed on. This is how we went from Doom to decent modern fps like MW 1. I found DA developed in very few ways outside on the speech/choice menu (which itself was dated ). The combat was identical to WoW, and the graphics were horrific for a game released in 2009.

 

[Red Right Hand]

And I played it on the PC. It still has terrible graphics. Why was a game like this released in 2009 when it could have easily been released in 2006/7?

What? Did you honestly just ask that question? Graphics aren't the only thing that designers spend their time on. If you think that graphics is all that matters then it's no wonder you didn't enjoy the game. Also, the graphics really aren't that bad. Not everything has to have Crysis level fucking graphics.

Sorry for not wanting to pay for a half arsed game. If I am going to part with my money, I want everything to be done well. It is not asking much now is it.

Right, fine, you didn't enjoy all/many or even any of the aspects of the game, a lot of people seemed to enjoy the game mechanics, so to be honest the devs probably feel like all that time that they spent designing other aspects of the game was worth it. I would much rather play an interesting, immersive and compelling game than one which had the majority of time and money spent on graphics. Not everyone cares as much about that as you so i'm sorry that the devs were incredibly rude and didn't cater for your opinion.

Also, the combat is actually different from WOW, it wasn't great, but it was acceptable. I enjoyed the story, enjoyed the lore.

You clearly have a different opinion from most other people. Just accept it.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Sorry for not wanting to pay for a half arsed game. If I am going to part with my money, I want everything to be done well. It is not asking much now is it.

Right, fine, you didn't enjoy all/many or even any of the aspects of the game, a lot of people seemed to enjoy the game mechanics, so to be honest the devs probably feel like all that time that they spent designing other aspects of the game was worth it. I would much rather play an interesting, immersive and compelling game than one which had the majority of time and money spent on graphics. Not everyone cares as much about that as you so i'm sorry that the devs were incredibly rude and didn't cater for your opinion.

Also, the combat is actually different from WOW, it wasn't great, but it was acceptable. I enjoyed the story, enjoyed the lore.

You clearly have a different opinion from most other people. Just accept it.

I have never said that they should put all the time and money into graphics, so stop making straw men. All I ask is that they at least try a bit rather then throwing out something that is dated on release.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

The gameplay is a mix of strategy and RPG.
The writing is great.
The game isn't the problem, you are.
Yes, the graphics are indeed bad, but that doesn't really matter.

I wouldn't go that far. I enjoyed the game a lot, I enjoyed all the banter by the party members. What I think was the most hurtful was the lack of a fast-travel option after you cleared an area. It does throw you out of the enjoyment when you have to slog through every ounce of an area 5 times to loot it. And that, sir, is what I think most kills the gameplay for some. It is subtle but it certainly ends with "why the heck am I DOING this?"

But Dragon Age seems to be like cats. You either love them or hate them, there isn't much in-between. And if you hate this one, maybe Fable, or Elder Scrolls, or some other game will work for you. And that's okay, different strokes for different folks.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

After playing this game for a few hours I stopped playing when I realised that I was completely bored.
Can someone please explain to me why this game has received so much praise. All I found was that the combat was terribly repetitive with no grounds for creativity and very similar to the combat found in WoW. On top of this the graphics are shockingly bad along with the conversation menu. What possessed bioware to take a step backwards and use a generic and resultantly bad conversation system over their innovative mass effect conversation menu?

And I played it on the PC. It still has terrible graphics. Why was a game like this released in 2009 when it could have easily been released in 2006/7?

I had alot of problems with it when I first played it. Coming back to it, almost a year later, something changed and I became engrossed for several weeks. I think finally getting a handle on the combat so I didn't die at every random encounter helped.

 

[Ascarus]

After playing this game for a few hours I stopped playing when I realised that I was completely bored.

as has been noted before, the game starts out really slowly and is probably the games biggest flaw. it's pretty tough to trudge through the first chapter. but after that the game's pace picks up considerably.

and it was without any doubt the best RPG i have played in a long time. strong story, strong characters, interesting world, tactical RT combat where you benefited from some micromanagement of your party members behavior, great voice acting with deep NPC back stories, a reasonably free flowing game word and experience, some of the hardest fights i've ever had in an RPG (i'm looking at you High Dragon) ...

and while the graphics weren't up to today's "standards", i didn't care. the game felt and looked vibrant enough to easily draw me in. the game was excellent.

 

[Ascarus]

Wasn't a fan, played it for a couple hours and was like "WUH, where dah boobs at?" so then I went and played The Witcher instead.

you do realize you can download mods that take care of your "where dah boobs at?" problem in ways that put The Witcher to shame.