Dragon Age: Origins isn't doing it for me. Should I keep going?

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

I'm going to give it one more try. I just don't understand this thing about constantly pausing the game. Where's the game flow in that? If I need to kill the pace of the combat constantly to be able to make strategic decisions, why is it in real time to begin with? Is this one of those archaic design elements that has retro appeal? At least in X-Com or Darkest Dungeon I can take my time, weigh my options and focus on a single element at a time.

DAO was created to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate (Bioware lost the D&D licence and couldn't make another BG, so they created their own fantasy setting), so it mimics (in some aspects) elements of the Infinity engine's Real Time with Pause (RTwP) combat. Classic isometric style CRPGs are always either turn based or RTwP, as they allow the player to micromanage the actions of their party to a degree that isn't possible with real time combat. DAO is unusual in that it attempted to marry elements of the RTwP gameplay of BG with a more modern style of presentation and WoW influenced cool down management.

In answer to your question, yes, it's a feature of some of the most loved CRPGs ever made. There have also been a number of more recent CRPGs that have also adopted this style of gameplay specifically to appeal to fans of the Infinity engine classics; Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, and Torment: Tides of Numenera being the most notable examples of modern retro styled CRPGs.

If you don't want to micromanage your party, setting up AI behaviour (the Tactics system) for your party is sufficient most of the time, but you will still need to take manual control from time to time. A good Tactics setup will allow your party to pretty much run itself, leaving you free to just control your character. This guide explains how to set up party tactics - https://youtube.com/watch?v=sM4cFwGQBno
If you want optimal tactics builds, you can probably find them online, though with the closure of the Bioware forums, it's possible some of the guides have been lost.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I would say give up if you're at that point, there are some higher points afterward but there are also some points in between that are an absolute slog. (It's still one of my favorite games thoigh)

I'm going to give it one more try. I just don't understand this thing about constantly pausing the game. Where's the game flow in that? If I need to kill the pace of the combat constantly to be able to make strategic decisions, why is it in real time to begin with? Is this one of those archaic design elements that has retro appeal? At least in X-Com or Darkest Dungeon I can take my time, weigh my options and focus on a single element at a time.

It could be how you're using it. The way I've played is I set up basic tactics, like telling my mage to attack annoying enemies like other mages first, putting my archer on protection mode where she slams an enemy with a knockback arrow if they get to close, and my tank will usually just draw enemies in and my player character rouge I control to back stab with two axes. I only use the pause feature when shit hits the fan, and I like how it gives me a chance to switch up my tactics when I'm getting my ass kicked

 

[DoPo]

The game is decent but nowhere near mandatory to play. It's very...BioWare. It's so BioWare that it exemplifies most of their games. Similar characters, similar plot progression and so on. It happens to be one of the best BioWare games, in my opinion but it's still quite generic.

I can't think of a single location or quest or something that I can point out and say "You HAVE to experience this in your life". Honestly, the best thing about the game is the "morality system" or lack thereof. It makes quite a lot of sense - your choices influence your companions, so killing somebody might make one companion dislike you, while another may instead encourage you depending on their views.

Other than that, I don't think the game has a lot to offer in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'm going to give it one more try. I just don't understand this thing about constantly pausing the game. Where's the game flow in that? If I need to kill the pace of the combat constantly to be able to make strategic decisions, why is it in real time to begin with? Is this one of those archaic design elements that has retro appeal? At least in X-Com or Darkest Dungeon I can take my time, weigh my options and focus on a single element at a time.

See, it's not real time. It just wears that veneer to fool turn-based-averse gamers into getting it. The game, especially on pc, really is intended to be played as a turn based game. I played it on ps3 which meant you had to hold down the trigger to pause but even on ps3 it had a setting where you would just tap the trigger and then tap again to unpause cause they knew how much pausing you needed to do.


If anything, one of the biggest complaints with the sequel was that it made the game more real-time combat-wise. We actually like all that tactical pausing and the consideration of each specific move. As far as the auto-actions go, I'd only use some really basic ones such as when someone should use a potion or who to start auto-attacking (usually whoever the char I walked around with would attack) and how close/far from enemies should the position themselves, then I'd simply jump from char to char and give specific commands to the entire party manually.

Use more magic and more crowd control effects. The game feels more tactical that way.

I had a horrible time on my Rogue. Stealth and backstabbing was horrible to set up and didn't pay off particularly. I hear there are some utterly broken combinations on the rogue but I never got a feel for it.

Mages however - throwing a massive AOE Fireball into a room which knocks everybody in it on their ass flat - then rushing in to pick off the ones closest and then freezing the ones that get back up with a cone of frost... that feels more tactical and rewarding. Even if you didn't play a mage, there's still Morrigan and Wr..w.. the old woman.

I enjoyed setting up knockdown, freeze and shatter combinations. Felt good.

You definitely need to pause a whole lot.

But you might as well stop here - things get less tactical with DA2 and DA:I(especially DA:I).

Rogue seemed underwhelming but then I made this combo where I became a ranger sub-class and then used my pets as fuel for my blood mages. They didn't have any reason to hold back out of fear of killing the pets so it was basically infinite mana mode, pretty damn broken indeed XD.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

I loved the game, but it took me a good 10-15 hours to get properly in to it.

Combat wise try playing as either a mage or dul-weild rogue, it's a lot more interesting. That said, combat doesn't really open up until about 20-25 hours in anyway.

Also, I found Alistair & Morrigan both brilliant characters full of good banter. Morrigan's story is very interesting & she shows conflicts with her cuntyness later in the game (said cuntyness is there really to set it up), but her inherit upbringing never leaves her either.

I'd say try those other classes, and play until you complete at least a couple of the "choice" quests. That way you'll experience the more exciting elements of combat, and will have more companions to choose from to flesh the experience out.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

See, it's not real time. It just wears that veneer to fool turn-based-averse gamers into getting it. The game, especially on pc, really is intended to be played as a turn based game.

Well it does a shit job of it, I'll tell you that much. As real-time combat it's far too clunky, slow-paced (like pulling the string for 5 seconds to let out a single Crippling Shot) and chance-based to be engaging, and as turn-based combat it's too chaotic. What really rustles my jimmies is how the default camera angle is in the third person, sending a message that this game is meant to be played with the main player character despite the mechanics being anything but that, and the classics it's copying were isometric.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

See, it's not real time. It just wears that veneer to fool turn-based-averse gamers into getting it. The game, especially on pc, really is intended to be played as a turn based game.

Well it does a shit job of it, I'll tell you that much. As real-time combat it's far too clunky, slow-paced (like pulling the string for 5 seconds to let out a single Crippling Shot) and chance-based to be engaging, and as turn-based combat it's too chaotic. What really rustles my jimmies is how the default camera angle is in the third person, sending a message that this game is meant to be played with the main player character despite the mechanics being anything but that, and the classics it's copying were isometric.

I could swear the PC camera turned into an isometric type angle when pausing. Ps3 was like that though, yeah, but it wasn't particularly chaotic as long as you paused a lot and took your time analyzing the situation. It's kinda like Vats in FO3, you pause, figure out where everyone is, hatch a plan, then unpause and do stuff.


But yeah, the game isn't meant to be real time, so of course it'd be terrible at being real time.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

See, it's not real time. It just wears that veneer to fool turn-based-averse gamers into getting it. The game, especially on pc, really is intended to be played as a turn based game.

Well it does a shit job of it, I'll tell you that much. As real-time combat it's far too clunky, slow-paced (like pulling the string for 5 seconds to let out a single Crippling Shot) and chance-based to be engaging, and as turn-based combat it's too chaotic. What really rustles my jimmies is how the default camera angle is in the third person, sending a message that this game is meant to be played with the main player character despite the mechanics being anything but that, and the classics it's copying were isometric.

I could swear the PC camera turned into an isometric type angle when pausing. Ps3 was like that though, yeah, but it wasn't particularly chaotic as long as you paused a lot and took your time analyzing the situation. It's kinda like Vats in FO3, you pause, figure out where everyone is, hatch a plan, then unpause and do stuff.


But yeah, the game isn't meant to be real time, so of course it'd be terrible at being real time.

That is because its meant to be Pause and Play.

You pause the game to lay out your startegize and give commands to your party members than unpause to see the results and you can still do actions while the game is not paused.

This is a gameplay style that Total War games, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights are known for.

They were never meant to be truely real time because the combat itself is not true real time like most action games.

 

[Kerg3927]

See, it's not real time. It just wears that veneer to fool turn-based-averse gamers into getting it. The game, especially on pc, really is intended to be played as a turn based game.

Well it does a shit job of it, I'll tell you that much. As real-time combat it's far too clunky, slow-paced (like pulling the string for 5 seconds to let out a single Crippling Shot) and chance-based to be engaging, and as turn-based combat it's too chaotic. What really rustles my jimmies is how the default camera angle is in the third person, sending a message that this game is meant to be played with the main player character despite the mechanics being anything but that, and the classics it's copying were isometric.

I could swear the PC camera turned into an isometric type angle when pausing. Ps3 was like that though, yeah, but it wasn't particularly chaotic as long as you paused a lot and took your time analyzing the situation. It's kinda like Vats in FO3, you pause, figure out where everyone is, hatch a plan, then unpause and do stuff.


But yeah, the game isn't meant to be real time, so of course it'd be terrible at being real time.

That is because its meant to be Pause and Play.

You pause the game to lay out your startegize and give commands to your party members than unpause to see the results and you can still do actions while the game is not paused.

This is a gameplay style that Total War games, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights are known for.

They were never meant to be truely real time because the combat itself is not true real time like most action games.

Yep, some people who mostly play action games tend to think about it backward. It's intended to make turn-based tactical gaming more actiony. Not make action gaming more tactical. The action part of it is secondary. Someone playing it for the action should probably play something else.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

See, it's not real time. It just wears that veneer to fool turn-based-averse gamers into getting it. The game, especially on pc, really is intended to be played as a turn based game.

Well it does a shit job of it, I'll tell you that much. As real-time combat it's far too clunky, slow-paced (like pulling the string for 5 seconds to let out a single Crippling Shot) and chance-based to be engaging, and as turn-based combat it's too chaotic. What really rustles my jimmies is how the default camera angle is in the third person, sending a message that this game is meant to be played with the main player character despite the mechanics being anything but that, and the classics it's copying were isometric.

I could swear the PC camera turned into an isometric type angle when pausing. Ps3 was like that though, yeah, but it wasn't particularly chaotic as long as you paused a lot and took your time analyzing the situation. It's kinda like Vats in FO3, you pause, figure out where everyone is, hatch a plan, then unpause and do stuff.


But yeah, the game isn't meant to be real time, so of course it'd be terrible at being real time.

That is because its meant to be Pause and Play.

You pause the game to lay out your startegize and give commands to your party members than unpause to see the results and you can still do actions while the game is not paused.

This is a gameplay style that Total War games, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights are known for.

They were never meant to be truely real time because the combat itself is not true real time like most action games.

Yep, some people who mostly play action games tend to think about it backward. It's intended to make turn-based tactical gaming more actiony. Not make action gaming more tactical. The action part of it is secondary. Someone playing it for the action should probably play something else.

Exactly. RTwP is really a more fluid version of turn based combat where you get to pause and have a turn as often as you want to (or as often as your cool downs allow).

 

[Jonbodhi]

It also took me a very long time to understand the combat system. So long, in fact, that I had the game on 'easy' for 3/4s of its length, and I didn't really 'get' the tactics system until halfway through FDA2. Once I understood it, had came to love it fiercely, only to see it mostly stripped out of DA:I. (Sigh!)

And the graphics! I admit I'm a bit of a graphics whore! But, come on! Those graphics were awful, even for the time.

I loved being able to play as any character. I loved the dialogue between them all. I loved the varied openings and branching solutions to each quest.

I hate that improved graphics and combat come at the cost of scaled-back ambition and an unnecessary open world in DA: I.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

It also took me a very long time to understand the combat system. So long, in fact, that I had the game on 'easy' for 3/4s of its length, and I didn't really 'get' the tactics system until halfway through FDA2. Once I understood it, had came to love it fiercely, only to see it mostly stripped out of DA:I. (Sigh!)

And the graphics! I admit I'm a bit of a graphics whore! But, come on! Those graphics were awful, even for the time.

I loved being able to play as any character. I loved the dialogue between them all. I loved the varied openings and branching solutions to each quest.

I hate that improved graphics and combat come at the cost of scaled-back ambition and an unnecessary open world in DA: I.

Totally agree about the decline of the series gameplay since Origins. Going from a PC focus to a console focus is also a part of that. Origins is very much designed around m&k controls, whereas DAI clearly designed for controller first with m&k as an afterthought (hell, barely an afterthought; they had to patch in basic m&k functionality).

Its also worth nothing that the reason that DAO looks as bad as it does is that it had a six year dev cycle, so part of it were old even when the game came out. Its also a Bioware game, technical brilliance has never been their forte.

 

[Kerg3927]

Its also worth nothing that the reason that DAO looks as bad as it does is that it had a six year dev cycle, so part of it were old even when the game came out. Its also a Bioware game, technical brilliance has never been their forte.

The funny thing is that the worst Bioware games have the best graphics. DAI was gorgeous, and I haven't played it yet, but by all accounts MEA has beautiful worlds and landscapes. But as graphics improved, everything else about their games went to sh*t.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Its also worth nothing that the reason that DAO looks as bad as it does is that it had a six year dev cycle, so part of it were old even when the game came out. Its also a Bioware game, technical brilliance has never been their forte.

The funny thing is that the worst Bioware games have the best graphics. DAI was gorgeous, and I haven't played it yet, but by all accounts MEA has beautiful worlds and landscapes. But as graphics improved, everything else about their games went to sh*t.

Bioware seem to have really struggled to adapt to Frostbite, I suspect in no small part due to the fact that its an engine designed primarily for shooters. I know the DA devs said they had to do a lot of work to modify Frostbite so that it would do basic RPG things like use stat based combat, and animate quadrupedal creatures, as DICE had simply never bothered to program any of these sorts of features into the engine. I think I read somewhere that they spent the first year of DAI's development just bringing Frostbite to a point where it could do the things they needed it to do. Frostbite is also a notoriously difficult engine to work with; most of the devs had little to no experience working with it going into DAI's development and its been admitted that they faced a steep learning curve with using it. Clearly the decision to use Frostbite is one that has been mandated from EA head office and although Mark Darrah (DA Lead Dev) claims it was a choice to use it, I think he is towing the company line.

 

[AD-Stu]

If you've defended Redcliffe and still aren't having fun then I'd say quit now. It doesn't get any better. Well, some of the characters get alright, but the gameplay never improves.

Yeah, ^ this would be my advice as well.

Stuff happens, story progresses, yadda yadda yadda, but if you're already finding it a boring grind then that's not going to change.

 

[brucethemoose]

I bounced off Origins too. Maybe I'm just a spoiled brat, but yeah, the combat bored me to tears... And I didn't mind the similar style in KOTOR or KOTOR II.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I'm not enamored with Dragon Age Origins either. The world is pretty generic, the characters seems pretty uninteresting and the combat is dull. Somewhat weird, since I'm an avid p&p D&D player and enjoyed several classic crpg's like Baldur's Gate and Divine Divinity.

I gave up on DA:O about 4-5 hours in. It might get better later, but sorry, I'm no linger willing to put in that much time for a maybe.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm kind of surprised. For a while I thought I was a weirdo for not really getting into DA:O. I've tried the game 3 times, each as a different character and always getting a bit further. However, despite having 2 friends who bring the game up frequently, I can't muster the enthusiasm to reinstall the game, because there's always another game(even in the same genre) that interests me more at any given moment. Last year it was the Witcher series, and intermittely I'm playing through the Souls series to scratch my Fantasy/RPG itch. That's not even going into the fact I have the Divinity series sitting in my GOG library I haven't even touched.

The fact it feels like generic Fantasy doesn't help much either. I've played Balders Gate(back in the day) but I wasn't enamored with it. I heard the sequel was better though on many fronts.

 

[jklinders]

If you aren't enjoying it by Redcliff then odds are good you won't at all. The game has aged terribly and everything about party management is pretty stiff by modern standards. All three class types are perfectly viable but if you are looking into simply skating through the game to get a completion you could simply abuse Bloodmage. Overall consensus is that is easily the most OP and broken class you can get.

I always like Bioware games more for the party interaction than the gameplay (Mass Effect being a bit of an exception) but if that is not enough to keep you going then my opinion is, your time is better spent.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Beat the game OP, and the expansion and DLC content, don't listen to all these negative nancies.

Dragon Age Origins is great. I wasted hours on this game.