Dragon Age Newbie Questions

So I know there are three games in the series thus far. So I can play the new one with my GF, I want to try out the first two.

But a few questions to those who have played them first:

1. How good is the story? I know the first game has a more typical "save the world" kinda deal while the events of DA2 are more confined and somewhat political.

2. I've never really played a game with a "Romance" shtick. How is that handled? Are the romances actually interesting or just shoehorned into the plot for fanservice? I know my girlfriend really loves Alistair and it appears he is generally considered one of the better love candidates.

3. And finally, which game is best in the series? It seems DA2 is a base breaker with some saying it's a vast improvement and others saying it's a total piece of crap.

DA1 has a good story as far as games go. In general, DA1 is far, far, far better than DA2 (which was still fun). Who cares about Romance, I skipped it entirely because it feels needless and didn't fit my character's personality.

The romance would depend entirely on if the characters interest you or not. I didn't think DA2 really had lovable characters, but I pursued one just the same to add a little to the storyline

Some of the differences that divide people are that DA1 is more tactical, and DA2 is more action. DA1 has more varied locales, while DA2 has more mature political affairs

Consider DA1 to be the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate and other Infinity Engine games if you've played any of those

I personally was not turned off by DA2's lack of locales or likable characters. I mean, the characters were likable, just not the best for romance options. They were still very well fleshed out. But the first one had more amusing characters. I think it just goes with DA2's darker tones. Even if DA1 dealt with a more serious plot with the blight destroying everything, and the back-stabbing politics even in that game. They just delve more deeply into things in DA2

You really don't even have to play any of them though if you don't want to. They're long and enjoyable, but could be considered dated for a new-comer

I can imagine playing an action oriented game where button presses don't translate directly into actions could be kind of disorienting. It's more MMO-styled in that regard. You tell them to do something, and then they go do it. Unlike things like Fable, where a button press directly equates to an action rather than a command. And if you play more tactfully or on harder difficulties, you'll want to do a lot of pausing and issuing commands. The companion AI is generally pretty good. But they're far from brilliant, so for tougher encounters you'll be spending a lot of time pausing with the command wheel, or manually popping over to other characters to tell them to guzzle a potion

There's a lot of customization to the AI though, which is great. You start out with general character rules like Ranged Wizard, or Support Wizard, so they have a general idea of what to do, and then you can customize that with "use this command under X condition" so they'll start a battle with a buff, or drink a potion at 50% health or stuff like that. And then when it gets too crazy you sometimes have to tell them, or control them, to do more specific stuff. It's really fun, but my girlfriend hates playing that way, so she plays them on casual

Edit: I didn't really discuss romances much, I don't feel like they're shoe-horned in at all, I think it helps develop both the romanced character, and your own character as people. They add to the story, but they're not necessary to enjoy the story. And skipping them doesn't detract at all. They do a pretty good job of making them feel natural when you pursue them. And in the same regard, it's really natural to ignore them. It's just done fairly well. But they've been doing this for a long time. Baldur's Gate 2 had romance options, and every one of their games since then. So I wouldn't worry too much about them one way or the other. They do "optional" romance better than anyone else on the market. The only better love stories out there, are written specifically to be love stories

I love DA2 so much, but I do think Origins is better, especially when you take into account all of the DLC of both games. Romances are actually very sweet and a nice way to get to know your favorite character on a deeper level and some of them tie in well to the main plot, like Alistair. It's not weird until you get the "sex scene" those are like hella weird but everything else is actually very nice and not forced at all. I've romanced pretty much every character in the first couple of games except for Morrigan because she is super hetero and I haven't played a dude yet. Next time!

The romances is pretty organic. If you talk to a character more cause you like their character then you'll more likely develop a relationship with them. But it depends on what you say or what your beliefs are. If they are more gung ho revenge and you're not that way, it wont work. They wont like your responses and the relationship wont go far.

What's great is whatever you do in DA1 affects DA:A then that all kinda affects DA2, it's not a dramatic affect but you'll see things mentioned that your previous character did. You'll see some characters carried over too, some will be involved others just make cameos. It's pretty nifty.

The story is really interesting. if you like classic fantasy, you'll love it.

The first one, story wise, was better. The second one combat wise, was better. You'll enjoy them both

I played DA: Origins and it was awesome. Combat is fun and you can play as any of your characters so you can play as that battle mage or a two-handed fighter and it's all fun. Story is interesting and the progression is good too.

The characters actually talk to each other as you walk around various maps and they are simply hilarious. They are sarcastic little smurfs to each other. :D The romance stuff is a nice mini game too. You can be gay, hey, or you can try to seduce that hot new girl party member. It made me feel better about my e-peen.

Haven't played DA2. Heard it sucked, didn't wanna pay for it.

Haven't played DA: Inquisition as reviews aren't impressing me either.

All those things you just said you loved about DA:O are done just as good (if not better, depending on your preferences) in the other two games :P

The two reviews I watched of Inquisition (Angry Joe and ProJared) both had to mention that they actually quite enjoyed DA2 despite the hatred

I think it was just a trendy thing to hate on BioWare. Other than the town locales being repetitive I haven't heard much legit criticism for DA2. Though DA:I does tend to be a bit buggy on certain platforms, so those criticisms are legit. But I don't think there were actually that many locales in DA:O. They were just more varied. There are no forests or dwarven inspired caves to explore in DA2. But there are like 10 - 15 different places you can go in town, either day or night time settings, a mountain, and some weird amalgam of a beach/field/hill land you visit frequently. Just sayin'

Yeah repeating maps are balls, everything else is pretty great imo. It's just really different when a lot of people wanted more of the same and who can blame them I mean Origins was awesome.

DA 2 was worse in the following ways:

1. Repeated maps in really obviously, hacky ways (suddenly just a sealed stone door instead of that hallway, minimap not even changed). If you are entering a cave, you know exactly what cave it is instantly, and just guess which doors they closed.

2. Random enemies spawning literally out of the ground and from the ceiling, even just human thugs and things, in closed environments. This is utterly infuriating to me in some contexts.

3. Combat with no element of strategy at all.

4. Inability to side with the Arishok. WHY?????????????

5. Total lack of equipment for companions, and very little reason to explore most of their skill trees. And the need to hunt through every single merchant's inventory for the upgrades they have.

6. Far less customization of your character and less replayability as a result.

7. Not actually a "deeper" "more political" plot like people seem to think for some reason, and you actually can do less to influence the politics than DA:O.

I like the game, but to say that it doesn't have serious flaws (when compared to the original) is just silly.

Eh, I don't consider many of those to be a detriment. Kirkwall was a peninsula and you're never required to go halfway across the country to enter a cave. There's only going to be so many caves speckled around a countryside surrounding a big city. I always saw it as having multiple reasons to enter the same cave. It made more sense that way. The combat threw me off a bit though. The pseudo-action was a weird amalgam of the first game and regular action-RPG games, but never quite either of them. Button presses never equated 1:1 as actions, nor were their timing and planning ever all that important. It's just a case of string as many attacks together as you can to do more damage than just regular attacks. But it wasn't really bad. Harder difficulties would require a bit of planning though. But you'd probably have to die first to know what you're planning for, because I doubt you'll survive many random battles on hard just randomly throwing skills out willy-nilly

The random enemies spawning for this never really bothered me, it's how RPGs do. Whatever context it is, your characters are supposed to feel caught off guard, so they want you to feel caught off guard. I know a lot of times enemies were visible on screen in the original, but there were also a lot of spawn points as well. Especially with spiders and werewolves

As for the politics, I guess they are pretty even. The original had politics, but it was scattered across the board. Finding ways to make groups happy so they'll join you, or how you inevitably deal with the traitors once you finally get a chance to face them. I never really felt like I was influencing much. Someone is going to join me regardless, I just have to end their internal struggle to make it happen. There was generally two variables, but it was just mild changes in the themes. It all felt pre-determined anyway. DA2 simply puts a lot more focus on one over-arching political mess rather than the simpler little speckles of Dwarven political strife, or the plight of werewolves. You get a much fuller view of what its like to be a mage, mage, templar, or Qunari in that world and I found that interesting. So maybe its a preference thing

I have no excuse against the lack of customization though. As far as I'm aware, you're able to become the same classes as you were in the first game. As for outfit customization, I am honestly super happy most of that was taken away, since in the first one everyone ended up wearing the same ugly pajama padded garbage that took away any ounce of uniqueness to their character art or style. In the second one every one gets to still look like themselves, you just upgrade what they're already wearing, and then your character gets all the special actual clothes (Edit: It just dawned on me you may have been talking about the lack of being able to choose different races, and I have no idea why they scrapped that thought from the beginning, but as it was, it didn't seem any different than the fact that Shepard couldn't be a Krogan. They're pre-determined human characters, and in both cases it's basically your job to represent the human race and mediate between other races, it's just the story they wanted to tell I suppose)

All in all, it has its drawbacks and differences, but I don't think any of them are "serious" flaws. Just things people sometimes don't prefer or don't understand why certain development choices were made. But that's just a personal opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

DA 2 was worse in the following ways:

1. Repeated maps in really obviously, hacky ways (suddenly just a sealed stone door instead of that hallway, minimap not even changed). If you are entering a cave, you know exactly what cave it is instantly, and just guess which doors they closed.

2. Random enemies spawning literally out of the ground and from the ceiling, even just human thugs and things, in closed environments. This is utterly infuriating to me in some contexts.

3. Combat with no element of strategy at all.

4. Inability to side with the Arishok. WHY?????????????

5. Total lack of equipment for companions, and very little reason to explore most of their skill trees. And the need to hunt through every single merchant's inventory for the upgrades they have.

6. Far less customization of your character and less replayability as a result.

7. Not actually a "deeper" "more political" plot like people seem to think for some reason, and you actually can do less to influence the politics than DA:O.

I like the game, but to say that it doesn't have serious flaws (when compared to the original) is just silly.

---

I would say many of these are differences from Origins rather than inherent flaws (but #1, like I can buy going to different parts of the same cave a few times, but did it have to be every cave?). Some people liked them, some found them off-putting. Regarding #4 though (SPOILER) I think you can side with the Arishok, there is the option to give them the relic and Isabella. They then leave the city having received what they came for if I understand correctly. I never had the heart to actually do it.

With number 7 it is very true that you actually can't influence much. You can make major decisions when it comes to your companions, but in everything else the only choice you have is how Hawke says something rather than what s/he actually says. I think there are pros and cons to this. Obviously it adds to roleplaying and replay value majorly when you have more options, but when taking into account all of the different options things get a bit choppy and pieced together. DA2's narrative flowed a little better. Thus I found both very enjoyable but understandably a lot of people didn't like playing 1 of 3 predetermined personality types.

It's a mostly good game that wasn't really what people were looking for imo

I still don't get it. No matter the complaints the story is still told way better than 90% of the other RPGs on the market. Just because it doesn't have all the options of the original doesn't mean its not better than most other options on the market. It's story is more intriguing and gripping than anything that happens in Skyrim or Oblivion. And people love to sink hours into those games. Hell its even better done than the story of the original Baldur's Gate, or either of the Neverwinter Nights games. Also better than either of the Icewind Dales games. Most of the games that came before it and laid the groundwork for it. Baldur's Gate's story is probably more interesting, but not delivered very well. The only games I played with better done stories were probably BG2, and the KoTOR games, and there's even less options and customization of the character and story in most of those games. So yes, it is not bad. It's just different from its predecessor