Dragon Age: Origins; Dragon Age II
[I know Kayl will read this.]
 |
| Alistair and the Warden* from DA:O |
The more I think about it the more I realize that I actually prefer Dragon Age II to it's predecessor. It does, however, have some pretty notably flawed changes. For instance, the combat change that causes more enemies to fall from the sky randomly in undetectable waves instead of approaching believably from a respectable distance was stupid, in my opinion. The difficulty of the second game is generally lower than in Origins despite that, which is saddening because turning the combat difficulty up in DA2 makes the game ridiculous. The PC version also seems more console-styled (I think it's the difference in the way the camera behaves in combat?) than it did in Dragon Age: Origins; a fact which irritates me considerably, as I happen to have a strong dislike toward gaming consoles when compared to PCs. To some, the story line also appears more linear, but honestly I think it's no more linear than the first game. In Origins, you have the option to do the main quests in differing order, but you still have to do all of them, Dragon Age II just makes you do some of them in order since they are chronologically based.
Naturally, though, the second game has much improved graphics and, to a lesser extent, animations. [The base running animation for human females in DA:O looks very awkward, for example.] This is one of the defining reasons I am less likely to replay Origins again now; I feel comfortable replaying very old games with very unrealistic graphics, but Origins looked very nice when it came out, and still looks nice, but not nearly as nice as Dragon Age II does. The differences may be small, but they are noticeable after playing both games, and though Origins does not look bad at all, the fact that it's just slightly off from how Dragon Age II looks with the improvements is just enough of an annoyance when looking at my character to cause me to miss the second game's style. They also slightly changed the appearances of the other races (elves, qunari) and I think these changes actually make them more interesting. Another welcome change, in my opinion, is the fact that you can't simply flirt up a character and have them hopelessly in love with you over the course of a few days. It may be frustrating for some (I'm talking to you,
Kayl) to have to play through the battles again to see the conversations and such, but it is timed more realistically and makes the scenes more worthwhile when you reach them. I do miss being able to have random conversations at any time, though; perhaps Bioware will add more of them into a new game.
Both games have great story lines and great characters with excellent dialogue and banter; it's a little difficult to chose a favourite on only these aspects. Dragon Age: Origins is a bit more like a typical fantasy RPG; the main character must defeat a great evil to save the land, etc, etc. It's done extremely well, of course, with high quality companions (Sten, Morrigan, Alistair...) and detailed lore for every faction and race. Dragon Age II, on the other hand, contains all the main conflict into one city. Hawke isn't saving an entire nation, just that city; and until a few majour quests, Hawke isn't even usually saving the entire city, just trying to improve his/her own life and often the lives of others in smaller ways. It's laced with increasing tension as it moves on until the conflict between the templars and the mages they watch over turns to outright war in the end.
After playing through both games multiple times, I can now say that I appreciate the conflict and story of Dragon Age II more than that of the first game. The connection with the main character's family is a lot stronger, and even incredibly important in some questlines. The companions aren't always all working toward the same goal in the end, and many of them don't get along well because their beliefs are too different; the banter between companions often shows their contrasting beliefs while retaining the humour established by the first game. The tension build up to the final quest is well done throughout the entire game, and the time skips involved actually make sense.
In addition to all of that, the conflict between the templars and the mages is more exciting and interesting to me than simply battling an evil archdemon and its army. I've always been a fan of magic; my first characters in both games were mages. The lore of magic in this game is particularly good. I'd say it's one of my favourite portrayals of magic in any fantasy series I've encountered. There were convincing reasons to feel drawn to both sides of the conflict, unlike the simple 'we have to kill the archdemon' mindset, which makes the choice at the end feel difficult even when you know which side you're going to help early on.
So despite the annoying changes, I still like the second game better, if only for the overall story and improved graphics. Both are still excellent RPGs, it's a shame some people attack the second game so harshly because it wasn't exactly like DA:O.
 |
| Bethany, Anders, Hawke*, and Varric in the Deeproads from DA2 |
"Now the battle awaits us. Na via lerno victoria. 'Only the living know victory.' Fight well." -Fenris; Dragon Age 2
*note that the Warden and Hawke are customizable characters n stuff
