Wait... they're commenting in a thread about this thread. And now we're commenting in this thread about their thread about this thread. Inception?
It seems like it's not just here that generally people prefer Origins.
Dragon Age: Origins vs Inquisition
- Thread starter playXray
- Start date
Wait... they're commenting in a thread about this thread. And now we're commenting in this thread about their thread about this thread. Inception?
It seems like it's not just here that generally people prefer Origins.
suikodan
Member
I finished the game today and it was ok.
I think that the best analogy I could do is that the Lore and the Wall of Text(TM) felt as disconnected as the codec conversations in MGS2. I stopped reading all those snippets, especially with the collect-a-thon that reminded me of Donkey Kong 64.
So in regards to the topic, I loved DA:O back in 2009 (?) and it felt like an RPG and not a MMO. The world felt more alive than the wastelands of DA:I.
And I didn't sleep with anyobody in DA:I. I was kissing Josephine and at one point, we became simple friends again.
I think that the best analogy I could do is that the Lore and the Wall of Text(TM) felt as disconnected as the codec conversations in MGS2. I stopped reading all those snippets, especially with the collect-a-thon that reminded me of Donkey Kong 64.
So in regards to the topic, I loved DA:O back in 2009 (?) and it felt like an RPG and not a MMO. The world felt more alive than the wastelands of DA:I.
And I didn't sleep with anyobody in DA:I. I was kissing Josephine and at one point, we became simple friends again.
I realize it can be manipulated, and I don't advocate the numbers so much as a reliable discrepancy. Basically: where's there's smoke, there might be fire. It's not all crap.Metacritic user scores are a worthless metric.
If you don't like a game with high critical scores, that's fine (I don't like both Origins and Inquisition despite their good critical reception), but metacritic user scores are useless for anything beyond judging which game the pondscum of /v/ decided to get outraged about today.
And while we're at it:
blacklotus
Member
Loved them both. Can't really choose. Both touched me.
What platform you played it on will partially influence this. Origins on console is a mess and always was; the combat is terrible, bad framerate, etc. On PC, Origins' combat works out much better. On the other hand, Inquisition's combat plays much better on console (well, controller) while the KB&M is a mess. In terms of mechanics, Inquisition is superior. Things like Focus and Guard add sorely needed depth to the battle system. Meanwhile, Inquisition has a lot less abilities than Origins, but Origins had a LOT of trash abilities that weren't worth taking. Origins was also severely unbalanced between classes, since if you weren't taking all the mages you were doing it wrong. Classes in Inquisition are better balanced, although DA2 had the best class balance of them all.
Edge: Inquisition
With combat out of the way, what about the story? The Blight has interesting lore, but Origins wastes the plotline, instead choosing to focus on subplots only tenuously connected to the overarching problem. Additionally, most of Origins' conflicts suffer from BioWare's Golden Third Option problem, as you can get past Brecilian forest, Redcliffe, and the Circle of Magi without being forced to make any hard decisions at all. The landsmeet can be similarly overcome, and the Dark Ritual ensures that players can punt consequences outside the scope of the game. Only Orzammar with the choice of King really resembles a morally grey decision with no clear best choice.
Inquisition, on the other hand, has very good focus with the main plotline. Everything you do deals with the main villain and thwarting him - either directly or through destroying his plans. Additionally, Inquisition features thematic depth that Origins lacks; the former has a strong religious thread running through it in which the benefits and drawbacks of the world's organized religion are examined thoroughly. Connected with that is the subversive way Inquisition plays with the concept of a religious symbol, and the PC's beliefs about being forced into such a role contain many, many instances of dialogue reactivity.
Finally, Inquisition is better in the way it handles C&C. The major decisions in the game have no cop-out of the central dilemma, as even an apparent one in the Orlesian plot is handled with quite a bit of skepticism and negative consequence. The War Table is also impressively reactive: you are only going to see about 1/2 of all the missions in a given playthrough based on the choices you make, there are multiple outcomes to every mission based on how you handle it, and the game doesn't spoonfeed you the correct answer.
Edge: Inquisition
Talking about the characters would take way too long, but it's worth mentioning because it's a BioWare game and characters are very important. Overall, I think both games have an excellent cast, but Origins has Shale, so it gets the slightest edge.
Edge: Origins
What else? Well, we have to talk about game structure. Now, I think the hate of Inquisition's side content is at once justified and overblown, depending on the degree. No, you can't skip all of it. Yes, you can skip most (all) of the fetching side content. No, you shouldn't have to skip a considerable amount of optional content because it sucks. What Origins did well that Inquisition didn't was finding ways to integrate side content into the main content. In Inquisition, only a few optional zones have a strong central quest that gives you a clear reason to be conquering zones. Most of the time, you'll probably be justifying the time you spend in the field by closing Rifts or restoring order in a general sense. It's all supposed to be unified by the sense of building the Inquisition, but it gets old to keep building the Inquisition by doing the same things in every zone. Origins meanwhile has fewer quests, but they feel more unique (at least, if you ignore the fetch questing, which people may forget has plagued all three DA games) and because of the strong division of the game into subplots, you constantly feel like you are doing this content WHILE also advancing the main plot. For example, Redcliffe, the Circle of Magi, and the Temple of Sacred Ashes all have various amount of side content, but they are all connected by the central thread of saving the Arl. This gives a stronger sense of purpose to the zones, which in turn makes them less boring. To put it another way: there's a big difference between running somewhere on the way to a story objective, and running somewhere to see where the map ends or to get that last icon.
Edge: Origins
Overall, I think both are excellent games, but the deciding factor to me is how much better controller combat feels and plays in Inquisition.
Edge: Inquisition
With combat out of the way, what about the story? The Blight has interesting lore, but Origins wastes the plotline, instead choosing to focus on subplots only tenuously connected to the overarching problem. Additionally, most of Origins' conflicts suffer from BioWare's Golden Third Option problem, as you can get past Brecilian forest, Redcliffe, and the Circle of Magi without being forced to make any hard decisions at all. The landsmeet can be similarly overcome, and the Dark Ritual ensures that players can punt consequences outside the scope of the game. Only Orzammar with the choice of King really resembles a morally grey decision with no clear best choice.
Inquisition, on the other hand, has very good focus with the main plotline. Everything you do deals with the main villain and thwarting him - either directly or through destroying his plans. Additionally, Inquisition features thematic depth that Origins lacks; the former has a strong religious thread running through it in which the benefits and drawbacks of the world's organized religion are examined thoroughly. Connected with that is the subversive way Inquisition plays with the concept of a religious symbol, and the PC's beliefs about being forced into such a role contain many, many instances of dialogue reactivity.
Finally, Inquisition is better in the way it handles C&C. The major decisions in the game have no cop-out of the central dilemma, as even an apparent one in the Orlesian plot is handled with quite a bit of skepticism and negative consequence. The War Table is also impressively reactive: you are only going to see about 1/2 of all the missions in a given playthrough based on the choices you make, there are multiple outcomes to every mission based on how you handle it, and the game doesn't spoonfeed you the correct answer.
Edge: Inquisition
Talking about the characters would take way too long, but it's worth mentioning because it's a BioWare game and characters are very important. Overall, I think both games have an excellent cast, but Origins has Shale, so it gets the slightest edge.
Edge: Origins
What else? Well, we have to talk about game structure. Now, I think the hate of Inquisition's side content is at once justified and overblown, depending on the degree. No, you can't skip all of it. Yes, you can skip most (all) of the fetching side content. No, you shouldn't have to skip a considerable amount of optional content because it sucks. What Origins did well that Inquisition didn't was finding ways to integrate side content into the main content. In Inquisition, only a few optional zones have a strong central quest that gives you a clear reason to be conquering zones. Most of the time, you'll probably be justifying the time you spend in the field by closing Rifts or restoring order in a general sense. It's all supposed to be unified by the sense of building the Inquisition, but it gets old to keep building the Inquisition by doing the same things in every zone. Origins meanwhile has fewer quests, but they feel more unique (at least, if you ignore the fetch questing, which people may forget has plagued all three DA games) and because of the strong division of the game into subplots, you constantly feel like you are doing this content WHILE also advancing the main plot. For example, Redcliffe, the Circle of Magi, and the Temple of Sacred Ashes all have various amount of side content, but they are all connected by the central thread of saving the Arl. This gives a stronger sense of purpose to the zones, which in turn makes them less boring. To put it another way: there's a big difference between running somewhere on the way to a story objective, and running somewhere to see where the map ends or to get that last icon.
Edge: Origins
Overall, I think both are excellent games, but the deciding factor to me is how much better controller combat feels and plays in Inquisition.
Dragon Age: Origins was an alright game that I wish had been better in pretty much every way.
Dragon Age 2 was a bad game that had an incredible amount of potential in the cast and narrative.
Dragon Age: Inquisition I loved in some ways and hated in others.
Yet I like all three games in the end.
Dragon Age 2 was a bad game that had an incredible amount of potential in the cast and narrative.
Dragon Age: Inquisition I loved in some ways and hated in others.
Yet I like all three games in the end.
NavyPharaoh
Member
Dragon age origins is like Jay-z's Reasonable Doubt. It's a classic, it made the series what it is. Inquisition is Magna Carta Holy Grail, more sales, bigger budget and more mainstream. But as for soul, passion and impact Origins/Reasonable Doubt cannot be matched by the current iteration
Better lore? I don't know about that.
I feel like they took aspects from the first game but didn't really do anything with them.
I didn't know there was anyone who thought Inquisition had better battle systems than any other game other than like... Simpsons Wrestling.
What? We learn about the earliest recordings of Red Lyrium, the Blight, and instances of physically entering the fade pre-Tevinter in one level alone. The lore in DAI blows Origins out of the goddamn water. Even Awakenings is pointless without Inquisition.
Corypheus and the Architect once being acquaintances the Magisters that entered the Fade.
edit: Hell, we even learned about who and what the Forgotten Ones are, as well as the unpleasant truth about the old elven empire.
Now you know people with taste exist.
DA:I's lore was something I really enjoyed. It basically dismantled everything we thought we knew about Thedas and reaffirms the knowledge that history is shaped by the victor. These revelations really hit many of your companions hard - basically everyone is affected by new information learned at some point because it's personal to them. I didn't hate a single companion, I literally loved them all (though Solas was my favorite one, Cassandra and Dorian are very close). I love the elven lore and if the DLC hints are to be believed, we will be going to the Deep Roads and I'm sure more interesting stuff will occur there based off of some of the new lyrium/blights/old gods info we learned. DA:O's was good as it laid a foundation, but more depth to the world is never a bad thing imo.
Wolf Hunt?
It's sort of amazing how indecisive they have been about what they want from the series. They haven't really had a chance to build on previous games mechanically because it seems like they're constantly changing focus. It's especially baffling since if I remember right Origins was like one of the most successful Bioware games at the time, if not the most successful. Why didn't they just double down and try to improve on the formula?
Apoleptica
Banned
They wanted COD numbers and wanted to attract the COD crowd so they made the second more "action oriented". Essentially it was greed that caused the changes.
Exactly this. And I want more Solas!
People with taste don't like an abomination of a action rpg and combat rpg that controls worse than a square enix action rpg from 2002
This is why they like Inquisition.
Pretty sure what he told us at the ending guaranteed it. His banter with Dorian makes me hopeful for it too (paintings with Magisters holding the orb).
I could prob go on about DA lore for hours lmao so I'm glad to see others enjoying it as well. Also yeah, it's pretty much a lock at this point that we are going to see Solas in DLC - very likely going to be the last DLC to be released though so siiiigh to more waiting. But he was literally a wonderfully written character and honestly the best LI by far in any of my Inquisition playthroughs. Tragic and flawed, yet I can't help but want to root for him. Weekes did a great job.
Almost like Anders
fuck Anders, homicidal maniac.
an immortal elf as Fen'harel
descending into civil war maybe. The events of Last Flight might be able to add to this though.
Sanctuary
Member
This isn't an easy choice.
Origins - Still had the best voice actors for party members, even if Inquisition is no slouch. Sorry, but no one has beaten Morrigan and Alistair (and their interactions) yet. The graphics fucking sucked though, even on PC and looked straight out of 2004.
Inquisition - MUCH improved combat, even though it turns way too braindead about halfway through. The combat in Origins was archaic even when the game was new. It was basically NWN 2.5, but with way less customization. Better graphics with Inquisition, but due to it being cross gen, not as good as it could have been. Too many things looked really cheap or plastic like and too smooth. Way too much padding. Saying way too much isn't even enough either.
Neither game had a story worth caring about, but the party members were at least interesting.
Eh, if I had to pick, I guess it would be Origins, even though I never thought it was anything special like so many others across the internet. It's just another recycled Infinity/Aurora engine game.
Origins - Still had the best voice actors for party members, even if Inquisition is no slouch. Sorry, but no one has beaten Morrigan and Alistair (and their interactions) yet. The graphics fucking sucked though, even on PC and looked straight out of 2004.
Inquisition - MUCH improved combat, even though it turns way too braindead about halfway through. The combat in Origins was archaic even when the game was new. It was basically NWN 2.5, but with way less customization. Better graphics with Inquisition, but due to it being cross gen, not as good as it could have been. Too many things looked really cheap or plastic like and too smooth. Way too much padding. Saying way too much isn't even enough either.
Neither game had a story worth caring about, but the party members were at least interesting.
Eh, if I had to pick, I guess it would be Origins, even though I never thought it was anything special like so many others across the internet. It's just another recycled Infinity/Aurora engine game.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I feel like this question would be a lot more valid if they didn't keep rebooting the lore very obviously every new game.
I await what Patrick Weekes does as the new Head Writer.
I await what Patrick Weekes does as the new Head Writer.
Yep, the mystery surrounding the grey wardens is something I really hope gets explored. Hasn't Bioware hinted that the next dlc involves Darkspawn?
Also, given the events of Last Flight, Griffons please! And since it seems that there is a connection between the Elven Gods (at least Andruil) and the Blight, such a dlc could involve Solas too ... Right? (Unlikely, I know, but a girl can hope!)
I agree that Patrick Weekes did an incredible job with Solas. Definitely the character from Inquisition that has stayed with me the longest, I feel so horribly sorry for him. My favourite romance too,
such heartbreak!
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
DA:I definitely has its own style, but it's so completely different to DA:O that it's almost alienating. Even outside of core mechanics in combat, they've added these extra layers on the game with strategic management (as shallow and F2P inspired as it is), and the levels are now open-world, with huge maps and verticality and jumping and such.
If you were a big fan of Origins because you liked the way it harkened back to the IE games of yore, there's no guarantee you'll like DA:I's completely different approach. Which is a strange thing to say about two mainline entries in the same series. There is no core "Dragon Age experience" I can really point to outside of them all being Bioware Fantasy RPGs.
You're forgetting that there was a massive influx of warden recruits due to disillusionment by Mages and Templars regarding their war. I can only imagine what that would do in a potential
internal conflict.
giving Corypheus the orb was a massively boneheaded move, something even Flemeth pointed out.
Haha oh yeah, he's definitely the
God of Bad Decisions
brickarts295
Member
For Me:
Origins is better at:
-Story
-Characters
-Locations
-RPG Gameplay
Inquisition is better at:
-Combat Gameplay
-Music
-Art Direction
Inquisition is still a pretty good improvement and far better than DA2 but I still think Origins is the Dragon Age.
Origins is better at:
-Story
-Characters
-Locations
-RPG Gameplay
Inquisition is better at:
-Combat Gameplay
-Music
-Art Direction
Inquisition is still a pretty good improvement and far better than DA2 but I still think Origins is the Dragon Age.
Personally, the first one. They have an 'action party' franchise in Mass Effect, which works well I think, but I like a more traditional set up for Dragon Age, and that extra level of control. There are so few AAA party based CRPGs out there, and I love the style.
Honestly, once I rebound some keys, and once the patch with increased camera zoom came out, I had no problem with Kb/m in Inquisition. The only thing I'm not happy about is the 8 ability limit, mostly because I'm too lazy to swap them around for different fights so I end up going with mostly passive skills. I wish there was a way to switch between different sets of abilities with one button, or via the tactics menu. It would make chopping and changing easier, and maybe I'd experiment more.
To be honest though, I almost feel like that, in itself, should be part of what to expect out of a Bioware game at this point. If you go all the way back to Jade Empire - the first game they made where they were creating their own game mechanics instead of adopting a D&D/d20 system - that's a decade's worth of Bioware games, and the only instance where any of those games has been a straight expansion/refinement of its predecessor's mechanics has been Mass Effect 2->3. Other than those two, going from any Bioware game to any other Bioware game is more or less like going from Final Fantasy 10 to 12 to 13 to 15, etc, in terms of mechanics.
I mean it's definitely possible that their games have such inconsistent design principles because they're just flailing around wildly trying to hit some invisible moving target, but at some point I think you've got to start going in expecting that Bioware is deliberately electing to prefer new mechanics to updated/refined old ones.
Which is something that philosophically I totally respect and applaud/encourage, but unfortunately their designers don't really seem to be the sort who can do original mechanics for every game and get it right the first time (as opposed to, say, pre-Gen7 Tri-Ace, or for that matter even SE's mainline FF games, 13 notwithstanding).
Sanctuary
Member
It's pretty easy to see the transition from DA:O to DA2 to DA:I in regards to combat. It's not like they simply went directly from Origins to DA:I. As much hate that DA2 receives, I always felt that for the most part, the combat was improved. Origins wasn't as "tactical" as so many love to whine about, insisting there's something deep to positioning and then auto attacking for 90% of the fight, waiting on cooldowns or spamming healing or mana potions.
The encounter design of DA2 though is something else entirely.
The only consistent core Bioware experience is the worldbuilding and character development. Mechanically there is no core identity, like ME it's just a steady peelaway from NWN blueprint and then adding in elements from mainstream games such as AC.
Also I wouldn't count out the possibility that it was mechanically gutted from original vision because of PS3's pitiful RAM limitations.
Also I wouldn't count out the possibility that it was mechanically gutted from original vision because of PS3's pitiful RAM limitations.
toddhunter
Member
The problem is the console versions of Origins. If people only played that and think Baldurs Gate means "Dark Alliance" I can see their point of view.
On the other hand anybody who played Origins on PC or Baldurs Gate 2 and liked it should not really praise Inquisition at all. It is a very different beast and an extremely poor one.
I would prefer 2, but it'll be neither. BioWare knows that considering the taste-diverse fanbase they now have for Dragon Age, they are better off straddling the line even if it means Dragon Age never gets a truly excellent battle system.
Sanctuary
Member
I'm not sure what you're actually arguing about here. I've been playing on consoles since the early 80s, and I've been playing CRPGs since the mid 90s. There was nothing intrinsically great about the combat of Origins, regardless of what platform you played it on. In fact, it was OLD HAT for anyone that's been playing these kinds of games for a while.
Not really relevant to this thread I guess, but give me a game with the scope of TW3 (or even Skyrim), but with combat and encounter design closer to Dragon's Dogma and it would be pretty much a dream game for me.
As an aside, I sometimes think many people think that "tacitcal" gameplay is somehow always better and that anyone who enjoys faster paced gaming, or action oriented gaming just "aren't smart enough" to play a more tactical game. But you could also just argue that it's just an excuse for people that don't like, or are simply bad at faster paced gameplay. Because it really doesn't take much more thought to play through any of the previous Infinity/Aurora engine type games than some would like to believe. Sure, it might take someone really new to gaming a little while longer to grasp initially, but it's not like they wouldn't learn it.
The mechanical shortcomings of Dragon Age Origins had very little to do with whether or not you could detach the camera from your character and zoom out to an isometric view (I don't know if there was anything else missing from the console versions as I never played them personally, but as I understand it that was the main difference). It simply did not have the depth and balance required to be credible as a "tactical" game.
I've played Baldur's Gate II a few times, along with Inquisition. I like both, fine thanks.
That bolded part is troubling. One because it's presumptious on people who played RPGs back in that era. Two because it's possibly using IE-RTwP faithfulness as a core metric to rate a game.
Myself, I have played RPGs from Ultima, BG2, SSI, IWD, Wizardry, M&M, etc.
I've played Origins and BG2 on PC both numerous times, I still like Inquisition. I don't find the combat significantly worse than Origins was, that's for sure. Also, the combat system is not, and has never been, the main measure of how much I like a game. Characters and lore are where it's at for me, and Inquisition delivers here.
Edit: bloody auto correct. What the hell is my iPad doing?!
Muscle Wizard
Banned
I'll never play either game more than once.
toddhunter
Member
So you think Inquisition is better than Baldurs gate 2? If not, what are you complaining about?
If you want to play the "I like them both for different reasons cards", tell me what game you are comparing Inquisition to? Oblivion?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Jade Empire never got a sequel. There are only two series they've made since, which are Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Mass Effect had basically got its gameplay down pat in ME2, while Dragon Age made a similar change from the first to second game, then made an even bigger change from DA2 to DA:I. I consider Bioware to be an extremely reflexive developer, lacking a consistent core vision for these games. The reason DAI changed so radically was because DA2 was such a critical failure (and I believe it sold less than DA:O, although I don't have figures on me). ME2 was similarly influenced heavily by fan feedback and criticisms of the first game, but in both cases we get this weird malevolent genie situation where Bioware gives us what we asked for, but not necessarily what we wanted.
People hated the Mako, the inventories, the elevators, the barren worlds. So they removed the Mako, they simplified inventories down to an extreme level, removed UNC planets, and instead of elevators to mask load screens, we got a short "elevator cutscene" of a diagram of an elevator traversing. That last bit has got to be some kind of deliberate trolling on their part. They did nail the new shooting mechanics, I must admit, which was another thing people complained about. Rightfully so. Some time after ME3, a lot of fans started to get vocal about how they wanted all this exploration stuff back. And from the leaked info on the next game, it could easily go a bit "too far".
Inquisition was, on paper, the perfect new Dragon Age game. People complained about lack of scale in DA2? Ok, we'll give you all the scale you can ask for. You want exploration? We'll give you so much to explore your thumbs will be bleeding from pressing the search button. Thought it was too short? We'll pad it out with so much side content you'll just want it to end. Now I'm phrasing this is an overly malicious way, and I know they're not really sitting there cackling to themselves (except maybe the Elevator load screen stuff). But it feels very clinical, or detached in a way. Like they've got these big reams of feedback and their mission statement is to satisfy everybody while also capitalising on the newest trends in game design and expanding their markets.
I don't think they're changing things because of artistic vision, I think they're changing things until they stumble upon the correct formula for that type of game, but they just haven't found it for Dragon Age yet. Although given the extremely positive critical reception for DA:I, they may choose to continue with this despite haters (i.e. me). I am indeed a cynical old man, and my interpretation is coloured by this. But at this point I'm really not giving them the benefit of the doubt. When Mass Effect 4 comes out and it's filled with this hyper-reflexive, exploration focussed design (where exploration equals finding ancient artefacts on planets, founding 5 outposts in every star sector etc) I'm going to be sitting here whining about that too.
Jibbajabbawockky
Member
Because most of the key lead designers/producers of Origins like Brent Knowles and Dan Tudge left BioWare once the PC version of Origins wrapped up in early 2009. Then you had the current leads Mike Laidlaw and Mark Darrah come in to do the console port of Origins and take the franchise in a more Mass Effect like direction because Mass Effect was the hot thing.
Its basically that the 2 people currently at the very top of Dragon Age creatively had very little to do with Origins for most of its development.
Oh yeah, I always forget about that. Unfortunately, since those people probably aren't coming back, I doubt we'll get to see an improvement on what Origins started.
Atraveller
Banned
What is this shit? I'll keep my deep, tactical, not brain dead combat, thank you.
Jesus christ what am I reading.