Poll of the Day > Is it worth it to replay Dragon Age: Origins and II before Inquisition?

(+) Yeah! (+)

With the sale on Origins now, I'm tempted to get Inquisition but have never completed all the DLCs for Origins, Awakening, or II. I am sure it doesn't really matter that much since I can probably use Dragon Age Keep to set the background for Inquisition but at the same time it wouldn't hurt to actually finish the DLCs and get a refresher on the story.

To fans of the series, would you consider it worth replaying Origins, Awakening, and II before Inquisition?

Comments and opinions are appreciated,

Thank you
---

I say yes so you actually have some idea on what events you are setting. I never played 2 myself (my original 360 died a week before release, so I cancelled my pre order) and with all the events to be set, I had to go through a wiki trying to figure out these events to pick what choices I would have gone with.
---

yeah so don't play inquisition.
---

helIy posted...

yeah so don't play inquisition.

---

No to Origins, you'll only be that much more disappointed with Inquisition.
---

Play them in this order:

Dragon age II
Dragon age Inquisition
Dragon age origins

And you should have a good experience each time.

Do it in the normal order and...it's all downhill pretty much.
---

You should just ditch the series and play Witcher 3 instead. Bioware games will play like shit after you play it for a while.
---

Thank you for the responses and opinions. I have already played Origins and II years ago but never got around to finishing Awakening or all the other DLCs. Bad experience or not, I'll like to at least wrap up the story.

joemodda posted...

You should just ditch the series and play Witcher 3 instead. Bioware games will play like shit after you play it for a while.

I'll get to that someday after I actually finish the first Witcher. Tried a little but the combat kinda discourage me from trying again. The whole timing and mouse clicking didn't seem that appealing.

Plus one of the reasons I enjoyed DA: Origins is cause of some aspects from Baldur's Gate II. Witch doesn't quite have the same vibe, right?

EDIT: Interesting enough, some fans of Baldur's Gate II and Planescape Torment praise Witch 3 story as being comparable. Guess I'll just have to muscle my way through Witcher and Assassins of Kings one of these days.
---

Origins is the best entry... Inquisition was okay, and worth it for cheap, but my god the characters are garbage.
---

On a different note, how much of a different experience will Awakening be if I import my Warden from Origins instead of starting from scratch? Does it matter if my Elven mage died after defeating the Archdemon?

I am tempted to replay it either with a Dwarven two-handed build with class undecided or Human arcane warrior. I'm loath to sacrifice Alistair so might opt to use Loghain if I can figure out how to recruit him without pissing off Alistair. Of course there's also Morrigan's option which I guess based on the DLC is the canon choice?
---

Never worth it to play 2.
---

No. Each Dragon Age game pretty much ignores Origins. Dragon Age II... might help you understand Inquisition, a bit. But they also skip time between DA2 and Inquisition, so even then, you've got to put the pieces together yourself.
---

Thank you for the additional responses. Is the story told by Verric via Dragon Age Keep sufficient then to catch me up with the story? For the most part I do recall what happened but just kinda felt I should at least hammer out the various DLCs/expansion before I move forward. Of course I could just go backward later and finish Awakening last.
---

I believe it is sufficient, yes.

As for my personal opinion...

DA: Origins 9.5/10
DA: Awakening 8.9/10
DA2: 5/10
DA: Inquistion 3/10
---

That bad eh? Kinda thought Inquisition would be a mix of DA:O and DAII.
---

DA:O is the best of the 3.

DA2 though... you would probably be better off just playing a dynasty warriors.

Inquisition was ok, side quests were pretty crap.

InfestedAdam posted...

That bad eh? Kinda thought Inquisition would be a mix of DA:O and DAII.

Nah, II is WAY worse. Inquisition is like a boring single player MMO.
---

Chiming in late, but I agree with the sentiment that DA:O is always worth replaying, but DA:I really isn't very good and you'd be better off skipping it entirely.

I always disagree with people who shit on DA2, though - it's a much better game than most people give it credit for. People crap on it for not being DA:O, but considering it had half the development time and BioWare had already given up all pretense of wanting to make actual RPGs by that point (see also the shift from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2), it's surprisingly better than it has any right to be.

Inquisition is like the worst of all possible worlds, though. They tried to cover every base to please everyone, and wound up producing a mess that pleases no one. Not helped by their openly admitted infatuation with Skyrim during its development process, which resulted in them mostly incorporating all of the worst aspects of Bethesda game design philosophy into the game without any of the offsetting charm that makes playing Elder Scrolls games tolerable (people who accuse DA:I of feeling more like a shitty MMO aren't entirely off the mark - that's mostly the Bethesda creeping in).

Nor does it really help that the DLC for DA:I reverses pretty much every single major decision you make in the core game, making it a more or less meaningless waste of your time if you care about the narrative (which you presumably do, since you're asking if you should play the other games first). By the end you've basically accomplished jack shit of lasting value, so they can start the next game

(And honestly, the whole "Dragon Age Keep" thing is pure bullshit. They easily could have incorporated Varric's whole prelude and presetting story flags into the game itself akin to how Mass Effect: Genesis worked, but EA wants to push Origin so they slaved the whole thing to their website, which becomes absolutely worthless the moment EA decides they don't feel like maintaining the website anymore - which is a problem Saints Row players may already be familiar with, since THQ basically broke the character uploader from SR3 to SR4).

About the only reason I can't say that DA:I is the worst BioWare game ever made is because Mass Effect: Andromeda exists.

I was a huge fan of the franchise prior to DA:I. Post-DA:I, I pretty much have no desire to ever play a new DA game again.


---

Basically, BioWare is just another in the endless line of studios EA has raped and murdered over the years. At this point there's nothing of value left there, and while they might keep releasing games for years to come, and keep cashing in on franchises we used to love, odds are they're never going to produce anything worth playing ever again, and they'll eventually be gutted and have their staff redistributed the same way EA does every time.


---

InfestedAdam posted...

On a different note, how much of a different experience will Awakening be if I import my Warden from Origins instead of starting from scratch? Does it matter if my Elven mage died after defeating the Archdemon?

Not much. You play as an Orlesian Warden who is brought in to rebuild the Ferelden branch of the order post-Archdemon. All of the quests and story are more or less exactly the same, and most of the major characters interact with you in exactly the same way.

(Mechanically, a Warden imported from DA:O will likely have better gear and stats than one starting fresh, but it's not a huge handicap.)

The only real difference is that a number of NPCs will be a bit ruder to you in conversations (no one in Ferelden trusts Orlesians due to backstory historical reasons), whereas if you play as a Warden from DA:O everybody is a bit more polite/grateful to you because you're basically the "Hero of Ferelden" who saved the country from evil.

The one downside (at least in my opinion) is that you CAN'T set up a scenario where you play as an Orlesian Warden but have the game reference your Warden from DA:O (assuming they died). If you play continuing off a save file from DA:O where you died, Awakening just mysteriously has you alive again with no explanation and puts you in the main character role, while playing as a new Orlesian Warden just has everyone be vague as hell about who/what the DA:O Warden was and what they were like (ie, none of your previous play carries over at all).

If you start with Awakening and then upload that save file into DA2, it treats the flags for DA:O as if you were a female Dalish Elf who died (which is also one of the three preset options in DA2), but it can also cause a couple of dialogue bugs in DA2.



InfestedAdam posted...

I'm loath to sacrifice Alistair so might opt to use Loghain if I can figure out how to recruit him without pissing off Alistair.

You can't. That's an either/or choice. If you pick one, the other one leaves/dies.

If you make Loghain a Warden, you will literally be forced to either have Alistair executed or exiled. If he survives, he basically leaves the Wardens and becomes a drunk, and you can find him in the tavern in DA2.

If you don't want to sacrifice yourself, and don't want to lose Alistair, the Dark Ritual is your only real option.



InfestedAdam posted...

Of course there's also Morrigan's option which I guess based on the DLC is the canon choice?

Not canon, no. The DLC works equally well regardless. The initial assumption works whether or not the game assumes you're looking for Morrigan with ill-intent or out of friendship (or love, if you romanced her), and whether or not you did the ritual. It also takes into account if/how you handled Flemeth in the main game.

That being said, the DLC actually has the most impact narratively if you play a male Warden who romances Morrigan and does the Dark Ritual with her (and that carries over into DA:I to some extent). Though I'm too fond of playing a female Warden who romances either Alistair or Leliana to benefit from it.

(Tangential Side-Note: romancing Alistair, letting Anora keep the throne, doing the Dark Ritual, and staying together as a Warden couple has TERRIBLE consequences in DA:I - once I figured that out I absolutely refused to ever play the save file I have where those conditions all applied.)


---

WarGreymon77 posted...

No. Each Dragon Age game pretty much ignores Origins. Dragon Age II... might help you understand Inquisition, a bit. But they also skip time between DA2 and Inquisition, so even then, you've got to put the pieces together yourself.

To be fair, there isn't much in DA2 that has a direct impact on DA:I (other than knowing Varric a LOT better - and seeing the much better written and portrayed version of his character in DA2 - which will make you appreciate him more in DA:I).

The key thing you kind of need to connect DA2 and DA:I is the Legacy DLC. It's the only thing that really touches on the DA:I narrative at all. Almost everything else from DA2 gets summed up as much as it needs to when you ask Varric about his past, people he knows, and what they're up to now.

DA:O has SOME effect on DA:I (especially if you did the Dark Ritual and/or romanced Morrigan or Leliana, and how you handled the Alistair/Loghain issues), but ultimately, someone could easily play DA:I first without knowing a single thing about the previous games and still get about as much out of it as everyone else does.

Unfortunately, you won't get much out of it regardless because it's basically half of a worthwhile Dragon Age plot padded out with nonsense, plodding, and grindy busywork... but it doesn't really REQUIRE you to play the previous games to "appreciate" it.


---

VeeVees posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

That bad eh? Kinda thought Inquisition would be a mix of DA:O and DAII.

Nah, II is WAY worse. Inquisition is like a boring single player MMO.

Origins has a lot of replay value. You've got a lot of dialog choices, and different ways to RP your character. In addition, the armor looks good (provided you've got matching colors).

DA II ruined two of the best characters from Awakening. It's half the length of Origins. You only get to play human. The plot is entertaining (imo) but it's the exact same thing every time, thus no replay value. The graphics are a downgrade from Origins, imo. And the gameplay is a downgrade too. I'm talking PC here. But like I said, I found it entertaining for a playthrough. I even managed to play it several more times afterward, just because I wanted to carry my data over, and was unaware that they would end up making the Dragon Age Keep.

I played Inquisition on PS4, so that may have affected my gameplay. I thought combat was really bad. The worst of all three. Pure hack and slash, like Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance or some kind of beat-em-up like Fighting Force. And why the addition of a jump button? You get to play as different races, but who the fuck cares, because the inquisitor has the personality of a pile of dirt! Even Hawke had better dialog choices, because you could at least get angry or violent in Dragon Age 2. I wanted to play a rowdy dwarf who's spoiling for a fight, but I kept coming off like a calm, posh gentleman, and it pissed me off. And all of the armor is ugly as hell! And nobody has long hair. Everybody is ugly except the unflirtable Leliana. And the companions kind of suck. And the game just feels boring. I tried to do a second playthrough, but I just cannot bring myself to continue. And the character creator is terrible.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

No. Each Dragon Age game pretty much ignores Origins. Dragon Age II... might help you understand Inquisition, a bit. But they also skip time between DA2 and Inquisition, so even then, you've got to put the pieces together yourself.

To be fair, there isn't much in DA2 that has a direct impact on DA:I (other than knowing Varric a LOT better - and seeing the much better written and portrayed version of his character in DA2 - which will make you appreciate him more in DA:I).

The key thing you kind of need to connect DA2 and DA:I is the Legacy DLC. It's the only thing that really touches on the DA:I narrative at all. Almost everything else from DA2 gets summed up as much as it needs to when you ask Varric about his past, people he knows, and what they're up to now.

DA:O has SOME effect on DA:I (especially if you did the Dark Ritual and/or romanced Morrigan or Leliana, and how you handled the Alistair/Loghain issues), but ultimately, someone could easily play DA:I first without knowing a single thing about the previous games and still get about as much out of it as everyone else does.

Unfortunately, you won't get much out of it regardless because it's basically half of a worthwhile Dragon Age plot padded out with nonsense, plodding, and grindy busywork... but it doesn't really REQUIRE you to play the previous games to "appreciate" it.

Well the reason I figured DA2 helped with Inquisition is because of the whole mages/templars thing.
---

Thank you for the very detailed insight, ParanoidObsessive. Pity the three games don't connect that well. Despite whatever issues I had with Mass Effect 3 kinda making your choices in the first two games not matter, DAII and DA:I seems to take the cake in the regards.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

(And honestly, the whole "Dragon Age Keep" thing is pure bulls***. They easily could have incorporated Varric's whole prelude and presetting story flags into the game itself akin to how Mass Effect: Genesis worked

I thought that was strange as to why that wasn't incorporated into the game.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

About the only reason I can't say that DA:I is the worst BioWare game ever made is because Mass Effect: Andromeda exists.

Funny, I added that to my Origin wishlist since it is also on sale but am hesitant to get it. I might just do it for the gameplay someday and hope the story is at least tolerable. I can't recall if it was you or someone else that blamed the fans for how DA:I and ME:A turned out. In that the developers tried to half-n-half it by doing a new thing while trying to introduce old elements as well. But instead of best of both worlds we get some abomination of the two.

I'll admit, after ME3, I wanted more adventures and whatnot with Sheppard but can understand that would just restrict the writers on what they can do. Kinda the same for DA2. Refocusing on the Grey Warden would just limit the writers on where else they can take the story to and with such an enriching world that they've created, it would be a waste to not pursue that other content.
---

WarGreymon77 posted...

DA II ruined two of the best characters from Awakening.

Anders and... who, exactly?

Because I won't disagree that Anders undergoes a major personality shift from Awakening to DA2, and not necessarily for the better (he's easily my least favorite of your companions, and the one I'm least willing to romance in any given playthrough - and neither of those things would likely be true if he was closer to the way he was portrayed in Awakening). But I can't for the life of me think who else from Awakening even made it into DA2. Sure, there's a Nathaniel cameo, but that was minor he didn't seem too different to me.

(While I was typing this response, I actually realized you might be referring to Justice - which never even occurred to me at first because I can't think how anyone could possibly refer to as one of the best characters in Awakening with a straight face. The way I feel about Anders in DA2 is pretty much the way I feel about Justice in DA:A - he's the character I only recruit because I'm a completionist, and then shove in the corner and ignore because he's kind of terrible in every way (which is part of why it took me so long to even REMEMBER he was technically in DA2 in the first place). Oghren and Sigrun are easily way better, and even Nathaniel does more for me. Velanna might compete with Justice for last place in my eyes, except even she improves a bit once you start to raise her affection, whereas Justice just kind of sucks from start to finish.

And besides, the idea of a spirit being corrupted because they're trapped in the material world actually seems like a much more interesting evolution of that character to me, and one that makes perfect sense in-universe. Justice pretty much explicitly tells you in Awakening that it's probably going to happen to him if he can't get back to the Fade. I've always seen that shift to be a net-positive change, in the same way that Merrill's personality shift between the two games is a huge plus, because DA:O Merrill is boring and utterly generic.)


---

WarGreymon77 posted...

The plot is entertaining (imo) but it's the exact same thing every time, thus no replay value.

Ehh - I played the game through something like 8 times over (compared to the dozen or so times I played DA:O and its DLC), and my Hawke felt different to me every single time. I see my Hawkes from each playthrough as being fairly distinct personalities, in the same way my Couriers in New Vegas all felt like very different people (whereas Fallout 3 and 4 left me with bland lead characters that felt identical every single time I attempt to play).

Granted, individual choices do tend to be a bit more limited in DA2 than DA:O (three classes, two genders, three main types of personality/dialogue response, 2-3 possible fates for your sibling, 4 romanceable companions, 2 different endings), but those can still fit together in a lot of different ways (like 400+ different possible combinations just from what I mentioned above). Especially once you start to factor in the differences created by your choices in DA:O (for instance, my mage Hawke being the cousin of my Mage Warden who sacrificed herself, as opposed to, say, having a Warden who is currently queen). My "cruelly sarcastic" mage who hated the Chantry and hooked up with Anders felt like a VERY different person to me than my "good-naturedly charming" mage who just wanted to fix things and help people.

And in all honestly, it's not as if DA:O had THAT much more complexity - sure, you could solve individual quests differently and have them referenced in the epilogue, but most major in-game choices were still usually either/or at best, with some maybe having an optional third choice. Once you're past the initial origin part, a lot of choices just boil down to "Are you a hero or a dick?"

I'd honestly say there are very few games that feel like they have as much replayability as DA2 does (other than DA:O) in terms of just narrative and character alone. Even other vaunted "choice" games like Mass Effect or Bethesda's Fallout and Elder Scrolls games feel like they're less flexible.



WarGreymon77 posted...

The graphics are a downgrade from Origins, imo.

I'd strongly disagree on this one - as much as I love the game, DA:O has aged very, very poorly graphics-wise.

DA2 looks better both in character designs and in backgrounds, in my opinion. I'd be willing to admit that it's slightly more streamlined, which can make things look a bit more "cartoonish" in a way (and I can see why some people might dislike that), but DA:O has a lot of flaws of its own.

If anything, I'd probably be willing to say that DA2 looks better than DA:I as well - because DA:I (and most of the characters in it) kind of look like shit on comparable systems to what you were originally playing DA:O and DA2 on (ie, I played them all on a 360, and didn't step up to a PS4/Xbone/PC for DA:I). But even aside from things like texture pop and other tech issues, DA:I easily has some of the worst looking armor designs and characters designs of all the games.


---

WarGreymon77 posted...

And the gameplay is a downgrade too.

I'd say it's more of a side-step, in the same way Mass Effect 2 was a radical departure from the gameplay of ME1, which was intended to make the game more accessible to mainstream audiences.

Which is something I'm always sort of bothered by. A lot of the criticisms of DA2 are things that absolutely applied to either ME1 or ME2, yet no one ever complains about them there (and in the case of ME2, plenty of people). None of the people who complain that all the minor sidequest maps in DA2 are basically the same never complained when every minor location in ME was exactly the same pre-fab assets and designs over and over again. People whine because DA2 made a conscious effort to become more hack-and-slash as opposed to traditional RPG, but ME2 does the exact same thing and you'll find tons of people who say it's the best game in the series.

About the only valid criticism I can see for DA2 is from people who were bothered by the fact that they felt like Hawke wasn't really initiating events as much as just sort of being pulled along as a minor witness to major happenings, but even that's sort of a weak argument because the franchise can't really afford to have earth-shaking crises every installment in the same way that the Elder Scrolls games do (and, in fact, a TON of the problems with DA:I stem from BioWare actively trying to cater to people who complained about that, and screwing everything up worse).

Elder Scrolls can get away with it because they skip centuries ahead after every game, but in Dragon Age, you are literally having world-breaking events every couple of years. Which gets even worse when you realize they've only got 50 years or so left before the literal "Dragon Age" of the title is over.



WarGreymon77 posted...

I played Inquisition on PS4, so that may have affected my gameplay. I thought combat was really bad. The worst of all three.

This I'll happily agree with.

Though I'll point out the problem was mainly that they were trying to appease the people who complained about DA2 combat and claimed they loved the more traditional RPG gameplay of DA:O more, while simultaneously trying to avoid alienating anyone who liked the more streamlined DA2 gameplay and the mainstream audience in general, and thus created a sort of hybrid abomination that appealed to neither group.

Ironically, for all their talk about how much they loved Skyrim and were looking to it for design inspiration, if they'd let THAT influence their combat mechanics instead they'd probably have been far better off.


---

WarGreymon77 posted...

Well the reason I figured DA2 helped with Inquisition is because of the whole mages/templars thing.

Technically, sure, but you don't really need to play DA2 to get the idea of "mages and the Chantry are fighting now." Especially since DA2 doesn't really elaborate on the overarching conflict that much (ie, the entire civil war basically happens between games regardless).

And ironically, the canon version of events is that the events in Kirkwall aren't really what triggered the conflict anyway - the plot of DA:I mostly sort of ignores that aspect of DA2 in favor of expecting you to read one of the novels (specifically, Asunder). You can get some idea of what happened in it by talking to Cole, but he's cryptic and weird so it's hard to understand a lot of what he says unless you already know it from having read the book.

A lot of stuff in DA:I comes from the novels - there's a ton of stuff about Fiona from there, and something like 80% of the Orlesian storyline comes straight from the books. They basically made the same mistake I think 343 made with Halo 5 - ie, tying the expanded universe media into the core narrative of the games to encourage more people to buy them, and in the process watering down what made the games worthwhile in the first place and alienating a large chunk of the potential fanbase. Something like 95% of Halo 5's plot pretty much NEEDS to you have read about a dozen books beforehand to really understand.

The DA2 Legacy DLC revolves almost entirely around Corypheus, though, and has a bit of influence on the whole Hawke/Grey Warden storyline, which makes it far more relevant than almost anything else from DA2. Varric will sum up those events if you talk to him about it in DA:I, but still.


---

i say just jump in, you'll be ok.

also, inquisition was fantastic, but very grindy, ok?
---

InfestedAdam posted...

Thank you for the very detailed insight, ParanoidObsessive. Pity the three games don't connect that well.

My assumption is that the games don't connect that well because it's damned hard to do branching narrative yet keep putting out games. Which each iteration the "starting" point gets harder and harder to justify from player-to-player, until you eventually reach a point where you have to ignore the results of the previous game entirely (often by skipping ahead many years the way Elder Scrolls does, or by setting the game in a different location the way the Bethesda Fallout games have been), or you write the story in such a way that the ending winds up being the same for everyone regardless of what choices they make, so everyone starts in the same place next time (in which case player choices don't matter and they stop caring about your games - which seems to be the way DA is going as a franchise).

(Again, see also the Elder Scrolls games for an example of this problem, and even games like Deus Ex before them)

It also doesn't help that they never really seemed to have an overarching storyline in mind when they started. Dragon Age: Origins, much like Mass Effect, feels like a game they made to be one-and-done, which they only really turned into continuing franchises because they made so much money, at which point they had to desperately scramble for a new plot. ME failed spectacularly, and DA only really escaped the same fate because they didn't keep using the same main character and set up a story that needed a "conclusion", so they can continue indefinitely... but DA might actually be worse off, narratively speaking.

It seems like the original plan for DA2 was to try to tone the apocalyptic aspects of the story down a bit and tell a more down-to-earth story, which would set the course for future games. Major events would still happen and ancient mysteries would still get solved, but they would be background for more personal stories. And then everyone shat all over DA2, BioWare panicked, and in trying to course-correct they seem to have overcompensated way too far in the opposite direction, and made a host of entirely new mistakes when it came to DA:I.

At this point both franchises are essentially dead to me, which is tragic because 5 years ago I would have told you they were both my favorite franchises of all time.



InfestedAdam posted...

Funny, I added that to my Origin wishlist since it is also on sale but am hesitant to get it.

Don't.

Whatever minor enjoyment you get out of it probably won't be worth the frustration, and almost certainly won't be worth what you pay for it, unless you pay like $10 max.



InfestedAdam posted...

I might just do it for the gameplay someday and hope the story is at least tolerable.

If you play for narrative, the game is bad - the story is mediocre at the best of times and dips into terrible. This isn't helped by bad voice-acting, though at least some of the visual problems and glitches have been patched since release.

The gameplay is okay (especially if you like multiplayer), but honestly, there are far better games you could be spending time and money on. Anything you can get out of ME:A you can find far better elsewhere.


---

InfestedAdam posted...

I can't recall if it was you or someone else that blamed the fans for how DA:I and ME:A turned out.

Sounds like something I'd say, because I do think at least some of the problems of DA:I were caused by the hyperbolic complaints about DA2 from vocal fans online. Not so much ME:A, though, because in that case I think most of the people complaining about ME3 were 110% correct and most of the problems with ME:A had nothing to do with fan backlash as much as studio ineptitude and corporate fuckery.

It's hard to discount just how much EA corporate culture has been eating into BioWare and killing it from the inside out, in the same way that Activision has basically murdered Bungie and is now repeatedly fucking its corpse. The BioWare of 2017 really isn't the same studio that made games like Baldur's Gate or KotOR. It's not even the same studio that made ME or DA:O.

It's part of why I have zero interest in future Mass Effect or Dragon Age games at this point, and why I have absolutely no faith that Anthem is going to be anything other than a massive shitshow of disappointment and frustration. Because I no longer see any connection to the company that produced some of my favorite games and the current monstrosity that is churning out bordering cash-in titles or trying to clone Destiny's massive sales success.

BioWare isn't even the first studio I've liked that EA has murdered, so it's not even as if this is a new experience for me. But a lot of younger fans are seeing this sort of decay for the first time and keep naively hoping against hope that things will get better in the future.



InfestedAdam posted...

I'll admit, after ME3, I wanted more adventures and whatnot with Sheppard but can understand that would just restrict the writers on what they can do.

I wanted more adventures with Shepard right up until they fucked the entire ending of ME3 up, at which point I was happy to never see Shepard again because it would only mean they'd find even worse ways to fuck things up.

I was at least marginally hopeful (if cautious) about ME:A before it came out because I was entirely happy to experience new stories in the same universe, especially if they were set elsewhere and could ignore the ME3 ending clusterfuck entirely, but the mess they produced has essentially killed any real momentum or potential the franchise had.

Some people act sad that the series is "on hiatus" now, but I see that as a mercy killing. Short of waiting 10+ years and then ignoring the events of ME:A entirely, I'm not sure how you COULD produce a ME game that would ever be worth playing.


---

I'm assuming you've already played Origins and II at least once, so yeah, go for replaying them if you're in the mood. Origins is still great (replayed it myself not long ago) while II... er, Origins is still great at least.

Skip Inquisition. Complete garbage.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

Well the reason I figured DA2 helped with Inquisition is because of the whole mages/templars thing.

Technically, sure, but you don't really need to play DA2 to get the idea of "mages and the Chantry are fighting now." Especially since DA2 doesn't really elaborate on the overarching conflict that much (ie, the entire civil war basically happens between games regardless).

And ironically, the canon version of events is that the events in Kirkwall aren't really what triggered the conflict anyway - the plot of DA:I mostly sort of ignores that aspect of DA2 in favor of expecting you to read one of the novels (specifically, Asunder). You can get some idea of what happened in it by talking to Cole, but he's cryptic and weird so it's hard to understand a lot of what he says unless you already know it from having read the book.

A lot of stuff in DA:I comes from the novels - there's a ton of stuff about Fiona from there, and something like 80% of the Orlesian storyline comes straight from the books. They basically made the same mistake I think 343 made with Halo 5 - ie, tying the expanded universe media into the core narrative of the games to encourage more people to buy them, and in the process watering down what made the games worthwhile in the first place and alienating a large chunk of the potential fanbase. Something like 95% of Halo 5's plot pretty much NEEDS to you have read about a dozen books beforehand to really understand.

The DA2 Legacy DLC revolves almost entirely around Corypheus, though, and has a bit of influence on the whole Hawke/Grey Warden storyline, which makes it far more relevant than almost anything else from DA2. Varric will sum up those events if you talk to him about it in DA:I, but still.

ME3 had that issue too. I was a little miffed that my Councilor Anderson decision made fuck all difference in the grand scheme of things.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

(Tangential Side-Note: romancing Alistair, letting Anora keep the throne, doing the Dark Ritual, and staying together as a Warden couple has TERRIBLE consequences in DA:I - once I figured that out I absolutely refused to ever play the save file I have where those conditions all applied.)

Since I've never played through Origins as a woman, and haven't played any of the games besides Origins for that matter, what happens? :o
---

Megawizard posted...

Since I've never played through Origins as a woman, and haven't played any of the games besides Origins for that matter, what happens? :o

There's a part of DA:I where you have to sacrifice someone to a nightmare demon to escape the Fade. Your choice is basically between either Hawke, or a representative of the Grey Wardens who is determined by previous gameplay (Alistair if he's still a Grey Warden rather than king or exile, Loghain if you made him a Warden and he survived, or Stroud from DA2).

Assuming you've played both DA:O and DA2 and formed anything resembling an emotional connection to your characters, it can be jarring when you're essentially being asked to choose between the boyfriend/husband of your DA:O character or your own DA2 character (who is probably involved in a romance themselves, and thus will be leaving someone behind if they die).

(In my playthrough where that would have happened, my Warden ran off with Alistair and my Hawke had romanced Isabela, who tearfully begs you not to die or leave her at the end of DA2, so it's kind of obvious that she'd be utterly broken by Hawke dying. But a relationship with Fenris is equally kind of volatile that way. Merrill and Anders could probably deal with it better, but they'd still be pretty devastated.)

For bonus points, there's a part where your Inquisitor basically gets a letter from your Warden mentioning Alistair and saying something like "I'm out busting my hump trying to find a way to cure the Taint, so you better not get him killed while he's with you, or else" - which implies your character from DA:O may eventually be coming to murder the shit out of your DA:I character if you sacrifice Alistair.


---

WarGreymon77 posted...

ME3 had that issue too. I was a little miffed that my Councilor Anderson decision made fuck all difference in the grand scheme of things.

Hey now, picking him let you stay a Spectre in ME2 - a crucial advantage that helped you in precisely one situation that you could overcome without being a Spectre anyway.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Megawizard posted...

Since I've never played through Origins as a woman, and haven't played any of the games besides Origins for that matter, what happens? :o

*snip for quote size reduction*

Damn; that's dark. :x You can tell they put effort into setting all that up though.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

ME3 had that issue too. I was a little miffed that my Councilor Anderson decision made f*** all difference in the grand scheme of things.

Hey now, picking him let you stay a Spectre in ME2 - a crucial advantage that helped you in precisely one situation that you could overcome without being a Spectre anyway.

Unlike this mess. XD That miffed the hell out of me too.
---

You play DAO. Then stop and pretend there are no sequels.

I miss my Wardens. They were some real badasses.
---

WarGreymon77 posted...

I miss my Wardens. They were some real badasses.

Playing a pissed-off City Elf who pretty much shits on everyone she meets and sasses the king was fun.


---

After rereading some stuff about DA: Origins, I definitely need to set aside some time to replay. Think I might just go with an arcane warrior tank in my next playthrough. I heard that build might be boring since it is mostly auto-attacks but at the same time seem when built properly, they simply can't die.

On the flip side, I know a game like DA:Origins can take awhile if I try and do everything. Maybe I'll just do the DLCs first for the bonus items and get start a new game. Based on the stats of the bonus items from the DLCs, are they only overpowering at the start of a new game when your stats are lower?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

ME3 had that issue too. I was a little miffed that my Councilor Anderson decision made fuck all difference in the grand scheme of things.

Hey now, picking him let you stay a Spectre in ME2 - a crucial advantage that helped you in precisely one situation that you could overcome without being a Spectre anyway.

To some degree I felt disappointed that being a Spectre seem so special in Mass Effect but all that kinda got tossed out the window in ME2 and ME3.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

Based on the stats of the bonus items from the DLCs, are they only overpowering at the start of a new game when your stats are lower?

I remember one of the weapons I had pretty much destroyed things when I backstabbed with it, but that's all I can remember offhand.
---

Yes, but only the first time through. DA:O is, obviously, the start point and a lot of the world is explained, fleshed out, and dealt with in it. DA:II, sadly, contains multiple plot elements within it that come up in DA:I. However, once you've done one playthrough of those two, you can use the keep to make the save files for import. Since you can't do a direct import (which will really suck if the keep gets taken down) replaying O and II holds no point for the purposes of DA:I.

That said... DA:O: 8/10
DA:O:A: 7/10
DA:II: 6/10 (You can actually spot the EXACT moment Bioware went from 'company that makes great games' to 'crap' in it. The end of act 1 when you find the statue and, if you brought your sibling, they get tainted. Seriously. It's the EXACT moment!
DA:I: 4/10 A bit too many RL politics, way too much pointless world exploring, too little... anything else.
---

Is Inquisition worth playing at all if Ive never played any of the other games?

Cacciato posted...

Is Inquisition worth playing at all if Ive never played any of the other games?

Not really. At the least you'll likely be confused as to a decent bit of terminology and backstory. Having no idea who characters like Hawke are and what their contribution signifies, or doesn't, or what Darkspawn are, what the fade is, and so-forth. I'm not saying you can't do it. Just that I would suggest playing at least Origins first.
---

The plot of the games doesnt end up mattering a whole lot, and DA:I is much better than this board would have you believe.
---

Cacciato posted...

Is Inquisition worth playing at all if Ive never played any of the other games?

I found Inquisition dull enough that I literally cannot play through it a second time. So I'd say not.
---

Mead posted...

The plot of the games doesnt end up mattering a whole lot, and DA:I is much better than this board would have you believe.

Inquisition had a lot of problems. Things like open environments with collectables that existed for the sake of collecting them, a mission table that could be rendered irrelevant super-fast, the lack of healing magic and reliance on potions (which wouldn't even be stockpiled), and the sheer underwhelming companion options (I forget that people like that mage girl exist).

That's the thing about DA:I and it's ultimate problem. It's not that good things don't exist in the game, it's that it's constantly mired by stupid choices that nullify the good things. Big and open environments? Sounds good... until you realize it's basically just empty space, checklists, and pointlessness. Like ME1's planet exploring except that's the entire game. Attempting to make it so a healing mage isn't found on basically every team? Now we're in a situation where a mage who can place up barriers is a near-requirement because the party needs to rely on a limited number of potions and being able to midgitate that with a barrier is a godsend on potion supplies. It keeps on going and going like that.
---

Cacciato posted...

Is Inquisition worth playing at all if Ive never played any of the other games?

It'll feel like a dull grindy slogfest in a world you don't care about where things you don't understand are happening to people you don't know and probably don't like.

There are so many far better RPGs out there it's not even remotely worth your time. The only real selling point is if you're already invested in the world and have prior save-states where your old decisions carry over into the new game and tickle your nostalgia. Without that, I can't imagine how anyone sane could ever make it past the Hinterlands part of the game.


---

Unbridled9 posted...

Mead posted...

The plot of the games doesnt end up mattering a whole lot, and DA:I is much better than this board would have you believe.

Inquisition had a lot of problems. Things like open environments with collectables that existed for the sake of collecting them, a mission table that could be rendered irrelevant super-fast, the lack of healing magic and reliance on potions (which wouldn't even be stockpiled), and the sheer underwhelming companion options (I forget that people like that mage girl exist).

That's the thing about DA:I and it's ultimate problem. It's not that good things don't exist in the game, it's that it's constantly mired by stupid choices that nullify the good things. Big and open environments? Sounds good... until you realize it's basically just empty space, checklists, and pointlessness. Like ME1's planet exploring except that's the entire game. Attempting to make it so a healing mage isn't found on basically every team? Now we're in a situation where a mage who can place up barriers is a near-requirement because the party needs to rely on a limited number of potions and being able to midgitate that with a barrier is a godsend on potion supplies. It keeps on going and going like that.

I disagree with your litany.

Just let me have my opinion guy.
---