Mass Effect has the better sequals than Dragon Age.

I mean say what you will Mass Effect 1 fans, at least you can agree that when compared to Dragon Age, Mass Effect does have the better sequals, both story and gameplay.

Now look things like Planet Exploration being removed from 1 to 2 was bad, but really the Diablo esque equipment/loot system was pretty annoying, I mean by the end of the game you get so much worthless items its just dead weight, the streamline nature of Mass Effect 2 and 3 helped alot I mean you get a much bigger variety of weapons and armor sets that have unique perks.

And the story still felt consistant, I mean playing from 1 to 3 sometimes gives me the impression that I am playing one whole game.

Dragon Age on the other hand I am wondering if any of these 3 games are of the same franchise.

All 3 of them with radically different gameplay and radically different Art Direction clearly showed that the game was suffering from an Identity Crisis, its like Bioware shockingly did not know what they had when they made Dragon Age Origins.

Dragon Age 2 was an attempt to make it more like Fantasy Mass Effect.

Dragon Age Inquistion was an attempt to make it Skyrim - Bioware Edition.

preeeetty much. I wouldn't blame the art direction too much since Mass Effect suffered from the same issue. But the lack of threads between the three games killed a large part of them when it came to characters and story.

Every game had to waste time setting the scene and lore since each game took place in a different place. Characters never actually "grew" since they were quickly replaced by characters in the next game.

Inquistion was a step in the right direction though. At least where it took established characters and gave them some new life.

True, but that's because Inquisition sucked major ass. Dragon Age 2 was okay, loved the characters, combat sucked. Origins is still the best, the combat wasn't that games's strongsuit but they managed to make it worse in DA2 and DA:I

Mass Effect is weird because they make sequels that are mostly "better" than the previous game, but usually in such a way that scraps what made those previous games unique and weird and wonderful, and turns it into something more enjoyable but a bit more generic. I'll never get over them adding the reload mechanic to ME2. ME1's combat definitely needed some fixes, the loot was crazy, cover was awkward, and you didnt have much control over your squad. If they would have fixed all that but kept ME1's overheating mechanic, fuck that would have been tight

ME3 made a lot of good changes, opening up all the guns to every class made it more fun and gave you good choices on how you wanted to tackle each mission, plus the gun modding system was an excellent surprise addition. But even that they fucked up a little by having repetitive fights and what felt like only three types of enemy.

But yeah, I go to Bioware for interesting characters, and I see passable combat as a nice little surprise bonus

Dragon Age on the other hand I am wondering if any of these 3 games are of the same franchise.

This is really the main reason for the feeling. While I do agree that ME had the better sequels, one thing must be considered. Despite everything we might say about ME3 story/ending, the change in tone, the change of writers, Origin/EA buyout, etc, the ME trilogy has done something no other games have which gives it an utterly unfair advantage: the ability to import the save into subsequent games and have things from the previous game matter in the new one.

BG2 let you import from BG, but only a couple of items carried over, and the character of course. The Witcher games also accounted for a few minor choices but nothing that actually altered the game. This was primarily because of the change in platforms each game from PC to Gen7 consoles to Gen8 for TW3. Mass Effect is unique that we can bring a character thru from the start to the end, despite all the issues with ME3.

I don't care for standard 3rd person cover based shooters. I think sticky cover is a stupid mechanic. Saying that, despite the addition of both sticky cover and reloading, both of which ME1 did better, the actual gunplay was better in ME2. I also didn't like the global cooldown which meant multiple powers couldn't be used, but considering they removed most abilities it didn't much matter. Also, Biotic Charge and the Claymore make me happy.

Dragon Age:Origins was brilliant. While it didn't necessarily excel at either storytelling or combat, it was a great party-based fantasy adventure with a memorable cast. It was dark, violent and filled with racism, backstabbing, distrust and evil. My favourite part was the Origins themselves and IMO was the defining factor of the game whose absence in sequels absolutely baffles me. Each gave us a unique backstory and investment in our character and the world at large. As a dwarf commoner, we help our sister and land in trouble. As a human, we are betrayed and watch loved ones die. My favourite was the female city elf. The preparation for the wedding, getting read for the ceremony only for it to be interrupted and end in bloodshed and kidnap. Waking up with the threat of rape and murder, my PC carved her way through the offending Lord and his lackeys. Duncan found me, covered in blood, a dagger in each hand standing over the bodies of those who would do me harm and killed my fiancee. Later, on returning to the slums, discovering the slavers, my "chaotic good" Warden took off the kids gloves. While I had been forgiving and good until that point, when seeing the Slavers there was no mercy shown.

Origins let that happen and it was glorious. I had so much invested in my character that these things mattered and had emotional impact. Dragon Age 2, mum gets kidnapped, couldn't give less of a damn. Older brother becomes a templar? Don't care, he was a prick. I had no investment at all. Why they wouldn't continue the story from 1, by far more epic than anything that came later, is beyond me. I appreciate that execs chose to do something completely different, set elsewhere with wholly different characters, but why? We grew to love the characters from the first game and the story of the Warden(s) was great. The ending was fairly final, but that wouldn't stop good storytellers.

DA2s biggest issue was that is was single-player WoW. From the hotbar rotation/cooldown combat to the nonsense story, bland characters and poor execution (The bloody cave!). DA:I was different. It was conceptually sound but badly executed. Combat and questing were dull as dishwater and I cannot remember half the characters or any of the story. The highlight was the party at the palace which was utterly unique and brilliantly done. Apart from that, a boring game, a boring story, boring combat, boring boring boring. That's not even getting into the shameless retconning of the world....gone was the violence, racism, backstabbing politics and instead was a society more liberal than contemporary western ones where qunari are lovely and welcoming and go on tirades about SJW issues at the slightest provocation.

ME3 was a terrible story, awful writing and horrible ending. But it was a good enough game and part of a trilogy with good constituent parts. DA:O was brilliant and had its support ended before its time. DA2 shouldn't have happened and DA:I was just boring despite promise on paper. The most unique thing about Dragon Age, the origins, were taken. For whatever reason, BW decided all their games have to have voiced, specific protagonists now. As much as I love Shepard, I hate Shepard for doing that to BW games.


Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here