Returning to Dragon Age: Origins made me realise Baldur's Gate 3 was really the sequel I always wanted
Returning to Dragon Age: Origins made me realise Baldur's Gate 3 was really the sequel I always wanted
Going back to Dragon Age: Origins today, it's much harder to feel frustrated at the lack of 'true' RPG sequel - Larian's already completed the D&D circle.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
The Baldur's Gate series has been my favorite franchise since the first game launched, I adored each of the Dragon Age games for what they were, and I really don't understand what the point of this article is. It's just a love letter to Origins. She keeps pointing out that BG3 sure is a great successor to Origins which was in itself a successor to BG 1/2, which just....duh? Is she trying to convince people to go back and play Origins? I don't think that is a terrible idea, but I would point them instead to the original games if you want to experience what BG3 is truly resurrecting.
-
there is a very weird and toxic mindset with some dragon age fans. they say Origins is the only good game in the franchise and will fight or otherwise shit talk anyone who enjoys the other two games. it seems to go beyond fandom and even past obsession.
BG3 is such a massive experience that many have been insisting that BG3 is what dragon age sequels "should have been".
i have loved all three games in the series and I have never seen the point of the toxic obsession with Origins.
Origins is excellent. but all of them are in different ways.
this author appears to be of the obsessive Origins camp. which usually turns me off to whoever starts ranting about it.
-
Origins is excellent. but all of them are in different ways.
Exactly. Origins was revolutionary at the time for it's broad branching character and narrative options. DA2 actually had a fantastic if comparatively linear story and arguably the strongest setting of all three games. DA3 for all of its bloat had a huge beautiful world to explore and strong characters. I know it's a controversial opinion, but I actually really enjoyed the combat in DA3 as well.
People get really hung up on the rose-tinted novelty of Origins at the time of its release, and it was amazing at the time, but it's hardly the best RPG ever made. I don't know if I would even consider it part of the discussion.
-
The problem with DA2 was that it was a decent game but a bad sequel. I've come to appreciate it but when I first played it I was incredibly disappointed. I did not want a personal narrative, I wanted freedom to role-play.
-
-
Just finished Inquisition and I have to agree with you. All three are great games. Maybe the second one didn't have enough content and the third one got a bit too much padding to compensate.
-
The problem is that DA:O was promised to be the spiritual successor to BG 1 & 2. They then immediately threw that away in the sequels because they realised the experience in console suited action combat better.
I've never been more disappointed than the point where I realised nothing I did affected the story in DA2 and again when I realised that not only was it not a return to form, but it doubled down with time gates mechanics and a level of grind that would make a subscription game proud.
That's on top of the fact that DA:O wasn't even that great in the first place. It was decent for its time, but is still incredibly linear and binary in its execution.
They're all deeply flawed games in the way they strayed from their supposed roots. They might be good when each considered alone, but as a journey as a fan they burned me at each step to the degree that nothing can convince me to buy DA4.
-
-