Larian Studios Forums General Chat RPG Chat What's the worst RPG you've ever played?

Both Balthier and Ashe had clear claim to the lead, I think. Ashe because of her kingdom, yeah, and Balthier coz he was trying to win Ashe. Plus he was easily the best character in the game, which never hurts!

Vaan was a really weird choice because he actually has no real purpose in the story. Ashe does all the 'Royal descendent' stuff, Balthier is the one with personal ties to the other side. Vaan is just sort of there. He doesn't even get a single moment where the plot turns on him alone. Very weird choice.

It's odd for FF, where the lead usually has some vital role to perform, whatever their personal shortcomings.

It's a shame that the story is so poorly thought out, because the system is easily the best and I genuinely like most of the characters.

Yeah same here I like most of the characters from 12 but Fran & Balthier are by far my favorite ones.

I think that Vaan might have bumped his head at some point & it made him think he was Balthier lol

Maybe thats why Balthier was always insisting he was the lead

"Listen Vaan I'M THE REAL BALTHIER NOT YOU"

ROFL! Makes more sense than the actual plot of FF12, so why not?

I actually loved it on the console...when I mean "loved" it, I mean I enjoyed it greatly. The only difference between versions is that the PC has more keys and the tactical camera but you can handle without those.

It didn't feel awkward and unwieldy on console, Demonic? I stand corrected, then. Though how you could play it without the tac camera, I will never know...

Elliot, have you read my (liked) rant ? I'd like to hear from you what you think about it.

Alrik,

I think you are looking for a very different type of game to what DA:O is.

In a High Fantasy world, the Darkspawn would be the main enemy and the rulers of the various factions would be noble, good and just. There'd be no betrayals, no power politicking and the hero would be a Paladin who gathered a group of altruists around him to combat the Darkspawn for the common good.

I suspect that is what you are looking for and hoping for in a game.

DA:O is Low Fantasy - which means it's a much more realistic world. There are no 'Good Races' (And as the Darkspawn are mindless and mind controlled, arguably no 'Evil Races' either). The main enemy for most of the game is a member of (What should be) your own side who betrays his own king for what he thinks are good reasons. Other factions are paralysed by their own power struggles and/or the results of terrible things done to them and terrible things they have done in their turn. Your character can make a better world, by the end, but it's hard won and does not solve all problems. The group you build is made up not of noble altruists, but damaged and scarred people, some of whom have done terrible things.

This, I suspect, is more your idea of nightmare.

So overall, Alrik, I'd say you are both right and wrong in your analysis. Anyone playing the game and trying to be a High Fantasy hero is going to be frustrated and disappointed. Not all the quests end neatly or nicely, not everyone who should be good and noble is even a bearable person. Everyone in your recruited party is a deeply flawed failure as a person (Though you can help some of them become better people).

Anyone playing the game for the happy glow of Good always triumphing over Evil and Justice reigning over all will hate DA:O. Anyone looking for deeply nuanced characters and a thoroughly believable world will love it, as I do.

See, personally I don't care if a game is High Fantasy or Low. I enjoy strong characterisation, great storytelling and a world that lives and breathes. That's what makes me happy, as a player. I get the same joy from a well crafted tale that is High or Middle or Low Fantasy, and the same things annoy me when done poorly in all. I want to walk into a new world, full of believable people. Give me that and I'm going to enjoy the game.

Yes, I felt sorry for the ghost child you mention and wished there was some way to re-unite it with its mother, but I see the fact that the game engaged me emotionally as a positive where you see the way it engaged you as a negative.

Your perspective is entirely valid and right - for you. As mine is for me

^
I agree and disagree with this. The Archdemon is presented as being evil (it's the being controlling the Darkspawn) and it's the true antagonist of the game. The demons in the game are presented as evil and you fight them on many occasions.

I agree that companions aren't your typical knights in shining armor as some have dark pasts but you can try to build a group of good people just as you can build a group of bad people but even the "bad" people have their own codes and morals and one might argue that they aren't "bad" after all. Some of the things Sten says can be called evil but he ultimately wants to destroy the Archdemon and more or less cares about that only and doesn't care about the little things in the way. One could compare him to Renegade Shepard from Mass Effect who doesn't care about anything else other than stopping The Reapers and anyone who gets in his way can die. Morrigan on the other hand...yeah, she's evil.

But yes, Dragon Age: Origins is called a "dark fantasy" for a reason by the developers. It's not your happy little game with a happy ending where the world is saved forever. There's a feeling of victory at the end but you ultimately know that there's still chaos in the world and that the Darkspawn will return. Your victory is just a hint of good in a dark time.

I read Alrik's thoughts on Origins and I know what he's talking about, I remember in one of my favorite quests (the one with the almost blind Templar - Ser Otto), you go throughout a orphanage fighting demons, seeing children's ghosts running about and seeing all sorts of demonic and weird stuff. In the end, the Templar is killed but you defeat the demon that was causing the evil in the house. So it's a victory but at the same time, a good man dies.

Demonic,



Yeah, they don't know what 'Dark Fantasy' means! In Dark Fantasy, there are no good people at all, only varying degrees of bad, and everyone is out for themselves. It's a vastly more brutal genre than DA:O is. If you can find the old Theives World novels, they are Dark Fantasy...

***

As for the rest - I never said the group you recruit are bad people. Broken, scarred and damaged, yes, but not 'Evil'.

Morrigan is the way she is because her Mother raised her in isolation like that and she has no idea how else to be. That's not 'Evil' because she has made no concious choice. Leliana has a vastly darker background than Morrigan does, and most of that was by her choice. Her old self could easily be described as 'Evil', but she's fled from it and is attempting to become a new person. Sten has his own codes of honour that are those of his own people. Alistair is a completely hapless moron, Oghren is a drunken wreck, and Zevran is a bit of a Morrigan in that he was thrown into his career with no choice. Wynne, for all her good advice, is more neutral than outright good. You might say Zevran is evil, or that he's a survivor. You could say Leliana was. The rest - no.

As for the Archdemon being 'Evil' - are you sure? Do you ever get the slightest idea of what the thing actually wants or why it does what it does? It and the Darkspawn are inimical to the Dwarves, Elves & Humans, but, as the Architect proved in Awakening it doesn't always have to be that way...

Oh, I'll agree the Sloth Demon and the like are 'Evil', but they are a minor sidebar, not part of the main opposition. They aren't allied to the Archdemon or to anyone but themselves.

I wouldn't call a setting where mages need to be locked up in towers because they can possibly be possessed by demons and tear apart the land, not to mention where there is a country where magic is practiced in the streets, "low fantasy". "Low fantasy" settings have few to no supernatural elements.

"High fantasy" also doesn't exclude political intrigue and betrayals, Lord of the Rings is an example of this. Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance settings are other examples of staple high fantasy worlds, and both feature plenty of political intrigue and betrayals. The main theme of high fantasy is a grand struggle to save the world, which Dragon Age is all about.

About Morrigan: she only cares about herself and at many points is against helping people, at some points even supporting killing of innocents. That's the very definition of "evil" in a fantasy world.

Whether or not she had a choice into becoming who she became (this is also true for the other characters) doesn't exclude her actions.

'Low Fantasy' is not about the level of magic, Virumor, any more than 'High Fantasy' is. You won't find a whole lot of magic in LotR, for example, beyond the rings and a few other equally scarce items. You're probably thinking of 'Low Magic', not 'Low Fantasy'.

'High Fantasy' is not necessarily a grand struggle to save the world (Though often it is). Look at your own examples - is every adventure set on Toril about saving the world? Not even close. It's a standard RPG setting, with 'Good Races' and 'Evil Races' and the lines clearly drawn. There is definite 'Good' and 'Evil' and little of the grey lines that denote Middle or Low Fantasy.

I agree that in a High Fantasy world Morrigan would certainly be considered 'Evil'. The fact that she was brought up the way she was and has had no chance and no choice would not count as mitigating factors in any High Fantasy setting. Brainwashing from birth (Or near as) would cut no ice.

But to me 'Evil' (And 'Good' for that matter) must always involve conscious choice. To be either, one must know there are alternatives and either choose to act solely for oneself ('Evil') or choose to act for the benefit of others ('Good').

Evil is also about action - and that's true in any setting. What does Morrigan actually DO, in the game, that you could honestly describe as 'Evil'? She can be abrasive and unpleasant and if the player chooses to do evil things she will certainly not object, but she takes no action of her own. Even in her past, as described by her to the player, she hasn't done anything that could be considered 'Evil'.

Compare with Zevran and Leliana, both of whom have done some very evil things.

Morrigan is certainly no angel and she's neither a nice nor a pleasant person, but none of that makes her 'Evil'.

Morrigan may have been raised in isolation by a witch or dark being but I think - if given the choice - she would carry out evil deeds as she often enjoys seeing The Warden doing such. If we were to judge her by her actions, then she's evil because she wants to bring an "Old God" baby into the world from the soul of the archdemon. She's selfish and only out for herself unless you romance her which makes her care about you too.

Leliana was evil once but she turned from her ways and can be described as lawful good. Alistair can be described as chaotic good (killing Loghain if you let him). Duncan can be described as Renegade Shepard but sympathetic too. He too has a dark past but repented. Duncan mostly only cares about stopping the Darkspawn threat (and if you read the books or history on DA Wikia, Duncan was to protect their (Grey Wardens) guide in The Deep Roads, King Maric Theirin, or, should the king learn information detrimental to the Order, kill him, this shows that The Grey Wardens only care about the Darkspawn threat and while they would probably feel bad about killing innocents - if need be, they would do it because the Darkspawn are the greater threat) mages, Templars and politics can go to Hell for all he cares.

Zevran can be called selfish too and probably lawful evil.

Since this game is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate (a D&D game) it's not hard to see how the characters in the game have alignments from D&D.

I mean the player is given the option of healing a wounded soldier in the Korcari wilds or killing him for no reason. The neutral choice is to patch him up a bit so he can make his way back to camp himself. Let's not forget how many innocents you can kill at times, from the Doomsayer in Redcliffe, to the bartender and even that prisoner in Ostagar.

I'd like to point out that this is why I love Dragon Age. People have different views on the characters because of the depth surrounding them. As I was telling Divine Avenger in the DKS sales thread, DKS doesn't have this kind of character depth with characters to warrant people to even discuss or debate about them. I'm hoping this changes with the Dragon Commander game, having characters with extensive backgrounds and depth helps immerse you with them. I'm only immerse with The Divine One because I played as him and can feel attachment with him whereas with Damien - he (along with Zandalor) - is the only NPC (while we can control him in Beyond Divinity, he's not the protagonist and is simply our companion throughout the game) that I feel has some depth.

The Divinity series basically only has Zandalor and Damien as the most interesting characters. Bellegar and Ziz-Zax are simply just there and slightly interesting but only their dialogue remains memorable and not them themselves. Maxos is also somewhat memorable because of how the game hints to him, his adventures, importance to the past and his sudden disappearance. There's also a lot of lore to his background.

Zandalor is interesting because of how he sees things. He's not presented as the mentor or the guy who you could fall back too. He's not presented as the guy who knows everything too. He's powerful and a force to be reckoned with but he's not Gandalf (despite the similarities). If The Divine failed, Zandalor wouldn't have been able to save the world. He's presented as having hope in his heart but also seeing how things could be bad if all fails. He's also presented as being a man who loves all that is good. This can be seen when he meets The Demon of Lies who he absolutely despises.

In Divinity 2, he's forgettable because he's presented as the mentor, even his voice and hand/arm movements hint to him just being there as the DKS mentor and the guy who can be relied upon. He just appears from nowhere to debate with Damien and then to tell you to take dragon form. In Divine Divinity, after The Divine One's death and resurrection, you see how Rivellon has gone to Hell in the time you've been gone. In Divinity 2, he saves the day with the help of the Dragon Knight. Also in Divinity 2, he's far more optimistic. "FEAR NOT ALEROTH FOR I WILL SAVE YOU YET!" and then speaking poetry about The DK's journey "An epic in the making! You are part of a conflict, the conclusion of which you shall decide!" In Divine Divinity he's more down to earth.

Damien is interesting because of his motives, because of how he loves Ygerna and because of his colorful background and history. There's some mystery to him and that's what makes him interesting. He's not presented as a depthless villain who you just kill and then "Game over". There's so much more to him.

Dragon Age: Origins has Alistair, Duncan, Loghain, Calian, Morrigan, Leliana, Zevran, Sten, Oghren and Shale who all have their own personality, goals, morals and code that they live by and there's more to them than meets the eye. Oghren - while always being drunk - was actually a warrior for a noble dwarven house and he was married to the Paragorn Branka who later ditched him because she was lesbian...ahem. While he may appear insensitive to things at times, he does care about those that he loved and in Awakenings, you can even get him to finally spend time with his son. Sten - while appearing all stoic - actually has a good side to him and actually turns out to be quite honorable where at first, I thought he was evil but he simply follows a code that I disagree with but even still, he has honor and approves of you bringing an injured warrior (in the Brecilian forest) back to his camp so he could be healed.

This is why I feel Origins is the better RPG. Characters have more depth.

Demonic,



In this we are entirely agreed!

As for AD&D alignments for party members, I think I would go with this:

Alistair: NG. He doesn't do much in the way of impulsive things, but he isn't really into planning, either, preferring to allow others to do the thinking. The 'Goodest' member of the group, though.

Leliana: was LE (Planner, assassin), is trying hard to be NG when you meet her. By the end might be NG or NE depending on your choices.

Sten: LN. Follows the laws of his own people to the absolute. The evil thing he does to land him in the cage is the result of temporary madness and not a part of his usual character.

Morrigan: LE (Yes, the AD&D alignment system is very High Fantasy). Seemingly more interested in her own amusement than anything else, Morrigan nonetheless has a long term plan that is mainly of benefit to herself and can plan on the fly when she has to (As with her personal quest).

Zevran: NE. Zevran is totally amoral and goes where the winds of fate take him. He is not going to protest at very evil acts, nor at very good acts, either, but at the same time he doesn't perform good or evil acts himself unless he feels he has to. Zevran is probably a sociopath in that the only person he actually cares about is himself (Although if befriended or romanced, he will care about what happens to the PC, too). I nearly went with TN for him because he's entirely a reactive character. He's not ever going to do anything unless forced to by other people or by circumstance.

Wynne: LG. Planner, cares about others. I get the impression that Wynne has sort of become LG through slow progression over many years, so she's more lg than LG, if you get me. She's a bit relaxed in both and has certainly done many things in her past that are not really either.

Oghren: CN. Oghren is a creature of impulse, who stumbles from one train wreck situation to the next, usually while drunk or pursuing the next skirt, or both. Hopeless at anything that involves planning, he's simply there to hit things.

Loghain: LE. Master planner who is out to accomplish his own goals come what may and who could not care less who might get hurt by the fallout - including his own daughter! The very definition of LE, in fact.

Duncan: LG. Believes that the greater good trumps all else and is wiling to risk all in order to defeat the evil that threatens his land. By any measure, Duncan is LG.


And the really great thing with DA:O is, as you say Demonic, that every one of those alignments could be debated over with plenty of evidence for and against, because the characters really are that nuanced

"Dark Fantasy" - yes, that's in a way the term that most describes it for me.

Thanks for your view, Elliot, I appreciate it.


My main grudge right now is that *everyone* is currently going the "Dark Fantasy" route. It's like a kind of fashion to me. It's as if the whole industry says to me : "na, you don't want that", regarding "Light Fantasy" as a contrast.

I'm definitively keeping my eyes open for the Medieval SIMs, and I plan to buy it one day.

Alrik,

I think the real problem is that the larger a company gets the more it fears to innovate, honestly.

Games cost more and more money to produce, so games companies want to get maximum return from their investment, so they play safe by following the trends. Occasionally, one will break the mould and try something a bit unusual, then if it does well it will be proclaimed 'The new Big Thing' and done to death by everyone.

You only have to look at the number of franchise titles that basically churn out slight variations of the same game, over and over, to see that's true.

You know as well as I that the people at the top of these companies don't actually talk to gamers. The smaller the company, the more likely they are to actively engage with their customers, get feedback and innovate. The people at the top of the bigger companies are totally walled off and they study their statistics without any proper frame of reference.

So we get ludicrous conclusions like 'Many gamers stop playing our game before Point X, therefore our game is too long' when the real reason is that the lead up to 'Point X' is intensely boring. 'Poor sales must be due to pirates' when they put out a poor game that is so graphically advanced it will only run on one in a hundred PCs anyway... But you get the idea. The top people are just not living in the same world as their customer base.

So what you have is a set of large companies pouring immense amounts of money into games that the top levels of the company - the people okaying all the projects - don't really understand. Of course they slavishly follow fashion. With that set up and that amount of money at risk, what else can they do?

Is it possible to create a High Fantasy game that is as deeply nuanced as Dragon Age: Origins or Witcher 2? Of course it is. But it requires a studio head to realise that the real draw of both is immersive worlds combined with great characterisation (And, in W2's case, great plotting). Fans of Fantasy RPGs tend to like Fantasy RPGs. There are a few people with definite darker/lighter preferences, but most of us don't care.

Sometimes it's the simple things. There can't be too many gamers who don't feel a thrill the first time it starts raining in the Witcher games and the townsfolk all react to it by running for cover. That's not 'Light' or 'Dark' - that's just a really effective way of making your world come to life.

So yes, High Fantasy RPGs could be created as AAA titles by major companies and they would probably do as well as Low Fantasy games. But to get that, you'd need a major studio to abandon their attempts at statistical analysis and genuinely look at what made games like DA:O and The Witcher sell so well. It's never been about 'Dark'; always about 'Depth'.

It's less about the developers but more about the publishers that want a return of investment and hence eschew all risks... which is the reason why most games nowadays are so formulaic.

Not a single (big) publisher for instance wished to support Dragon commander, for instance, because it was deemed too unusual, too risky... hence it's being self-funded.

& thank god it is because I'd hate for a company like EA to get there hand's on the Divinity game's.

I think it's both, Virumor. You only have to look at Bioware to see what I mean. I don't think for a single moment they set out to completely alienate most of their fanbase with DA2, yet they clearly failed to understand why DA:O was popular in any way, shape or form. That extreme disconnect between creators and gamers is, sadly, all too common.

But that's why I love Larian because they actually make time to talk to there fanbase which is part of what makes them so special in my eyes.

And Larian Studios not only "talk" with the fanbase ... but also they read many of the posts on these forums .. but have most of the time no time to react (and in fact, it's most of the time not needed),
because the fans here are almost begging the new upcoming projects D & E are coming as fast as possible !