Dragon Age: Origins - good, but not great

Dragon Age: Origins is a single player computer role playing game (CRPG) created by Bioware and released in 2009 for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360, with an original fantasy-based setting. Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O) is very true to the Bioware house style established in Neverwinter Nights (2002), Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (2003), Jade Empire (2005) and Mass Effect (2008).

If you follow the computer RPG genre you already know this. You will also know that it received glowing reviews from mainstream game review sites such as Gamespot (9.5/10), Gamespy (4.5/5), X-play (5/5) and even generally very favorable mentions from Tycho of Penny Arcade. I was a big fan of NWN, SW: KOTOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, so I regret to say that I am somewhat disappointed in DA:O and think that it certainly didn't deserve the ratings it received. It is decent, good even, but not 9/10 great.

The remainder of this review is written under the assumption that the reader has played DA:O, or at least another Bioware game, and is familiar with the tropes of modern CRPGs.

Let me begin by itemizing DA:O strengths.

• Characterization: The computer-controlled NPC companions that accompany the player's character are typically a strong feature of Bioware CRPGs, and DA:O is no exception. In addition to improved gameplay means of customising their actions (the so-called "tactics slots"), a few of the companions are simply great characters. Morrigan, Shale (from the free "Stone Prisoner" DLC), and Alastair are very well written and voice-acted. They're fun and interesting. Bioware has produced some great characters in the past (HK-54 from SW: KOTOR in particular), and I'd rank Shale and Morrigan at least as highly as HK-54. They're really one of the bright spots of this game. Contrast Bioware's advanced companion NPC AI (I emphasize the companion part of this, as other NPCs can occasionally be pretty brain-dead at the normal difficultly levels I've played so far), and the relative depth of their characterization, with that of NPC companions in Bethesda's games (Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3), where companions can be more trouble than they're worth. Of course, Bioware's games are written explicitly so that you require the constant use of companion NPCs in order to have a party that includes all the standard skills, whereas Bethesda's philosophy appears to be that you should be able to complete a game solo using any play style in almost in manner you choose.
• A non-D&D statistics/skill/magic system. The added power provided by spell combinations (e.g. oil + flame, or freeze/petrify + stonefist) are a nice touch, and fun too.
• Distinctly different initial game play depending on chosen race and class (e.g. Dalish Elf, City Elf, Human Noble, Dwarf Commoner, Dwarf Noble, Mage) for the first hours of the game (this is the "Origins" in DA:O), with each origin story integrated into the main story. Great as far as it goes, but it probably doesn't inspire me to replay the game completely because the origins stories only account for a small fraction of total game play.
  

What is not so good? I'll run through them in order of increasing severity.

• The inventory system is absurd. You begin with 60 inventory slots for you entire party, but note that you cannot put anything down you have picked up - you can only sell items (at a vendor) or destroy items (at any time). There is no weight or encumberance system, some items stack and some don't. Realism I think not. One often runs into situations where your inventory is full or nearly full, yet you cannot leave the area to find a vendor, and hence end up not collecting a lot of the loot available on the quest. You can buy backpacks at moderately high cost at vendors that increase you inventory size by 10. Purchasing the DLC pack "Wardens Keep" for $7 does give you a storage chest you can use to put spare items you don't want to sell/destroy in. (Some have speculated that the inventory system was deliberately hobbled in order to encourage people to purchase the DLC.) What adds salt to this wound is that Bioware's preview game, Mass Effect, was criticized in many reviews for similar reasons, namely an unwieldy inventory system with a seemingly arbitrary limits on the number of items.
  
• Enemies suddenly spawning behind you when there is no way they physically could have done so. Time and time again you will have cleared out all enemies from some dungeon, set of rooms, or wide open field, only to have a new set of enemies suddenly appear (often from nowhere) in front and behind you. When there is no physically plausible way they could have got behind you, or sneaked up on you this is both annoying and immersion destroying, DA:O's incorporation of MMO concepts makes enemy crowd control an important part of combat, so this unrealistic and unfair envelopment in enemies is particularly galling.
  
• Both DLC packs I've explored ("The Stone Prisoner", free with game purchase, $15 otherwise, and "Wardens Keep", $7 purchase) offer very little added story content, maybe one hour of game play each. Instead they really provide items, either a new companion character (The Stone Prisoner), or new vendors, items, skills/spells and a functioning item storage chest (Warden's Keep). The integration of the Warden's Keep into the game is particularly grating, and was rightly pilloried at Penny Arcade. Admittedly expansion packs have never been Bioware's strong point, but this focus on virtual consumerism rather than content is both disappointing and disturbing. In comparison the five Fallout 3 DLCs ($10 each, with between 3-10 hours of story content in addition to new items) produced by Bethesda now appear in contrast to be excellent value, when initially they'd seemed rather thin on content.
  
• The side quests offered within the game are particularly weak. Many are MMO-like mindless grinding (get ten mushrooms, make ten healing potions, make ten lyrium potions, recruit three mercenaries, inform three wives of their husbands deaths, get ten corpse galls). Very few quests further develop the world DA:O supposedly takes place in, very few lead to other quests, and most take negligible time to complete (ignoring travel time). Compare this with Bethesda's approach to CRPGs, where side quests are the majority of the game play, and can form well written and developed stories of depth comparable to the main quest (in particular the guild quests in the Elder Schrolls games). In DA:O the companion characters only have minimalistic side quests associated with them, essentially throwing away character development that could have capitalized on Bioware's strength with companion characters. Alastair mentions he has a sister and would like to visit her next time we got to Denerim. Enter Denerim and have a 2 minute conversation with sister. Quest completed. Wynne mentions she feels bad about how she treated a elf apprentice who them ran off to the Dalish. Go to the Dalish. One quick conversion points you to the woods where you meet said elf, with whom you have a one minute conversation. Quest complete. Sten admits his greatest shame is that he lost his sword when his band were ambushed by Darkspawn. Go to place this happened. Get directed to another place. Get directed to another place. Enter building and retrieve sword. Quest complete. Total time, excluding the fast travel screen, maybe five minutes.
• Linearity. Bioware's games are structured around small levels with set entry and exit points, separated by loading screens (which can be slowwwww... particularly in DA:O). Individual levels are often rather linear, there being only one or two possible paths from entry to exit, and DA:O is no exception to this. Small puddles of water are impassible obstacles. Woods are turned into a set of of narrow gullies, the rest being impassible terrain. Challenges within levels, in particular with "bosses", seem like they can only be solved in one way: combat employing a balanced group of companions. For example: there is little freedom in design for a rogue to act in character by sneaking about to avoid combat (e.g. unlike Oblivion or Fallout 3). Following the main story line many of the quests involve linear sets of levels: enter and clear out area A, reach exit leading to level B, clear out level B and move onto level C, rinse and repeat. With only one possible path to follow the game feels constrained, and if you have the stomach to replay the game it will replay in exactly the same way once you've got past the first few hours of the Origin story. This linearity is partially a consequence of the technical limitations of Bioware's software, but what was acceptable or understandable in 2003 seems absurdly primitive in 2009. Note that Bethesda had an fully functional 3-D open world sandbox, go anywhere, no loading screen, CRPG game in 2002 (Morrowind), and since then there have been many sandbox games from different publishers. Some technical development by Bioware in the mean time might have been nice (larger levels? less linear level design?). Not all of the blame can be laid on technical limitations, as there are a few places within DA:O that manage to provide entertaining non-linear game play. In particular the nightmare sequence in the Mage's Tower demonstrated how clever writing could provide non-linear game play within the confines of the isolated Bioware small levels system.
• Lack of Engagement. DA:O fails to establish a believable world in which the main story quest inspires the player, or has any sense of urgency. It is, to be frank, a little boring. Adding more levels of tunnels full of Darkspawn to be killed, or yet another floor of a tower full of abominations, may make the game take longer to complete than previous Bioware games, but it doesn't make it more exciting. The linear level and quest design fails to make you believe that Ferelden is a real world full of real people and places that require saving: you can't explore Ferelden the way you could explore in Oblivion or Fallout 3. The limitations of Bioware's game engine make Ferelden not a world, but simply a small number of smallish areas accessible via a (not-so) fast travel map. NPCs who are not quest related have little or nothing to say - they don't even move around! More problematic is that the game's story, Ferelden being overrun by an apocalyptic Darkspawn horde coming up from the south, is critically undercut by the actual gameplay. The fast travel map attempts to show this with a dark stain covering the map that grows upward from the south as the game progresses. Great idea, but totally undercut by gameplay, as one can encounter Darkspawn in the north of Ferelden almost at the start of the game when following some of the side quests. Yet quite late in the game one can fast travel through the south of Ferelden, even past towns supposedly overrun by the Darkspawn, with only the chance of a random encounter (not necessarily with Darkspawn either). Once you've criss-crossed this area of the map ten or more times on minor side quests without consequence it becomes hard to believe in the urgency of reality of a Darkspawn invasion. People criticized Bethesda's Oblivion because one could effectively play almost the entire game while ignoring the supposed ongoing demonic invasion via Oblivion gates: the believability of main quest was essentially undercut. DA:O forces you to spend most time on the main quest (as the side quests are MMO-like junk), but with even less sense of urgency or realism than Oblivion's main story quest. But Oblivion felt like a real world: places, people and creatures outside the main quest that could be found and interacted with, and yet that seemed to have a life of their own. In Bioware's Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic the linear game play was supplemented by the players knowledge that the Star Wars universe was in some sense bigger than just this game, and by a good story that gelled with the game so as to make the Sith threat seem real and immediate. DA:O, in contrast, sabotages the engagement and immersion necessary for a great game.
  

In combination these problems make Dragon Age: Origins Bioware's weakest game for many years. That is is still better than many other games out there is cold comfort. Maybe Bioware was more invested in developing Mass Effect 2 and their upcoming Star Wars MMO, but that is pure speculation on my part. DA:O's shortcomings (particularly in terms of the weaknesses of the MMO elements they incorporated into the game) certainly make me concerned about the role playing and story quality of the upcoming Star Wars MMO.

(Definitely not) the 100 greatest science fiction or fantasy novels of all time

Top 10 or top 100 hundred lists are always interesting, and via io9 I came across a new list claiming to be the 100 greatest science fiction or fantasy novels of all time.

Former io9 boffin Alex Carnevale posts his selections for the top 100 science fiction and fantasy books, and it's a pretty compelling list. What do you think? Does he capture the canon? [This Recording]

As Carnevale's list features the cover art for all 100 (a nice touch) it is difficult to reproduce the list, so follow the link above to have a look at it.

How do we assess greatness? Critical response, influence on future writers, commercial success, skill as a writer, or general popularity within the reading community. Top X lists are always good fodder for argument, as subjective choices often replace the harder work of collating and assessing the quantitative criteria I have just mentioned.

Carnevale's list, in my opinion, is a classic example of an utterly subjective and badly flawed list. It might accurately represent his favorite 100 books, or 100 of the books he owns, but its idiosyncrasies, omissions and biases render it useless as an attempt to compile the best 100 speculative fiction books of all time.

What is so wrong with it?

Lets start with the omissions of historical greats. It is supposedly a list of the best science fiction of all time, remember?

There is no Jules Verne (a major influence on the field, and who wrote many great book: Journey to the Center of the Earth; From the Earth to the Moon; 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, etc etc).

How about Arthur Conan Doyle (The Lost World)? Not in the list. Yet Carnevale includes Crighton's "Jurassic Park" in his top 100, which was hardly original and only famous thanks to the special effects of the movie version.

Robert Howard not on the list. You know, the guy who created that obscure and unpopular character Conan the Barbarian.

H.G. Wells at least gets a single mention, for the "War of the Worlds". Certainly a great book, and very influential, but one might also mention "The Invisible Man"; "The Island of Dr Moreau"; "The Shape of Things to Come"; and "The Time Machine".

I might not mind a single mention per author if Carnevale stuck to single mentions per author, but he doesn't. His list is full of multiple Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, George R.R. Martin and Heinlein mentions, quite a few Haldeman, Stephenson and Crighton books at separate rankings. Yet other good or influential authors, such as Niven or A.C. Clarke get only a single mention. (OK, Clarke was not a good writer in general, but Childhood's End was decent and if we're putting Crighton in because his stuff got turned into movies then 2001: A Space Odyssey counts too).

Speaking of the exercrable Michael Crighton, he gets mentioned for Jurassic Park and Sphere, but not The Andromeda Strain. WTF? Crighton was a terrible writer, despite his commercial success, and his characterizations (especially of scientists) were the crummy 1-dimensional cardboard cut-outs that are typical of bad SciFi (and form a valid if stereotypical criticism of the genre by outsiders). Here is Carnevale's description of Sphere (at position 85):

The slightly better book, Sphere had a really strange Barry Levinson movie. It's basically a sub movie recast as a alien movie recast as a psychological fantasy. I have always found its claustrophobic environment enhancing. Crichton's remaking of adventure novels with science fiction was prescient.

OK, I see he liked it. I think it was one of the worst pieces of dross I've had the misfortune to read: terrible characters with typical Crighton anti-scientist bigotry at full display, terrible plot, total trash.

And don't get me started on discussing why Carnevale thought to include Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" at number 49.

Guy Gavriel Kay makes the list twice: once for the Fionavar Tapestry (17th best in Carnevale's list!) and once for Tigana (5th!). I must admit I haven't read Tigana, but that was because I heroically read the entire Fionavar Tapestry trilogy, and it was the worst piece of stale, turgid, boring, badly-written Tolkien emulation I've had the misfortune to suffer through.

Another major problem with Carnevale's list, and strong evidence of its flawed subjectivism is the obscurity of many of the books. I don't claim to have everything ever written in the genre, but it is my favorite book genre, and I've read a lot of it over the last 25+ years. Yet I've never heard of half of the book on this list. In other top 100 or top 50 lists (e.g. this one) I've at least heard of the vast majority of the books, even when I may not have read them all.

Top 100 lists tend to be weighted toward the last few decades, and yet there are glaring omissions from this list of recent authors that are famous, popular and have positive critical reception. There is not a single Iain M. Banks book in the list (seriously, WTF!), not a single William Gibson (Neuromancer is without doubt one of the top 100 speculative fiction books of all time), not a single Greg Bear (Eon, Anvil of Stars, Queen of Angels, Infinity Concerto). Carnevale seems unaware of great or influential fantasy authors such as Keith Roberts (Pavane, admittedly semi-obscure) or David Gemmel (George R.R. Martin's recent fantasy work is refreshing gritty, but Gemmel did inspiring and gritty fantasy decades ago and certainly deserves credit for helping reinvent the field from the cheap Tolkien imitation that plagued it, ala Guy Gavriel Kay and Terry Brooks).

Commenters on Carnevale's highlight other authors worthy of mention: Terry Pratchett, Phillip Jose Farmer among them.

This is not meant as a comprehensive analysis and critique of Carnevale's list - I don't believe it worthy of more effort - but it should give you an idea of the major shortcomings of this list.

Getting to the beach early... 397 million years early.

[Update 01/07/10: OK, this result is more exciting than I first appreciated. Matthew Cobb at Why Evolution is True discusses this finding in a much better way than the BBC article did]

The BBC has a nice (accessible) story about a fossil trackway from was a muddy beach dated at 397 million years ago. What is interesting it is that it appears to record the tracks of a four legged creature about 2 metres long, which is slightly older than the famous Tiktaalik fossil (from ~375 million years ago, which is not a direct ancestor of tetrapods) and quite a bit older than the classic early tetrapod Ichthyostega (from ~360 Myr before present).

Some slight re-arrangement of the timeline of when tetrapods arose is not earth-shattering, but it pushes things back a bit, and incremental improvements in knowledge are still nice (to be fair the Nature News & Views article mentioned below thinks this a big deal).

For the genuinely interested:

• "Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland", Niedźwiedzki, Nature 463, 40-41 (7 January 2010) (doi:10.1038/463040a; Published online 6 January 2010). et al, 2010,
  
• The Nature News & Views article by Janvier & Clément discussing Niedźwiedzki etal.
  

The age of the previously identified Devonian tetrapod trackways (short green bars) contrasts with the 397-Myr-old Zachemie tracks identified by Niedźwiedzki and colleagues¹. These newly discovered tracks generate a mismatch between the currently accepted tree of tetrapodomorph fishes (lobe-finned fishes with internal nostrils) and its timing based on the body-fossil record (shown by solid red lines). The temporal mismatch implies the existence of long 'ghost ranges' (dashed red lines) among Devonian tetrapodomorphs. The divergence between elpistostegalian fishes and tetrapods with limbs and digits must have occurred much earlier than previously thought, perhaps during the 10-Myr-long Emsian stage, from which only few tetrapodomorph fishes are recorded. 1, Earliest articulated tetrapod skeletons with limbs and digits (Ichthyostega, Acanthostega)²; 2, earliest isolated tetrapod bones; 3, earliest tetrapodomorph fish (Kenichthys)⁵; 4, possible earlier tetrapodomorph fish⁶.

[Figure and caption from Palaeontology: Muddy tetrapod origins, Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, Nature 463, 40-41(7 January 2010), doi:10.1038/463040a]