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.

Far Cry 2 mini-review

Far Cry 2 is the best FPS game of 2008, IMHO. Enjoying it a lot. It is a slightly slow and very repetitive sand-box of a game (running in guns blazing is not a good idea in Far Cry 2), and requires patience, so the ADHD crowd won't be able to understand it.

Technically its amazing. It has the best simulation of fire I've seen in any game, and the destructable aspects of the environment are also handled incredibly well (I've spent a fair bit of time shooting individual fronds off palm-like trees, and even more time watching fire spread through the grass, bush and trees).

Graphically quite impressive, although I suspect the graphics on the Xbox 360 are inferior to those on a high-end PC. The wide range of environments: lush jungle, savanna/veld, and semi-desert, are all rendered beautifully. The mixed grass/bush veld-like environments really captured my memories of South African veld incredibly well, even down to the shape and placement of rocks and streams. The South African and British accents and phrases of a lot of the mercs were also a nice touch. Eh my china?


The game's story does a good job of showing the moral vacuity of warring groups, the mercenaries and arms dealers that serve them, and the mixed complicity and indifference of the wider world. Ostensibly you are a mercenary yourself tasked (by whom?) to kill the mysterious Jackal, an arms dealer involved in providing the weapons for any number of conflicts around the world. Obvious evil bad guy eh? But the game manages to rise above such a simplistic one dimensional caricature.


Thats not to say its without flaws. The worst is that is easy to sick of all the damn roadblocks staffed by endlessly respawning mercenaries, especially when quests seem to deliberately send you the exact opposite side of the country as you're in when you get the job to bump some one off.

Far Cry 2 has little to do with the original semi-scifi Far Cry, apart from also being a sand-box like FPS set in a tropical environment that avoid traditional linear FPS game play. Its not even made by Crytek, but instead by Ubisoft Montreal (who did also-excellent Assassin's Creed, I believe). I really liked the original Far Cry, but have to say I think Far Cry 2 is a better game.

[Update 01/28/09. I've just finished Far Cry 2. Can't say I'm particularly pleased with the way it ended, as the various characters actions seemed unrealistic given their prior actions and stated motivations. But weak endings are hardly unusual for games. Still, overall a great game from my perspective, and I'm looking forward to replaying it in the future.]

Bérubé reviews Sokal's "BEYOND THE HOAX: Science, Philosophy and Culture"

Michael Bérubé has an interesting review, dare we say critique, at the American Scientist of Alan Sokal's latest book "BEYOND THE HOAX: Science, Philosophy and Culture" (Amazon.com link)

Here is a snippet of the review to whet your appetite:

When some people hear the term Western science, they think first of Hiroshima, Agent Orange and the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal—and not, say, of the discovery of neutrino oscillation. This mordant skepticism about the benefits of Western science is then underlined by a dogmatic conviction that the Enlightenment was little more than a stalking horse for imperialism. As for why postmodern intellectuals would champion “local knowledges” and the “heterogeneity of language games” against the universalist aspirations of the Enlightenment, my sense is that when academic leftists in the humanities speak glowingly about “local knowledges,” they’re thinking of all the warm and fuzzy feelings we lefties have about “the local”—from our local independent bookstore to our local independent food co-op. These are good things by every measure (local and universal), but they seem to have obscured the fact that many of the world’s “local knowledges” are parochial, reactionary and/or theocratic. Likewise, the defense of the “heterogeneity of language games” has proceeded as if it is the moral equivalent of a defense of species diversity—when, in fact, it is morally neutral, agnostic with regard to the question of whether the language games of charlatans or fascists should be preserved alongside the language games of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

However, while there is much that is good about Sokal's book, it is not all good. Bérubé does a good job of explaining to lay-people like me where Sokal (and Sam Harris, before him) has gone wrong.

[Update 12/26/08: Hopefully have corrected the weird font problems.]