The old epic fantasy RPG itch

[nhbdy]

Hey all, I've started craving a good old fantasy RPG of late, preferably one I haven't played before, so I started looking at the market, and noticed that Dragon Age: ulitmate edition is cheap, and I could pick up DA2 with it and stay in budget, which would be cool, as I played DA:O when it was new, but never bought the expansions, and have since sold my copy when I shifted from PS3 to xbox 360. My biggest hesitation here is that while I'm a bioware fan, I've heard that DA2 is really a hit or miss game, meaning you'll either love it or you'll hate it, and it seems like it may be sub par.

Next on the list is the Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings for the xbox 360. I don't have the first one nor will I be getting it, so if this will hinder my enjoyment overmuch perhaps I should be looking elsewhere, I have heard that the story is one of the deepest around and the choices are both gray and important. Story depth and the importance of choice (without it being a clear black and white) appeal greatly to me and as of right now I am leaning toward this title.

Finally we have the one I know the least about, Dragon's Dogma, I know it's a large open world RPG that has been compared to Dark Souls (which I enjoyed immensely, but I did have access to the multiplayer on Dark Souls, something that I will not have for Dragon's Dogma).

Anything that can be said on any of these options, or another suggestion to satisfy my current craving would be much appreciated, I prefer xbox 360, then PC titles that aren't too demanding (as I have a non-gaming laptop to work with, without getting technical it'll do some stuff, but not anything at the level of the recent total war games for example).

Thanks in advance!

[Talvereaux]

Whether you'll like DA2 probably depends on whether you're more interested in an interactive story or combat and exploration in a game.

Gameplay for DA2 is... borderline shovelware. The dungeons are all base copy-pasta'ed templates, combat and random encounters are very badly shoehorned in, quests are buggy and repetitive, the world is small, railroady, and lacking in variety among locations. The game was made on a very short development time, and developing a world was definitely not one of their priorities. This is the reason for its hatedom--most of the gameplay is EXTREMELY tedious.

However, the story and characters are very well written. If you want interactive storytelling with interesting characters and are willing to put such facets as combat and exploration on the backburner, DA2 probably won't disappoint. The plot isn't especially well-paced and occasionally lacks in direction, but apart from that, the story aspects are easily the game's saving grace.

[Kudaku]

I can't speak for Dragon's Dogma, but I have played Dragon Age 1 & 2 as well as the Witcher 1 & 2.

Dragon Age 2 is... Not bad. If it had not been made by Bioware people would probably go easier on it, but that's kind of the problem. It's a Roleplaying Game made by /the/ premiere RPG gaming company around, a company that has incredible RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights under its belt, and DA2 is... Kind of bland.
Superficially it's quite similar to Dragon Age 1 but when you get into it you'll find it's quite different.
The gameplay is simplistic on normal and frustrating on hard - mainly due to some mechanics that don't feel very thought-out.
Fights are based on "waves" where you're attacked by 4-6 mobs, as soon as these are dead 4-6 more magically "drop from the rooftops" and the like. This usually repeats two to three times.
It recycles areas shamelessly, to the point where you go through the same area three or four times and the only thing they change is the name on the loading screen and the location of the mobs.
Finally, there are some very major plot points that the game simply forces on you to make the story work. I'm not going to go into very much detail here to spoil the story, but there are two decisions in particular that pissed off a great many people.
The story itself is decent, I didn't find it mindblowing but it was not hampering my enjoyment either. One issue I personally found with this game (and lately with Bioware's games in general) is the very clear-cut obvious good/bad alignment options. If you've played Mass Effect, The Old Republic and the like you're probably already seen this in action. DA 2 tries to shake this up by having three options (courteous, direct, and smartass) but ultimately it still ends up with the same result.

Now, I played the Witcher 2 on PC when it first came out, so I haven't tried the Enhanced Edition that's out now. I've been told that it addresses some of the issues I had when I first played it.
The Witcher 2 is a great game but it doesn't quite have the same production value that Bioware usually put into their games. At the start it feels a little rough. The original game shipped with a very, very crude tutorial (this has since been updated with the Enhanced Edition), the fight mechanics felt a little forced, and so on. However once you get used to it the battle system works decently and once you gain a few talents and you get into the flow it handles very well indeed.
The story is well-told and the decisions you make have a massive impact on what kind of game you wind up playing - you can essentially play the game twice and have very little overlap in areas.
The Witcher is (in)famous for having gray ethic choices and ask you to make choices where there is no obvious good and evil. Rather each side has pros and cons and what you decide is mainly based on how you personally feel about the factions, not if you get a blue lightsaber crystal or a red one. It also lets these decisions simmer for a while before you find out the ultimate repercussions, so there's no save scumming.

Out of the two I'd definitely recommend the Witcher 2 if you want challenging and interesting gameplay, a deep and involved story, or want get into the witcher universe.

Finally, again this is just my personal opinion but I feel that CD Projekt is an awesome company and considering the work and love they pour into their games (also after it's launched - and for free!) I feel like they deserve your money a great deal more than Bioware's love of DLC.

[Brother Oni]

Slight derail - is it worth playing the first The Witcher before playing the second?

Is there anything significant from the first game that carries into the second, or does the second game recap enough so that it doesn't matter?

[J.Gellert]

Slight derail - is it worth playing the first The Witcher before playing the second?

Is there anything significant from the first game that carries into the second, or does the second game recap enough so that it doesn't matter?

All your choices in the first game are significant in the first game, and while they do carry out, they are not all that significant in the second game.

The Enhanced Edition even added a recap-video (it's on YouTube as well I think?) so you're covered.

Though the first game is also pretty awesome, so it's worth it in that regard.

[Cespenar]

Slight derail - is it worth playing the first The Witcher before playing the second?

Is there anything significant from the first game that carries into the second, or does the second game recap enough so that it doesn't matter?

Characters carry on. Though both games revolve around the main character Geralt (though not in a "chosen one" type of story), his friends/colleagues/acquaintances come into light pretty often as well, so you get to know him and them a lot better if you play the first game.

Also, the second recaps enough IIRC that you don't actually need to play the first. But I think you should definitely play it, if you're not on some kind of time-related or economic restraint that you can only afford to play one of them.

[factotum]

I'd say get Dragon Age: Origins and The Witcher 2 out of the listed games, but that's mainly because I haven't played the other two! I've just heard too many bad things about DA2 to consider it worth playing, though. No idea about Dragon's Dogma.

[Kudaku]

The Witcher is an excellent game in its own right, but I'd personally say The Witcher 2 is a better game. It's worthwhile to play it purely on its own merits, but it's not required to get into the story of TW2.

The Witcher games are based on a series of books written by a polish fantasy writer. If you really want to get into the story then picking up one of these books is not a bad place to start, they're fun reading :).

[Aotrs Commander]

Slight derail - is it worth playing the first The Witcher before playing the second?

Is there anything significant from the first game that carries into the second, or does the second game recap enough so that it doesn't matter?

I'd say yes, because the Witcher is an excellent game in it's own right. Despite being a slightly different sort of RPG (single-character as opposed to party RPG), it's pretty much the only (Western-style) RPG that I've played that approaches Bioware's level.

I can't speak to the Witcher 2 yet, as I haven't started playing it yet (on the other hand, having it lie in wait was a good think, since now I can play the Enchanced Edition!)

I played DA2 half-heartedly for a hour or so, but I haven't even finished Awakening yet... I've either been playing strats or Mass Effect (plus finsihing Witcher 1, come to that!) recently.

[Starsign]

I'd have to say DA2 is very hit or miss. I personally thought the combat system was just fine, though enemy variety could have been better. My issue was with the plot and characters. The plot had direction and pacing issues. Frankly the protagonist, Hawke, felt like the most significant and insignificant character in the game's setting. As for the other characters... Well a good amount of them are obnoxious at best, intolerable at worst. (to be specific, I only ever brought along Varric, Isabella, and Bethany/Merrill because they were the only characters I liked) Bioware is well known for likable and memorable characters (IMO it's the most important part of a Bioware game next to the plot) but DA2 fails that on many levels. The game also has a big mood and tone shift from DA1, now firmly being Dark Fantasy. (this didn't leave a good taste in my mouth; gave me the impression Dark Fantasy means jerkasses and evil characters all aboard while being firmly nihilistic) I'd say that if you like Dark Fantasy and don't care much for the characters, DA2 might be worth playing.

As for Witcher 2 and Dragon's Dogma, I have not tried either (DA2's impression of Dark Fantasy scared me away slightly :smallredface:) so I can't give impressions on either. Though if you enjoyed Dark Souls, then you should like Dragon's Dogma.

[Winthur]

The Witcher games are based on a series of books written by a polish fantasy writer. If you really want to get into the story then picking up one of these books is not a bad place to start, they're fun reading :).

You can also receive all the lore you need from the TV series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsuZqbI63bE&feature=related) which are, by far, the best adaptation of the stories in the book if not narratively superior.

[nhbdy]

ok, so I seem to be getting advice that cautions me of disappointment with DA2 and pushes me toward the witcher 2, and no one seems to know much on dragon's dogma, and given it's metacritic is lower than both dark souls (since they are supposedly appealing to a similar audience) and the witcher, it's likely I'll go with the witcher, thanks for the help!

[Tengu_temp]

I second Witcher 2 - it's the best RPG of 2011, and one of the candidates for the best game of that year. It barely touches upon the plot of Witcher 1, but knowing the books is helpful. You won't miss any of the story if you haven't read them, but there are references to their events and lots of their characters make an appearance.


You can also receive all the lore you need from the TV series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsuZqbI63bE&feature=related) which are, by far, the best adaptation of the stories in the book if not narratively superior.

Ugh, no. The TV show is awful, mangles the plot of the short stories into something unrecognizable (when it even pretends to follow them instead of pulling new material out of its butt), doesn't even touch upon the saga (which is narratively at least as important as the short stories) and retains none of the wit, charm or humour of the original. The production values are pretty damn embarassing too. Not recommended, unless you're fascinated by terrible shows and movies.

[Tome]

ok, so I seem to be getting advice that cautions me of disappointment with DA2 and pushes me toward the witcher 2, and no one seems to know much on dragon's dogma, and given it's metacritic is lower than both dark souls (since they are supposedly appealing to a similar audience) and the witcher, it's likely I'll go with the witcher, thanks for the help!

I can likely help out with Dragon's Dogma.

The story and writing are weak. Very weak. Do not get this game for those things, or you will be disappointed, it is basically an excuse plot so you can get to the actual point of the game.

The point of the game being the epic fights with gigantic monsters. Which are incredibly fun. It's better compared to Monster Hunter in that sense, though there's obviously some influence from Dark Souls.

TL;DR Story bad, gameplay good for Dragon's Dogma.

[nhbdy]

I can likely help out with Dragon's Dogma.

The story and writing are weak. Very weak. Do not get this game for those things, or you will be disappointed, it is basically an excuse plot so you can get to the actual point of the game.

The point of the game being the epic fights with gigantic monsters. Which are incredibly fun. It's better compared to Monster Hunter in that sense, though there's obviously some influence from Dark Souls.

TL;DR Story bad, gameplay good for Dragon's Dogma.

I appreciate the info, but I have already bought (and played through) the witcher, and given this new info I chose correctly, in general I prefer a deeper story to addictive gameplay, that said if the gameplay is good enough I can give the game a good run through or two (dark souls started as this, but quickly became more as I started uncovering the lore).

[nhbdy]

I can likely help out with Dragon's Dogma.

The story and writing are weak. Very weak. Do not get this game for those things, or you will be disappointed, it is basically an excuse plot so you can get to the actual point of the game.

The point of the game being the epic fights with gigantic monsters. Which are incredibly fun. It's better compared to Monster Hunter in that sense, though there's obviously some influence from Dark Souls.

TL;DR Story bad, gameplay good for Dragon's Dogma.

I appreciate the info, but I have already bought (and played through) the witcher, and given this new info I chose correctly, in general I prefer a deeper story to addictive gameplay, that said if the gameplay is good enough I can give the game a good run through or two (dark souls started as this, but quickly became more as I started uncovering the lore).

[Hida Reju]

Well I am not sure if you will like them based on the games you have named but the series Avernum games 4-6 are all very cool old school RPGs that cost less than 13 bucks for all three of them and play on non gaming rigged PCs.

It's got custom party creation, difficulty settings, and enough inventory and weight management to put Baldur's gate to shame.

I recommend giving it a try if Baldur's Gate was something you liked.

[Mx.Silver]

Hey all, I've started craving a good old fantasy RPG of late, preferably one I haven't played before, so I started looking at the market, and noticed that Dragon Age: ulitmate edition is cheap, and I could pick up DA2 with it and stay in budget, which would be cool, as I played DA:O when it was new, but never bought the expansions, and have since sold my copy when I shifted from PS3 to xbox 360. My biggest hesitation here is that while I'm a bioware fan, I've heard that DA2 is really a hit or miss game, meaning you'll either love it or you'll hate it, and it seems like it may be sub par.


The thing with DA2 is that it's not actually an epic fantasy RPG. It's by no means a bad game but it is something of a bad sequel, if that makes any sense. Most people I've seen who are particularly vocal in their detractions hold DA:O in high regard, whereas most of DA2's defenders (myself included) tend not to view DA:O as being particularly great.



Regarding the Witcher games, they're good if flawed. They're one of the very few games I can recall that actually make ethical decisions that are actually dilemmas, rather than just 'if good do x, if evil do y'. The first isn't required to beat the second (although it won't hurt if you're on PC) but suffers a bit from menu overload in the interface, pacing difficulties and terrible English language voice acting. The second is better written and has a cleaner game interface, but is significantly more cluttered on the inventory screen and, in the original release, had a difficulty curve that was almost vertical. Also it has 'press or die' QTEs, although mercifully you can turn those off. The English voice acting is still awful.