Star Wars: The Old Republic

Star Wars: The Old Republic, the new massively multiplayer online game is a (somewhat cartoony) theatrical masterpiece melded into a standard MMO engine.  While they have done something unique and wonderful, the underlying game is not much different from most other popular MMOGs.  Is following the formula good or bad?  Depends on the judge of course.  For me, I like sandbox environments and unique game mechanics, so I'm not too thrilled about that part.

Making a game that is so focused on telling a compelling story seems like a waste of a persistent online world.  I would like to see an MMOG made that takes advantage of the medium in a powerful way, but still remains a game.  The cool thing about having a virtual world that grows is the ability for players to make a mark in it.  Why do most games have some magical trading post where everything in the world is searchable?  Why can't players make stores that other players could visit?  Why do most games have no way for the players to modify the landscape in areas by constructing buildings, or strip mining, or planting crops?  Why are there no consequences?  If I die, I can just magically come back to the same place with nothing lost.  If I fail a quest, I don't get berated by the quest giver, I just go back in time and try it again.  It's great that you can make a permanent impact on your character though the story interactions, but other than your own character, the world is a fairly static, re-spawning obstacle course.

It seems that part of why the game makers have opted to go with a game mechanic base very similar to the World of Warcraft formula may have been a strategic move to not only appeal to a wide audience, but to appeal specifically to the audience of the players of the largest MMO out there right now.  With such a big production and initial investment, I suppose it would be financial suicide to try something innovative enough that would risk making a game that is for a niche audience.  So, in a way, I cannot blame them, but at the same time, I can't see the game holding my interest for long.  So long, and thanks for all the stories, Bioware.

Dragon Age

Bioware has been making great single player role playing games on the PC for a long time.  From Baldur's Gate, to Neverwinter Nights, and now Dragon Age.  When I heard that Electronic Arts would be joining forces with Bioware to work on Dragon Age, a little trepidation crept into my heart.  EA, really?  EA makes the games I don't play, what do they know about making an epic RPG?  I feared the worst, but remained optimistic enough to be a little excited about the game.

Diving in to Dragon Age: Origins was a radical change from Neverwinter Nights, but most of that change was for the better.  Though it took a while for me to let go of this aching for the radial menu I had grown so used to.  What did not change was the great storytelling and character development.  Infact, it was taken to a new level.  They push the experience closer and closer to that of being a person in an epic movie.  It's safe to say that the first Dragon Age impressed me.

Reviews for the sequel to Dragon Age were not wonderful.  Once again, I was worried.  Was the streak of excellence about to end?  I did not buy it right away.  Not to long ago, the price dropped down to the $30 sweet spot, so I nabbed it.  If nothing else, I wanted to find out what happened to Morrigan!

Well, apparently I didn't do my homework.  Dragon Age II is not a continuation of the Dragon Age storyline, but runs in parallel to it.  This put a little damper on it, and added to what seems an awkward start to the game.  Fighting familiar darkspawn, you find yourself fleeing Ferelden, leaving the blight behind to lead your own quasi-epic non-blight riddled storyline.

While some people complained about the occasional re-use of dungeons in the game, that did not bother me much.  The biggest shortcoming of the game was the lack of a high level purpose.  The first two-thirds of the game felt like you were some exceptionally gifted townie doing various mercenary work.  As time goes on, your fame and power grow, and you become involved in a bigger story, but it felt pasted in.  Maybe foreshadowing is difficult in a game, or maybe I'm too stuck in a linear mindset, but it felt fragmented.

Though the overall story lacked, your companions and enemies are vivid believable people for the most part.  To the point where you become conflicted as to which of your companions to chose to adventure with as you can only pick three, but want to pick more.  Except Carver.  Carver can go fall on his greatsword.

Dragon Age II featured an adapted conversation system, which I liked for the most part, because it allows you to be sure of the intended meaning that goes along with a response.  On the other hand, there seemed to be less important conversation related to questing.  I liked the parts in Dragon Age where you had to collect information from people, and sometimes debate enemies, with the outcome affecting the game.  Dragon Age II was more straight forward.

Overall, I would say Dragon Age = Wow, Dragon Age II = not bad.  Is Bioware + EA leading the best streak of RPG games off the rails?  I don't know, but maybe it doesn't matter if Star Wars:TOR is awesome and I never play any other game again.