Instead of reviewing one game, it would be more useful to discuss the trilogy. I would recommend you get them from Origin—unfortunately, there is no franchise bundle—though you can transfer saves between clients.

Dragon Age shows BioWare's creativity by redefining the CRPG experience of storytelling as well as role-playing design. Each game provides subversions in fantasy, and even in BioWare games, that shows their best quality. Unlike Mass Effect, this trilogy has little direct relations, choosing instead to expand upon the lore. In many ways, DA uses aspects of past series (ex. Baldur's Gate, even SoD) to focus on the strengths of each game. The result, as often seen by fans, is a series divided by various camps thinking one game defines the franchise.

The truth is what defines DA is more a collection of shared interests: A title granted to a hero, and a story of world-building and of companions. Each game should be evaluated as its own take, which means if one game doesn't interest you the others may be more favorable.


DA:O is often considered the best DA game. Looking back on Origins, it's hard to imagine that DA would be BioWare's most innovative series. DA:O is mainly derivative of their previous games of BG and Neverwinter Nights. You just have to look far beneath the surface for their differences.

Though the lore is free from the D&D influence, choosing a Judeo-Christian-like fantasy religion, the mechanical complexity of DA:O is reminiscent of CRPGs. It's more streamlined and story/companion driven than their older games, but if you raise the difficulty it provides just as much challenge. It helps keeps a steady pace.

As someone who was put off by BG's beginning, I relished returning to DA:O where companions only die in plot-related moments. The AI in BioWare's games have always been finicky, so the lack of punishment for random behavior is easier to tolerate. However, the difficulty can sometimes feel cheapened—especially in DLCs—if you don't maximize every tactical element, even on Normal.

Gameplay, however, isn't DA:O's strongest aspect. The combat scaling can feel random, coupled by the slow pace of attacks and the limited variety of enemies. Like other CRPGs there is a lot of pausing to micromanage required to win. However, the combat is not what people come to replay but its narrative design.

DA:O uses a modular design where there are multiple paths for each required section of the plot, but how you choose to resolve them and how they affect the future events is what is important. Some chapters have higher skill requirements, but your paths stay as player-driven as the city in BG2. The influence of past events, your character's identity and origin, and companion responses offer replayability. It all almost works.

The origins of DA:O is where it struggles. The weakest introduction is probably the Dalish elves, which is odd because they have the most lore. The Human noble, City Elves and Dwarf stories are simple revenge/justice hooks. Only the Mage stands out as the most unique. Whatever your choice, it becomes irrelevant after the intro as the world takes the stage. Personal affiliation with the protagonist, as a result, becomes the weakest part of DA:O.


This flaw feels like the main source of refinement for DA2, and it's why I enjoy this game the most out of the series. The story of the Champion and of the personal narratives of Hawke's family and companions feels the most tightly written, unique story I've seen from BioWare. (Especially with Varric's liberties in the plot.) Even though Hawke is about as bland as Shepherd, the agency for how s/he reacts makes the player feel like this is his/her Hawke.

Unfortunately, what was achieved for a greater personal narrative came at the cost of what many enjoy, replayability. Hawke can only be a human, and the only important choice is whether or not s/he is a mage or not. The storyline offers the illusion of agency similar to BeamDog's SoD where the "role-playing" is choosing how to respond to a predetermined fate with some greater consequences to decide.

It's an experience I think story-driven/lore players would relish more than DA:O die-hards, and the way the issues raised (the Quanari's Qun influence, the Templar vs. Mage conflict and the Kirkwall refugees) are more grey than DA:O's binary options helped me immerse myself into DA. Especially the Templar vs. Mage conflict, which the game heavily reminds you of in almost every other quest and as it's a focal point for the setting of Inquisition.

That repetition can also be seen in the gameplay. The best that can be said is how more visceral and fluid the gameplay has been enhanced over DA:O, and the unique setting of Kirkwall is far more memorable over the blandness of Fereldon. Most complaints are levied at the reused locations, which could be fixed if Kirkwall was one massive city like in DA:I. The other issue is the overused Templar vs. Mage conflict.

This latter issue I find intentional as the reoccurrence of the possibility of blood magic and other mage-issues may change your mind whether or not you believe mages should be given total freedom. It may instill a prejudice and show character growth towards even hating mages, and I've yet to see another game be as effective as DA2.

However, I will admit that DA2 suffers from its quest design and reused assets, which wasn't as much of a problem in DA:O. It is from this misstep that BioWare would learn to address in the next game, DA:I.


If DA:I asks one question from you, then it is this: What is content to you, and what is it worth?

DA:I is by far the most massive of all BioWare games, but it's also the most padded if you're a completionist. If you accept not doing everything, however, then you can find just as an enriching personal experience as DA2 and as a experience driven by player agency. Though of all three, this game lacks consequences.

It's strange to complain about lacking consequences in a game that gives you total freedom, but this game does its best to think there are risks. DA2 also suffered from this issue but the guise feels more transparent here. You may lose a character or decide the fate of some NPC in places. The problem is how much of your time is spent doing one-solution tasks vs. player-driven choices. You will never see the same extent of options as much as the amount of choices from past games influences this world.

This isn't to say I'm against the base-building mechanics. They are resources that offer many diversions to gain them, including when you're not playing the game, and the grind towards progression helps make the plot feel grander. However, you can easily get caught up in 20+ hours of fetch-quests only to enjoy the story-bits that offer something different. This design does succeed by making the Inquisition feel like our Inquisition (with companions).

Companions have never been an issue for BioWare. While I didn't enjoy every single character in DA:O (Sten and Dwarf-Dude) and DA2 (Fenris and Carter), I do like how BioWare has innovated companions for non-squad members. The War Room members, reoccurring helpers (Scout Harding) and other familiar faces lends a lot of close ties in all parts of the organization. The amount of effort to write that much content, let alone program it, speaks volumes for how much BioWare cares for their story-content.

Unfortunately, DA:I sacrificed the one thing that made DA so wondrous for me, the excellent pacing, that makes replaying it more daunting than other games.


If it isn't clear, I love all these games, but not for the same reasons. However, the biggest issue is its DLC practices (see below).

Instead of reviewing one game, it would be more useful to discuss the trilogy. I would recommend you get them from Origin—unfortunately, there is no franchise bundle—though you can transfer saves between clients. Dragon Age shows BioWare's creativity by redefining the CRPG experience of storytelling as well as role-playing design. Each game provides subversions in fantasy, and even in BioWare games, that shows their best quality. Unlike Mass Effect, this trilogy has little direct relations, choosing instead to expand upon the lore. In many ways, DA uses aspects of past series (ex. Baldur's Gate, even SoD) to focus on the strengths of each game. The result, as often seen by fans, is a series divided by various camps thinking one game defines the franchise. The truth is what defines DA is more a collection of shared interests: A title granted to a hero, and a story of world-building and of companions. Each game should be evaluated as its own take, which means if one game doesn't interest you the others may be more favorable. [h1]Dragon Age: Origins[/h1] DA:O is often considered the best DA game. Looking back on Origins, it's hard to imagine that DA would be BioWare's most innovative series. DA:O is mainly derivative of their previous games of BG and Neverwinter Nights. You just have to look far beneath the surface for their differences. Though the lore is free from the D&D influence, choosing a Judeo-Christian-like fantasy religion, the mechanical complexity of DA:O is reminiscent of CRPGs. It's more streamlined and story/companion driven than their older games, but if you raise the difficulty it provides just as much challenge. It helps keeps a steady pace. As someone who was put off by BG's beginning, I relished returning to DA:O where companions only die in plot-related moments. The AI in BioWare's games have always been finicky, so the lack of punishment for random behavior is easier to tolerate. However, the difficulty can sometimes feel cheapened—especially in DLCs—if you don't maximize every tactical element, even on Normal. Gameplay, however, isn't DA:O's strongest aspect. The combat scaling can feel random, coupled by the slow pace of attacks and the limited variety of enemies. Like other CRPGs there is a lot of pausing to micromanage required to win. However, the combat is not what people come to replay but its narrative design. DA:O uses a modular design where there are multiple paths for each required section of the plot, but how you choose to resolve them and how they affect the future events is what is important. Some chapters have higher skill requirements, but your paths stay as player-driven as the city in BG2. The influence of past events, your character's identity and origin, and companion responses offer replayability. It all almost works. The origins of DA:O is where it struggles. The weakest introduction is probably the Dalish elves, which is odd because they have the most lore. The Human noble, City Elves and Dwarf stories are simple revenge/justice hooks. Only the Mage stands out as the most unique. Whatever your choice, it becomes irrelevant after the intro as the world takes the stage. Personal affiliation with the protagonist, as a result, becomes the weakest part of DA:O. [h1]Dragon Age 2[/h1] This flaw feels like the main source of refinement for DA2, and it's why I enjoy this game the most out of the series. The story of the Champion and of the personal narratives of Hawke's family and companions feels the most tightly written, unique story I've seen from BioWare. (Especially with Varric's liberties in the plot.) Even though Hawke is about as bland as Shepherd, the agency for how s/he reacts makes the player feel like this is his/her Hawke. Unfortunately, what was achieved for a greater personal narrative came at the cost of what many enjoy, replayability. Hawke can only be a human, and the only important choice is whether or not s/he is a mage or not. The storyline offers the illusion of agency similar to BeamDog's SoD where the "role-playing" is choosing how to respond to a predetermined fate with some greater consequences to decide. It's an experience I think story-driven/lore players would relish more than DA:O die-hards, and the way the issues raised (the Quanari's Qun influence, the Templar vs. Mage conflict and the Kirkwall refugees) are more grey than DA:O's binary options helped me immerse myself into DA. Especially the Templar vs. Mage conflict, which the game heavily reminds you of in almost every other quest and as it's a focal point for the setting of Inquisition. That repetition can also be seen in the gameplay. The best that can be said is how more visceral and fluid the gameplay has been enhanced over DA:O, and the unique setting of Kirkwall is far more memorable over the blandness of Fereldon. Most complaints are levied at the reused locations, which could be fixed if Kirkwall was one massive city like in DA:I. The other issue is the overused Templar vs. Mage conflict. This latter issue I find intentional as the reoccurrence of the possibility of blood magic and other mage-issues may change your mind whether or not you believe mages should be given total freedom. It may instill a prejudice and show character growth towards even hating mages, and I've yet to see another game be as effective as DA2. However, I will admit that DA2 suffers from its quest design and reused assets, which wasn't as much of a problem in DA:O. It is from this misstep that BioWare would learn to address in the next game, DA:I. [h1]Dragon Age (3): Inquisition[/h1] If DA:I asks one question from you, then it is this: What is content to you, and what is it worth? DA:I is by far the most massive of all BioWare games, but it's also the most padded if you're a completionist. If you accept not doing everything, however, then you can find just as an enriching personal experience as DA2 and as a experience driven by player agency. Though of all three, this game lacks consequences. It's strange to complain about lacking consequences in a game that gives you total freedom, but this game does its best to think there are risks. DA2 also suffered from this issue but the guise feels more transparent here. You may lose a character or decide the fate of some NPC in places. The problem is how much of your time is spent doing one-solution tasks vs. player-driven choices. You will never see the same extent of options as much as the amount of choices from past games influences this world. This isn't to say I'm against the base-building mechanics. They are resources that offer many diversions to gain them, including when you're not playing the game, and the grind towards progression helps make the plot feel grander. However, you can easily get caught up in 20+ hours of fetch-quests only to enjoy the story-bits that offer something different. This design does succeed by making the Inquisition feel like our Inquisition (with companions). Companions have never been an issue for BioWare. While I didn't enjoy every single character in DA:O (Sten and Dwarf-Dude) and DA2 (Fenris and Carter), I do like how BioWare has innovated companions for non-squad members. The War Room members, reoccurring helpers (Scout Harding) and other familiar faces lends a lot of close ties in all parts of the organization. The amount of effort to write that much content, let alone program it, speaks volumes for how much BioWare cares for their story-content. Unfortunately, DA:I sacrificed the one thing that made DA so wondrous for me, the excellent pacing, that makes replaying it more daunting than other games. [h1]Conclusion & Other Issues with the Series[/h1] If it isn't clear, I love all these games, but not for the same reasons. However, the biggest issue is its DLC practices (see below).