I grew up playing isometric, turn based RPGs, but still didn't find Dragon Age: Origins to be anything particularly special.

Both are RPGs, both are fantasy, but from top to bottom they each offer vastly different experiences in gameplay and narrative.

Completely different character development, party system vs nothing, real time combat vs quasi-turn based, large open-ish landmass vs three acts, etc. The dark eastern European fantasy roots are at least a lot more intriguing and original than another Tolkein remix, and the story's politics as a whole far more intriguing and multifaceted.īut end of the day they're also both very, very different types of games. The expanded edition (which is default now, I guess) especially. The Witcher 2, to me, is far more coherent and cohesive as a whole. Hence the imbalance in some parts of the game being well executed and memorable, others so bad they should have been outright cut. But yeah, it also feels to me like a game that changed direction too many times and was never fully released under a cohesive vision. And the game itself is really pretty huge and full of content and lore. It has its moments, and the fundamentals are there. Gameplay is too a bit dull to me, weirdly balanced (useful/useless skills, easy/hard encounters), and at times a bit of a chore. I could never find myself hooked by the politics, races, mysticism, or anything else.

The lore itself never hooked me, general by-the-numbers high fantasy pulp. The writing quality is mixed, a combination if interesting and dull. For every amazing quest arc there's another that drags with repetitive, boring encounters and dull environments. Origins is a good game, but has way, way too much fat for my liking. The Witcher 2, but I say this with a bias due to vastly preferring that universe over Origins.

Dragon age vs the witcher