Why is the sequel to Dragon Age: Origins called Dragon Age 2?

#1 Edited by Tebbit (4449 posts) -

While that may seem pretty obvious, I would argue that if you (the developer - that's right, you!) give the first game in a series the name fitting of a prequel - Dragon Age: Origins, for example - shouldn't the next game chronologically in the series just be called Dragon Age? I feel like by going straight to DA2, they've actually skipped the part where there was an Age of Dragons. You saw where it all began, you are about to see the next (dark) chapter, but where the hell is the original!? It's like going straight from Star Wars episode 1 to episode 5. You missed all the main characters, the crucial premise of the series, beginning with the heroic men and women that fought the good fight, setting up the world and mythos of Dragon Age, then getting launched straight into Dragon Age 2: The Continuing Adventures of Dragons. 
 
What I mean is that without a Dragon Age 1, there is no core that the series is branching off, it's just an ever-growing series of branches that are somehow (read: magically) attached to each other. These are the things that keep me awake at night!
 
Am I crazy? Is it just semantics? These questions and more will be answered by you!

#2 Posted by joshy9411 (310 posts) -

cause its the 2nd dragon age game?

#3 Posted by ArchScabby (5809 posts) -
@joshy9411 said:
" cause its the 2nd dragon age game? "
I'm pretty sure this is true, I'll do some research and check back.
#4 Posted by dr_zero (9 posts) -

Maybe Dragon Age 1 is still to come. Play the prequel to the sequel next...

#5 Posted by RandyF (137 posts) -

I think it's more along the lines of it being confusing. Most people consider the first game "Dragon Age." If you have another "Dragon Age," people that go into a store to buy it might get confused. Putting a fat 2 on it separates the games from each other enough to where it shouldn't be a problem.

#6 Posted by JJWeatherman (14557 posts) -

Uhhh, what? I don't see how their naming decisions have anything to do with their story telling. 
 
It's just semantics, duder.

#7 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3743 posts) -
@joshy9411:
They used the Origins subtitle because they didn't want to just number the games in the series (also, to signify the importance of your character's origins in the game).
 
The real reason it's Dragon Age 2?  Certain key members of the original team were left out of making the sequel in the quest to make it more "consumer friendly", partly because they didn't expect the game to do as well as Mass Effect (it sold better), and they started working on the sequel a while before the first game came out.  That's why this sequel is so vastly different, because they didn't expect people to like the original as much as they did.  The team who came in disregarded a lot of plans and intentions laid bare in the game's prequel, including the dark fantasy approach, the appearances of the elves and the qunari, and the tactical combat.  The original game placed so much emphasis on you creating your character and defining who he was and where he came from that they made the subtitle of the game "Origins", and then the sequel throws all that out and gives you Medieval Shepard.  Along with that was the use of subtitles rather than numbers.  It's representative of a lot of things that worry me about the sequel.
#8 Posted by Tebbit (4449 posts) -
@JJWeatherman: While you're probably right, it still doesn't sit right with me. It's a peculiar way of naming stuff, and I just don't like it dag nabbit. 
 
@Wrighteous86: Is any of that confirmable? Because if so, my wild rant may not yet be for naught. 
 
@ArchScabby said:
" @joshy9411 said:
" cause its the 2nd dragon age game? "
I'm pretty sure this is true, I'll do some research and check back. "
If you wan't to get all technical about it, Dragon Age: Origins: Awakening didn't need the original to be played, so was less of an expansion pack and more of a sequel. *GASP* maybe THAT is actually Dragon Age. OK folks, problem solved.
#9 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

This actually bothered me as well, as the original only received the "Origins" title quite close to release, so it's pretty obvious they threw it on there to avoid numbering sequels. 
 
@Wrighteous86 said:

" @joshy9411: They used the Origins subtitle because they didn't want to just number the games in the series (also, to signify the importance of your character's origins in the game).  The real reason it's Dragon Age 2?  Certain key members of the original team were left out of making the sequel in the quest to make it more "consumer friendly", partly because they didn't expect the game to do as well as Mass Effect (it sold better), and they started working on the sequel a while before the first game came out.  That's why this sequel is so vastly different, because they didn't expect people to like the original as much as they did.  The team who came in disregarded a lot of plans and intentions laid bare in the game's prequel, including the dark fantasy approach, the appearances of the elves and the qunari, and the tactical combat.  The original game placed so much emphasis on you creating your character and defining who he was and where he came from that they made the subtitle of the game "Origins", and then the sequel throws all that out and gives you Medieval Shepard.  Along with that was the use of subtitles rather than numbers.  It's representative of a lot of things that worry me about the sequel. "
Can't say I agree with most of the complaints people are using against the game, I'm not overly fond of playing as Hawke, rather than a custom character but I'm willing to see how the game handles it.  After all, Shepard was a really great character and felt much more alive in the cut-scenes and conversation.  The PC in Dragon Age may as well have been a cardboard cut out, never so much as even displaying emotions.  But how much better did Dragon Age actually sell?  I get the feeling the better sales mostly come from the fact the game was released on more platforms and because it was much more aggressively marketed.
#10 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4594 posts) -

Dragon Age was originally just Dragon Age, and it wasn't until about 8 months before release that marketing tacked on the "Origins" subtitle to emphasize the six different origin stories you could play through. 
 
So yeah, it was just Dragon Age, and then boom, marketing.

#11 Posted by endaround (2138 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind: More heavily marketed?  Mass Effect 2 had numerous prime time commercials.  It was big part of MS's 360 push in 2009/early 2010. 
#12 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -

Far as I know Hawke's (the main char from DA2) story/legend kinda goes sideways with the blight, starting out in Lothering just before the blight happens and goes on through some time, so its more of a side story, then a real sequel.

#13 Posted by Gamer_152 (14051 posts) -

I think they just want it to be very clear to consumers that it's the 2nd Dragon Age game. The first game having a subtitle and the second game having a number does feel rather weird though.

Moderator
#14 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3743 posts) -
@Tebbit:   A lot of what I posted can be observed from things they've said or shown, particularly that they began working on this game in the downtime between the end of development on the first game and it's release date, (9?) months later.
 
The rest was all posted in a former employee's blog who left after disagreeing with the direction the new game was going, so it's all hearsay, but it's pretty believable when cross-checked with what we know.
#15 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -
@endaround: I don't live in the US, so I have no idea about that.  But Dragon Age was advertised constantly on TV, gaming sites, cross brand promotions, pre-order bonuses, Facebook games..  It wasn't simply advertised as an RPG for gamers, they played up the action, violence and sex and really tried to make it look like something it wasn't.  This was when EA took over and really started with the aggressive marketing, I expect the same to be done for ME3.
#16 Posted by Phantom_Crash (298 posts) -

DA2 is not the sequel to Dragon Age Origins. Its a spin off title as far as I am concerned and I hope it's crap. The sequel would be Dragon Age Origins 2.....which I hope bioware make and I also hope they don't streamline it and give it the console treatment. But maybe its wishful thinking and Bioware have lost their edge and don't care about making great games anymore.

#17 Posted by endaround (2138 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind: ME2 had prime TV programs devoted to it and its Hollywood cast.  DA had marketing dollars, but the ME2 push was near Halo levels.  Yes some of it 's greater numbers is due to coming out on the PS3, but it sold better on the PC as well and was at 2.0m vs 2.5m for ME2 on the 360.
#18 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3743 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind: The main reason people say DA sold better was because it was also on PS3.  Considering the crap ME2 sales on PS3 though, that argument is weakened.  Console gamers loved Dragon Age more than Bioware expected, bottom line.  They changed the sequel assuming they wouldn't, and now are trying to backpedal.
 
I think I'll still wind up liking the sequel, but it will definitely be different, and probably worse off.  I liked that DA and ME were different.
#19 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -
@Wrighteous86 said:
" @WinterSnowblind: The main reason people say DA sold better was because it was also on PS3.  Considering the crap ME2 sales on PS3 though, that argument is weakened.  Console gamers loved Dragon Age more than Bioware expected, bottom line.  They changed the sequel assuming they wouldn't, and now are trying to backpedal.  I think I'll still wind up liking the sequel, but it will definitely be different, and probably worse off.  I liked that DA and ME were different. "
I don't think ME2's poor PS3 sales prove anything.  The game had been released for the 360 and PC, so most gamers had already played it and the PS3 version launched at full price.  

I'd also point out that the console version of DA generally got pretty poor reviews and most gamers (including myself) complained about the combat system.  It worked very well on the PC but didn't at all on the consoles..  So making it more action based was definitely the right move and since it doesn't affect the PC version, I don't see what the fuss is about.  Again, I'm not sure how playing as Hawke will work out but I'm at least going to play the game before assuming everything has been ruined.
#21 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5137 posts) -

Marketing!

#22 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3743 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind: My problems are more with the storytelling and fiction changes they're making.  Dragon Age didn't need to be cinematic and flashy, and they're making the world more cliched and "badass" than it was before.  As someone who sucked at DA:O's combat, that's what I care least about.  I'm still hopeful, but some of the fiction and story approaches they're taking are worrisome to me. but...
 
@WinterSnowblind said:
" I don't think ME2's poor PS3 sales prove anything.  The game had been released for the 360 and PC, so most gamers had already played it and the PS3 version launched at full price.  I'd also point out that the console version of DA generally got pretty poor reviews and most gamers (including myself) complained about the combat system.  It worked very well on the PC but didn't at all on the consoles..  So making it more action based was definitely the right move and since it doesn't affect the PC version, I don't see what the fuss is about.  Again, I'm not sure how playing as Hawke will work out but I'm at least going to play the game before assuming everything has been ruined. "

The argument that most gamers had already played it doesn't work, if they played it on another system besides the PS3, that means they probably bought it on one of the other systems, which still factors in to the sales figures.  PS3 exclusive people, for the most part, weren't interested, based on the sales - or their number isn't large enough to drastically alter sales figures.
 
Therefore, either the PS3 exclusive audience vastly prefers fantasy to sci-fi, or Dragon Age selling on par or better with Mass Effect had little to do with PS3.
#23 Edited by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

How about we wait to compare DA2's sales with ME3's then?  :) 
Comparing them at the moment just doesn't work.  The PS3 version of ME2 is expensive, and it long missed the initial hype and buzz, meaning more casual gamers will have just ignored it. 
 
The fact DA launched on all 3 platforms simultaneously is definitely a big factor.

#24 Posted by Enigma777 (6057 posts) -

Because video games with 2 in the title sell a hell of a lot more than those without it (unless there's a 3, 4, 5, etc)

#25 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3743 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind:
Or DA2 to DA:O.
 
Not exactly fair though, since all fans of the first one will probably pick up the second, in addition to newcomers.
#26 Posted by alternate (2682 posts) -

No, because of the colon.  If it were Dragon Age Origins you might have a case - but is is Dragon Age : Origins.  See?  Would be like saying any Superhero comic or movie dealing with the origin story isn't the first one in the series.

Online
#27 Posted by perilator666 (434 posts) -

because trolololo 
 
never actually liked the origins name to be honest. i'm glad they didn't try to be new age with this one.

#28 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3743 posts) -
@alternate:  I think the colon is why this should be Dragon Age: Champion or something.  Dragon Age is the series, and the subtitle denotes which game it is.
 
The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the RIng wasn't followed by The Lord of the RIngs 2, because that makes no sense.
 
The Matrix Reloaded wasn't followed by The Matrix 3.
 
Batman Begins wasn't followed by Batman 2.
 
He's not saying he wants it to be Dragon Age: Origins 2.  He's saying he wanted Dragon Age: Subtitle.  (Also why it's dumb that they called Awakening DA:O - Awakening... though I suppose they wanted to emphasize that it was an expansion pack, basically, and not a standalone game.)
 
What bothers me more is when games or movies are numbered, and the higher number is actually a prequel, like Metal Gear Solid 3 coming before Metal Gear Solid.
#29 Posted by alternate (2682 posts) -

Dragon Age is the series, I agree.  However, you don't know that it wasn't always designed to be numbered.  Dragon Age : Origins = Dragon Age 1 : Origins.  You don't add the 1.  It wasn't Lethal Weapon 1.  It is common for the sequel to get a suntitle (e.g. Die Hard 2 : Die Harder).  No reason that the first can't have a subtitle and the second doesn't.
 
Also using movies as the standard is dumb anyway.
 
Die Hard / Die Hard 2 : Die Harder / Die Hard with a Vengeance / Die Hard 4.0 (international title).
 
Talk about mixing and matching naming conventions, we have a winner.

Online
#30 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2712 posts) -

Because its no longer an origin story?
#31 Posted by Marz (5642 posts) -

Origins was in the title just to give you a glimpse of the lore surrounding this universe.  But now that you know how the religion, darkspawn,, golems, magic, dragons and etc work  in the world.   There is no need to clutter the title.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.