Dragon Age 3 confirmed

[rajpoot]

Dragon Age Inquisition (http://dragonage.com/inquisition/).

The recent rumours (http://www.onlysp.com/2012/08/19/four-new-pieces-of-character-art-for-dragon-age-3/) were true after all.

[rvg]

I hope this one doesn't disappoint.

[Greyblades]

It can't, there's no expectations to dissapoint.

[rajpoot]

It can't, there's no expectations to dissapoint.

This.
Right now in my headcanon, Dragon Age ends with Witch Hunt.

[CountArach]

This.
Right now in my headcanon, Dragon Age ends with Witch Hunt.
Indeed.

I want a return to the tactical gameplay of the first one, but I know I won't get it. The series has already been consolised and there is no going back.

[Monk]

This.
Right now in my headcanon, Dragon Age ends with Witch Hunt.

I adore that term.

Anyway, I do hope that they at least put some effort into the art style this time. I thought Dragon Age II was "okay," despite it's many flaws and horrible design choices, but one thing that was really hard to get over was their art direction. Kirkwall was a really ugly and aesthetically displeasing place from top to bottom. From the rumors circulating around the usual places, it would at least appear that we'll have much more varied (and hopefully nicer to look at) locations.

[rajpoot]

That is actually one of the things he confirms, that they're working to improve how everything looks.


We are working on a new engine which we believe will allow us to deliver a more expansive world, better visuals, more reactivity to player choices, and more customization. At PAX East (http://blog.bioware.com/2012/04/10/bioware-and-dragon-age-at-pax-east/), we talked about armor and followers… Yeah, that kind of customization. We've started with Frostbite 2 from DICE as a foundation to accomplish this.

[Greyblades]

Indeed.

I want a return to the tactical gameplay of the first one, but I know I won't get it. The series has already been consolised and there is no going back.

I just want my meaningful choices back. Being forced into an idiot plot is not what I consider fun.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just want my meaningful choices back. Being forced into an idiot plot is not what I consider fun.

I see no reason to be particularly upset about Dragon Age 2, to the extend of removing it from "head canon", but I also didn't fancy playing it.

I read up on the plot and it was just, well, meh.

Hawk wasn't the Warden - the Warden was the bomb even though he was gimped and we didn't get the Origin he had in the trailer.

How good Dragon Age 3 will be is wholly dependent on whether or not BIOWARE can bring themselves to acknowledge, privately, that the ending to Mass Effect 3 sucked.

Dragon Age 2 didn't suck (conceptually), it just wasn't that good - I might even pick it up one day.

[johnhughthom]

The concept of making 3 or 4 maps and re-using them ad infinitum through the game didn't suck? The concept of waves of enemies parachuting or teleporting in didn't suck?

Merril's sexy Welsh accent is about the only thing in DA2 that didn't suck, conceptually or otherwise.

[seireikhaan]

I've gone back and played DA II after it was left in the corner for a long, long while. After a bit of modding, I actually quite enjoyed it on my 3rd and 4th characters. Still doesn't match up to the original by any means, but not the awful calamity that people have made it out to be.

I'd prefer to see a compromise between 2 and origins for gameplay and tone. And for the love of god, better encounter balancing. And a team actually dedicated to making multiple dungeons with real variety.

[Fragony]

Dragon Age bored me to tears

[rajpoot]

Dragon Age bored me to tears

:stare:

I'm assuming you did not use any of the spicier mods to make the character models better?
That always helped me when I started getting bored. :laugh:

[Fragony]

:stare:

Don't look at me like that, I win a staring contest with my cat every time you don't stand a chance

[Ja'chyra]

Dragon Age bored me to tears

This

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The concept of making 3 or 4 maps and re-using them ad infinitum through the game didn't suck? The concept of waves of enemies parachuting or teleporting in didn't suck?

Merril's sexy Welsh accent is about the only thing in DA2 that didn't suck, conceptually or otherwise.

There were more than three or four maps - three or four environments, maybe.

Suck? Not necessarily, come off as lazy? Yes.

The majority of people who played DA2 were moderately satisfied, and complaints generally centre on gameplay rather that story.

The latter is a much bigger issue for an RPG than reused environments.

Merril does suck conceptually - not only is the character model twig-like but pairing her with Eve Miles​ of all people just made it so much worse!

[johnhughthom]

There were more than three or four maps - three or four environments, maybe.

Suck? Not necessarily, come off as lazy? Yes.

The majority of people who played DA2 were moderately satisfied, and complaints generally centre on gameplay rather that story.

The latter is a much bigger issue for an RPG than reused environments.

Merril does suck conceptually - not only is the character model twig-like but pairing her with Eve Miles​ of all people just made it so much worse!

Care to prove the highlighted part? My evidence that it's simply not true. (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii) ~;)

[Beskar]

The gameplay (combat wise) was something i enjoyed more in DA2 than DA1.

The rest was kind of inferior in many aspects.

[Monk]

Care to prove the highlighted part? My evidence that it's simply not true. (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii) ~;)

Metacritic, Amazon user reviews and generally any site that allows user reviews are the worst kind of "evidence" to use in this case. In the last few years most of them have devolved to the use of rage accounts made to vote bomb games into oblivion. Did you know that Battlefield 3 for PC had a terrible star rating on Amazon for the longest time? Wanna know why? Rage votes over it's use of Origin. If i am trying to form an opinion on a game those sites I avoid like the plague because the input I get from them is absolutely useless in most cases. Oh, really. A zero for it's use of origin? How quaint.


The majority of people who played DA2 were moderately satisfied, and complaints generally centre on gameplay rather that story.

The latter is a much bigger issue for an RPG than reused environments.

I disagree. Sub-par or buggy gameplay kicks you right out of your suspension of disbelief and can cause your immersion to be shattered pretty quickly. Those two are just as important as a believable and fun story experience, at least for RPGs where that's the whole point.

A good example would be the monster-spawner style combat in DA2. People literally just drop down from the ceiling or otherwise materialize out of thin air right in front of you after you complete the first wave of combat. This happens multiple times per combat phase in the later stages of quests. It completely removes whatever organic feel the game has built in your mind and reminds you of it's mechanical nature, something that an RPG should be trying very hard to make you forget.

Good RPGs try to mask this by either hiding them inside buildings, around unaccessible or hard to reach corners, or generally just build their combat around a single phase of enemies that you must battle through. Dragon Age II put it right in your face and it was a very jarring experience.


The rest was kind of inferior in many aspects.

To be fair I liked the game AND the story up until Act III when the plot just goes :daisy: up and puts you on rails with little regard for the player's choices or intentions. At the end of the day who you supported, who you helped, none of it mattered because of forces that were completely out of the player's control. There isn't anything wrong with that, per say, but it's not how bioware supposedly builds or markets their games. Come to think of it... sounds like another game Bioware released recently.

Aw hell. :embarassed:

[rajpoot]

To be fair I liked the game AND the story up until Act III when the plot just goes :daisy: up and puts you on rails with little regard for the player's choices or intentions. At the end of the day who you supported, who you helped, none of it mattered because of forces that were completely out of the player's control. There isn't anything wrong with that, per say, but it's not how bioware supposedly builds or markets their games. Come to think of it... sounds like another game Bioware released recently.


This.
Dragon Age has been moving on a very different path from the one it started on ever since Mike Laidlaw took over. A more guided and cinematic experience. And somehow while I liked that in Mass Effect to some extent, it never sat well with me in DA.
Either way I intend to judge DA3 on its own merits because, like I said, I no longer hold and hope for a return to DAO style game, and I've made my peace with that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This.
Dragon Age has been moving on a very different path from the one it started on ever since Mike Laidlaw took over. A more guided and cinematic experience. And somehow while I liked that in Mass Effect to some extent, it never sat well with me in DA.
Either way I intend to judge DA3 on its own merits because, like I said, I no longer hold and hope for a return to DAO style game, and I've made my peace with that.

But then, how much control did you have in DA:O?

Winning the game requires completing the plan the devs lay out for you at the start of Act 2 - the amount of choice you have at the end is about the same as Mass Effect 3 or DA2, the difference is you have an option to make you feel like you won.

[Greyblades]

But then, how much control did you have in DA:O?

Winning the game requires completing the plan the devs lay out for you at the start of Act 2 - the amount of choice you have at the end is about the same as Mass Effect 3 or DA2, the difference is you have an option to make you feel like you won.

At least they tried to give the impression your choices mattered in DAO, help branka and you get golems running around on your side in the final battle, help the werewolves kill off the elves and they show up in the battle, help the elves and they turn up later, help the mages guild and you dont have to kill someone to save the lord's kid and they turn up in the battle. Your choices change the end bosses in 2 of the segments and who turns up to help you at the end. Hell, you get to choose between 3 people to die killing the last boss including the player character, or you can take the easy way out. You even get to choose who ends up on the throne of ferelden, including the player character.

In DA2 you can't change much, no matter what you do the arishok goes bezerk and you either kill him or have to hand over a companion... That's the only choice in the main quest that actually makes a difference, and all it does is let you skip the boss fight and some dialogue, nothing else. In the final quest no matter what you do the chantry explodes, the head mage turns into an abomination which attacks you even if you were on his side and the head paladin tries to kill you even if you were on her side. You can't save the viscount, you can't save the chantry, you can't save either faction leader you cant even save your mother.

It's a dank, depressing, death ridden railroad and unless you side with the evil side your character ends up with nothing to show for his efforts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Kirkwall is a rotten, nasty, place.

You still get to pick if lots of mages or Templars die - you get to choose between embracing freedom or order, you get to choose whether your sibling ends up dead, cloistered or Joined...

The reason DA:O feels more satisfying is the game presents you with a simple plan at the beginning, "gather allies, kill boss" - that's the sum total of the main plot, with political intrigue thrown in that only really matters to the Human Noble.

The plan in DA2 is "get rich, stay alive" and then in the final act "pick a side" it feels crap because both leaders are actually insane and have been for years - Orsino might not have practiced blood magic before, but he's supported it.

Mass Effect 3 has the same problem, the game plan is "kill reapers, save galaxy" but in the final few minutes the devs had a Reaper tell you that killing all the Reapers would kill EDI and the Geth - presenting a false choice that got everyone's panties in a twist. A moment's reflection should, however, tell you that the only reason you're listening to the Reaper-child is because you know the devs put him there, any Sheppard would ignore him and kill the Reapers anyway!

Players don't like being set up to fail - that's the issue.

Dragon Age 2 is just a Tragedy in the Greek sense, that's all.

[Greyblades]

Kirkwall is a rotten, nasty, place.

You still get to pick if lots of mages or Templars die - you get to choose between embracing freedom or order, you get to choose whether your sibling ends up dead, cloistered or Joined...
And what difference do you see? When I played through both sides on that level all but one or two the mages I encountered ended up dead either through me, the templars or orsino's pointless transformation and as for the templars even though I had been slaughtering my way through them for half an hour the amount that showed up during the final cutscene didn't differ between mage or templar playthroughs. The sibling's choice only changes whether or not they die or turn up at the end to act as a replacement anders/fenric.

The reason DA:O feels more satisfying is the game presents you with a simple plan at the beginning, "gather allies, kill boss" - that's the sum total of the main plot, with political intrigue thrown in that only really matters to the Human Noble.

The plan in DA2 is "get rich, stay alive" and then in the final act "pick a side" it feels crap because both leaders are actually insane and have been for years - Orsino might not have practiced blood magic before, but he's supported it.

Mass Effect 3 has the same problem, the game plan is "kill reapers, save galaxy" but in the final few minutes the devs had a Reaper tell you that killing all the Reapers would kill EDI and the Geth - presenting a false choice that got everyone's panties in a twist. A moment's reflection should, however, tell you that the only reason you're listening to the Reaper-child is because you know the devs put him there, any Sheppard would ignore him and kill the Reapers anyway!

Players don't like being set up to fail - that's the issue.

Dragon Age 2 is just a Tragedy in the Greek sense, that's all.

A greek tragedy that I feel was forced, especially compared to it's namesake.
Take Origins' elven subplot: it can end in a tragic note or a optomistic note. You want to exterminate the werewolves and leave the elves under the corrupted leadership of Zathrian? You can do that. You want to exterminate the elves and leave the werewolves trapped in thier nightmarish forms? You can do that. You want a near golden ending where the elves and werewolves live happily ever after in a golden ending. You can do that too.
Save the golems from slavery or condemn them to Branka's control, save the mages guild from abomination or exterminate them on the behest of a paranoid templar, save Arl eamon's son, sacrifice the Arl's mother to do so or kill the son to exterminate the demon inside him. You can even save logain, the main villian for most of the game, from the executioner's block and he joins your party and can even sacrifice himself in your place or You can kill him in front of his daughter forever scarring her. Nothing's gonna stop you.

In DA2 the Viscount, his son, the Qunari mage, Petrice, Thrask, the grand cleric, Meredith, Orsino, the player's mother, all die, the Arishok can only be saved by sacrificing a companion. damn near all of the main characters aside from companion members die without you having any say in the matter.

Origins' main storyline had multiple of both Tragic and Joyful resolutions all dependant on what you do. One way or another, you can nearly save everyone.
DA2's main storyline has 2 variations on 1 tragic resolution dependant on one dialogue choice near the end. You almost can't save anyone.

I could accept DA2 if it was a stand alone story, but compared to DAOrigin, it's taken a series' balance of optimism and cynicism and thrown out the former. It's lack of subtlety about it is especially annoying.

[seireikhaan]

per combat phase[/I] in the later stages of quests. It completely removes whatever organic feel the game has built in your mind and reminds you of it's mechanical nature, something that an RPG should be trying very hard to make you forget.

Good RPGs try to mask this by either hiding them inside buildings, around unaccessible or hard to reach corners, or generally just build their combat around a single phase of enemies that you must battle through. Dragon Age II put it right in your face and it was a very jarring experience.
I'd go a bit further than that. Not only do they poorly implement the battles themselves in terms of the waves of dudes, but the encounters in general were poorly balanced. Some of the hardest fights in the game are against semi-random bandits in act I at night, because they're all armed with bows and staggerlock your poorly equipped party to death, especially mage/rogue hawke. After a bit, it seems to even out and you start to make peace with things and you run into one of the dull, irritating, billion hp bosses who require you to either have saintly patience or turn the game to casual. Looking at you, rock wraith.

What's honestly most irksome about it is that the structural foundations of combat were, imo, incredibly sound. Mage/Rogue/Warrior trio were balanced much better than they were in origins- each has valuable strengths offset by certain weaknesses. The aggro system worked actually pretty darn well, companions generally followed their tactics orders well, etc... By comparison, in origins, you could gib the entire game by playing mage origin, picking arcane warrior, and backing yourself up with wynne and morrigan and whoever you liked most as a 4th party member for sight-seeing purposes with little difficulty.

As for the story and companions- I've actually mostly grown fond of them after playing again after setting the game down. They didn't quite get the balancing right for personalities, though, particularly Merrill's chipper/naive half vs her serious/saving elven-kind half, Anders' old goofy half vs his justice half, and Fenris' angry, sullen half vs... uh... other angry, sullen half. And I'll fully admit, none of them quite measure up to Sten or Shale, but I generally like the crew, overall.

But then again, I don't begrudge the decision for more linearity/"story driven plot". It's not Origins, but that part of the game I thought ended up working nicely enough. I enjoy the qualities of both origins and DA2's stories- they have very different aims, it would seem, and DA2 took it on the chin for doing so.