- The chosen origin will have a significant impact on the storyWell, it's nice to hear BioWare say that player choices will significantly impact the story. I'm sure we can all trust them on this, considering their track record with similar promises to date.
- BioWare is looking into ways to include previous choices without save importsI'm not terribly worried about this. If I run into a plot development that contradicts a decision one of my characters made in DA:O or DAII, I'll just adjust my monitor's color balance to compensate.
Considering that games consist of significantly more than the last fifteen minutes in most cases, I'd say Bioware's track record with making player agency important is pretty damn proven consistently. Exhibit A: the rest of Mass Effect.The Rachni Queen was not in the last fifteen minutes, but as you say, this isn't about ME3. Nullification of player agency was actually (in my opinion) a much bigger problem in DA2 than it was in ME3. Despite ME3's ending, I'm glad I bought it and played it. I can't say the same of DA2.
- "One level in Dragon Age III is as big as all the levels in Dragon Age II."Not too hard is it? ;7
Nullification of player agency was actually (in my opinion) a much bigger problem in DA2 than it was in ME3.
I've never played DA2, but doesn't it give you the illusion that you can actually pick a side in the conflict between mages and Templars before ripping it away?Exactly.
Most of ME3's writing is brilliant. There's no shame in liking it. Tuchanka in particular is amazing. It's just the last 15 minutes that are terrible. That and Kai Leng. Most everything else is pretty great.
Haven't played DA2, though, so I can't chime in on that. I just remember that DA:O was pretty good, and that both KOTORs were good in their own way (barring the incomplete ending on 2).
- "One level in Dragon Age III is as big as all the levels in Dragon Age II."
While DA2 had better characters..
You must be the first person I've ever heard say that :) Frankly I found DA:O's characters better (not brilliant, but I can still remember them all, as opposed to DA2's).
I'm not terribly worried about this. If I run into a plot development that contradicts a decision one of my characters made in DA:O or DAII, I'll just adjust my monitor's color balance to compensate.
I'm not terribly worried about this. If I run into a plot development that contradicts a decision one of my characters made in DA:O or DAII, I'll just adjust my monitor's color balance to compensate.
I suppose I should have made it clear that I meant the fact that they actually tried to do something more interesting with the characters than the stock types you got in DA:O. Shale is about the only one who isn't a very, very well worn trope. With her exception (and Dog) you could pretty much find anyone else in any other fantasy setting.
DA2 managed to come up with interesting ideas for many of the team. We had a guy who was possessed by a spirit and therefore torn in two (yet not one that was evil), an elf who actually had managed to get herself wrapped up in blood magic, and another one who had been horribly abused by a mage who saw him as property. On top of that they came up with an idea of having characters who didn't like you see you as a rival rather than hating you and simply leaving. Meaning that you no longer had to be nice to everyone in order to avoid losing someone you wanted to keep. Nor could you get away with doing things they completely hated by not bringing them along.
And then they completely stuffed up their own ideas and made the characters as bland and boring as you said. Horribly missed opportunity to do something interesting.
My major concern is that they take their time with it, I would rather wait an extra 6 months to a year and get a more polished product over yet another obvious rush job.
As far as story goes they need to break away from that whole "the player should be able to experience everything on a single playthrough" mentality they have had over their last couple of games. They paint themselves into a corner every time they do this and it takes away from the game's replay value.
Horribly missed opportunity to do something interesting.This is an excellent description of DAII as a whole. In fact, the saddest thing about it is how much potential it had.
Horribly missed opportunity to do something interesting.This is an excellent description of DAII as a whole. In fact, the saddest thing about it is how much potential it had.
For example, I vastly prefer the idea of DAII's campaign to DA:O's save the world by killing a dragon. As someone already said, Darkspawn are boring: mindless monsters you need to kill. Mages vs. templars and Qunari vs. the rest of the world offers a potentially far deeper story by asking who do you need to kill and why... But of course it all goes to hell if you decide to cut the Gordian knot of moral ambiguity with a magical sword made of bull****ium. (And it doesn't even come in three different colors, it's invariably red.)
But as for the party, I wouldn't say all characters ended up completely bland and boring. It is of course a rather subjective thing, but some of them had a lively feeling DA:O's party usually lacked.
Aside from DA2, Bioware hasn't really released a bad game, and even DA2 had some redeeming characteristics.
(http://i.imgur.com/vwNFQ.jpg)
riiiiight
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but are people actually looking forward to this? Bioware hasn't made a good game in years. Dragon age 2 was terrible.
Those are tattoos are pretty goodQuoteI don't mean to sound like a troll, but are people actually looking forward to this? Bioware hasn't made a good game in years. Dragon age 2 was terrible.
So yes i am looking forward to Dragon Age 3. Yes Bioware have made a few mistakes but can someone please name me a company that hasn't or has had every game perfect???
ME3's ending and some few other stuff were not well accepted. Most ME3 players however will agree that about 90% of the game is somewhere between good and downright awesome.
I'm not sure I understand your last complaint. Compared to the "RPG shooter" paradigm of ME1, ME2's gameplay was head and shoulders better and more fun. "Shooter with RPG elements" is demonstrably superior to "RPG with shooter elements" with respect to the Mass Effect series.
I think I'll just have to disagree. The way ME1's inventory and mod system was handled, even with stacking, was terrible, and the effect on gameplay was only noticeable if you were using the kinds of ammo that were a really bad idea to use anyway, like high explosive. ME2 did much, much better with the upgrades, both by making ammo a soldier class "power" and by making the upgrades actually upgrades instead of just an endless set of tradeoffs. If I had to pick which one I liked more (combined with gameplay, since the two are pretty irrevocably linked), I'd take ME2 every single time, and ME3 only made it better.
...And I would very much buy a remake of ME1 with ME3's mechanics.
There was nothing more tedious in the entire game than managing your inventory and mods in ME1.How about searching for mineral deposits in MAKO? God, I hated that thing.
There was nothing more tedious in the entire game than managing your inventory and mods in ME1.How about searching for mineral deposits in MAKO? God, I hated that thing.
Yeah, streamlining ME2 was a good decision, even if it went far too far.
The more recent tangent appears to be about ME1 and its issues. :p
Personally I kinda hope they decide to turn the whole Darkspawn myth on its head and prove that it wasn't the Tevinter who created them. It might make things a lot more interesting.
i think the storyline shouldn't be the normal "end of the world as we know it and your the only one who can stop it" A lot of RPGS do this and companies struggle with the resolve. If it is scaled down a bit, or altered so that the fate of the world doesn't rest on one man/woman's shoulders would make it more interesting.
The current story is just a boring "fall from grace" story. Completely uninteresting. Now if the chantry were behind the creation of the Darkspawn, that would be interesting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Darkspawn predate the Chantry by a number of years? Quite a number of years. I wouldn't mind seeing a decent Darkspawn conspiracy involving the Chantry (Chantry didn't create, but does manipulate the blights to reinforce its power, similar to the mundane Crusades but in reverse), though. It'd also be rather hard to get around the actual Black City in the Fade, which is honestly (within the game) some pretty compelling evidence that the Chantry has the origin of the Darkspawn correct in essence if not in exactness.
Well that's where things could get interesting. It could easily be that the Chantry knew the truth (whatever it was) about the darkspawn and lied about it because it gave them power in their crusade against blood magic. We've seen in the second game that it's pretty easy for someone to go completely to the dark side when it comes to fighting blood magic.
The current story is just a boring "fall from grace" story. Completely uninteresting. Now if the chantry were behind the creation of the Darkspawn, that would be interesting.
It doesn't have to be that they're lying. That they're wrong and are in some way helping the wrong side would be just as interesting.
The problem is that as adversaries the Darkspawn are pretty uninteresting. Their goal has been done a thousand times before by far more interesting enemies. Making their goal to be not what you thought might be more interesting (one particularly ****ed up notion I had was that The Maker is so disgusted by the perverted version of the truth he hears in the Chant of Light that he refuses to pay attention to the world while anyone still sings it :p ).
The flip side of this is that who the hell cares about some random bloke who's not trying to save the whole world?If it's an interesting bloke, the player does.
If it's an interesting bloke, the player does.
If it's an interesting bloke, the player does.
Unless there's someone more interesting. And saving the world is pretty interesting usually.
Lesson from innumerable Bad Movie Nights: don't give people chances to say "Holy ****, why can't I watch that story?"
Unless there's someone more interesting. And saving the world is pretty interesting usually.
You do realise that Tolkien pretty much invented the fantasy genre upon which most RPGs are based, right?
I'm not saying that he invented the trope. I'm saying that he's one of the biggest influences to have used it in the fantasy genre and everyone has been copying him ever since.
Many non-RPG games are about completing some goal or other. It's just in the RPG genre that everything has to be about saving the world. Are we really that addicted to Tolkien?
Planescape called. And NWN. And a lot of people's D&D campaigns...yeah actually the that Tolkien addiction thing even its most directly manifested forms isn't terribly bent on saving the world.
When it comes down to it, Dragon Age II actually was one of the few CRPGs that I've played where the main plot only involved a local political matter. It's another reason why I regard Dragon Age II as a hugely missed opportunity. Instead of the trite old trope where the player gets dragged into a battle against some ancient evil or some evil nemesis plotting to take over the kingdom, we had a much more interesting plot idea of a power struggle between two political factions with no clear right or wrong side.
It's the main reason why the "Ha! They're both one dimensional bad guys" ending was such a kick in the teeth.
Unless there's someone more interesting. And saving the world is pretty interesting usually.We'll have to disagree on this; I see no particular appeal in saving the world from yet another completely dehumanized Dark Horde.
We'll have to disagree on this; I see no particular appeal in saving the world from yet another completely dehumanized Dark Horde.
It isn't.
If you were counting on meeting one of the last griffons in DAIII I have a bad news for you. According to Mark Darrah, the Executive producer of Inquisition, we would not see griffon riders this time, because it would not fit in the design and stylistic trend. The producers also do not plan any time jumps so there will be no narration of the type found in Dragon Age II.
"Not a steampunk setting -Still in the Dragon Age so no huge time jumps -no gryphon riding (sorry) -not a framed narrative ".
Wait. What does Not a Framed Narrative mean in this context?
"Da2 had Varric as a narrator telling the entire story (like Princess Bride) DA3 doesn't do that".