Dragon Age, looking towards Inquisition

[TT Kairen]

I am neutral or excited toward DA3 except for ONE THING. The damned conversation wheel. I like being able to read everything out and apply my imaginary voice to the character. I like being able to know what I'm saying instead of playing toward "diplomacy" or "Aggressive" because things aren't that black and white! Having myself -be- the character is fun, and having voiced player characters just takes me out of it. If they just want to clarify the tone behind each statement just say the emotion next to the dialogue option.

I feel like that is a personal preference. A silent protagonist actually removes me from the experience, since I tend to make a character personality before I begin playing and act that out, rather than trying to project myself onto it. Without voice, inflection, emotion, it just falls flat to me.

Then there was that they made skills largely pointless compared to just cover shooting.

Not everyone likes shooting and button mashing. Some of us miss when stats and decisions felt meaningful as in the first Mass Effect, and when our characters truly felt like our own and when tactics in battle mattered, like in Dragon Age: Origins. If we wanted to play a shooter, we would. An RPG is a different experience all together.

Blatant lies. There is no class where simply shooting is more effective than skillful use of powers. Choices of playstyle were taken over simple numbers increases, but to say the numbers meant nothing is just hyperbole. You cannot expect a real-time action game to have more relying on numbers than player input, unless the gameplay is absolute tripe. I can't even understand what you mean by this. Are you saying powers, tactics, and movement had no place in 2 or 3? That it was just cover-based shooting and nothing else? Because that is such an untrue statement it boggles my mind.

 

[thejboy88]

I liked both games a great deal, and I felt that they had some of the best characters and dialogue I've ever seen in video games in recent history.

As long as DAI can carry on that tradition, as well as show real consequences to the choices I made in the previous games, I'll be happy with it no matter what flaws it may have.

 

[Augustine]

Then there was that they made skills largely pointless compared to just cover shooting.

Not everyone likes shooting and button mashing. Some of us miss when stats and decisions felt meaningful as in the first Mass Effect, and when our characters truly felt like our own and when tactics in battle mattered, like in Dragon Age: Origins. If we wanted to play a shooter, we would. An RPG is a different experience all together.

Blatant lies. There is no class where simply shooting is more effective than skillful use of powers. Choices of playstyle were taken over simple numbers increases, but to say the numbers meant nothing is just hyperbole. You cannot expect a real-time action game to have more relying on numbers than player input, unless the gameplay is absolute tripe. I can't even understand what you mean by this. Are you saying powers, tactics, and movement had no place in 2 or 3? That it was just cover-based shooting and nothing else? Because that is such an untrue statement it boggles my mind.

Mcoffey has a point. Shift afrom ME1 to ME2/3 is quite obviously a shift in shooter/action direction. But exchanging hyporbolae is not a conversation and will lead nowhere. Unless that's the goal, of course.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Some of the party members were good like Varric and Marril, but out side a few inter party banter bits they were dull or just bad.

Compared to what?

Morrigan.. the free-spirited witch who hates religion.. except when confronted with a frothing maniac ranting about how Andraste has been reborn?

Leliana, whose one.. and only one.. defining characteristic is that she's religious. But I guess she's a rogue, so OMG original!

Alistair? The most shamefaced and blatant wooby character in all of gaming?

Zevran. Who has exactly the same character arc as Isabella, but with less detail or connection to the plot?

Let's face it.. None of the party members in Origins have anything like the amount of character development as those in Dragon Age 2. That's not a bad thing. There isn't nearly as much party dialogue in Origins. What there is is great, and it hints at great things. Oghren's story is incredibly fucking beautiful (until someone decided to bend that over and skip the lube because God-damn-it we need to rush out a shitty expansion pack).

There are many reasons to be disappointed with DA2, but if you were disappointed with the characters, then your standards might be a little off. Characters in DA2 were often less likeable, but that doesn't mean the same thing as bad.

 

[Amaror]

Compared to what?

Morrigan.. the free-spirited witch who hates religion.. except when confronted with a frothing maniac ranting about how Andraste has been reborn?

Leliana, whose one.. and only one.. defining characteristic is that she's religious. But I guess she's a rogue, so OMG original!

Alistair? The most shamefaced and blatant wooby character in all of gaming?

Zevran. Who has exactly the same character arc as Isabella, but with less detail or connection to the plot?

Let's face it.. None of the party members in Origins have anything like the amount of character development as those in Dragon Age 2. That's not a bad thing. There isn't nearly as much party dialogue in Origins. What there is is great, and it hints at great things. Oghren's story is incredibly fucking beautiful (until someone decided to bend that over and skip the lube because God-damn-it we need to rush out a shitty expansion pack).

There are many reasons to be disappointed with DA2, but if you were disappointed with the characters, then your standards might be a little off. Characters in DA2 were often less likeable, but that doesn't mean the same thing as bad.

What Dragon Age 2 characters had more development? There wasn't any development at all aside from maybe Varric.

Merril - The retard elf that things blood magic is a good idea and demons are sure just nice folk ready to help repair your old furniture.

Anders - The retard mage (See a pattern there?) that gets possessed by a good spirit, which then turns into a bad spirit, because of raesons.

Isabelle - The pirate slut. Wow what an original amazing character.

Whatshername - The tough woman. OHMAGAD so original! A woman that can hold a shield and still have them felings, revolutionary.

Whatshisname - The slave elve. With tatoos. and anger issues. WOW how incredible.

I can't even remember some of their names. Fact is calling them developing characters is just laughable. They start this way and they stay this way. The characters don't develop, they never move an inch.
In Origins you could significantly alter the outcome, by pushing some of the more naive characters, namely alistair and leliana, into accepting the harshness of the reality.
Although my initial description may seem otherwise, i don't think these characters don't have potential.
They are just horribly implemented.
They shouldn't just tell us that justice is now evil and we just have to accept it.
They should have shown justice how he normally is inside of anders and then have us witness the events that made him and anders turn evil. THAT would have been character development.
The Demon quest with Merril was also really poorly written. It's apparent from the very start that Merrils idea is just plain retarded, but they force us to go along with it or don't do the quest at all.
What they should have done was make it that we have the option of trying to keep merril from going through with it. When she refuses to led it go you can try to restrict her to keep her from going to the cave, but she escapes eventually. Then you run after her and finally stumble in when the demon is allready summoned.

 

[votemarvel]

The praise Dragon Age II gets for its combat puzzles me, since it is the same as in Origins. The only real difference is that on the console versions you need to hammer a button in order to do basic attacks.

Not sure if it's been pointed out, but that's not the case. When the demo was released there was no auto-attack toggle, but come day1 it was thankfully back in.

The game launched on consoles without auto-attack. It was a month later that the first patch enabled it in the options.

Everyone has their own take on how the series has been handled, but for me almost everything II changed was a positive (barring the combat design, as some depth/strategy was stripped from it). My canon Hawke was a rogueish female mage using the awesome default design, and Jo Wyatt's voicework helped make her one of my favourite PC's in any RPG. I'll be looking forward to Inquisition's voiced PC['s], but I doubt they'll be able to top FemHawke, for me.

I confess that the near mute protagonist of Dragon Age: Origins never bothered me, it let me imagine the character far more in my head. I liked the greater range of dialogue choices and that it allowed for more room for greater companion responses.

The voice work I find to be ok, wont argue against that, but I didn't like the shift toward Mass Effect in how the conversations were designed.

This is Dragon Age, it needs to be more like Dragon Age and not like Mass Effect. There is a reason after all that overall Origins is far more well thought of than DAII.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I suppose, the arbitrarily teleporting foes, coupled with endless recycling areas ever remained as painful reminders of the fact that I am playing a game

The spawning enemy were shite, agreed. Not only was it a tad contrived, it often replaced Origins quite careful placement of enemies and turned certain fights into Horde moments, as opposed to structured battles/challenges (yet I still appreciated and enjoy II's more kinetic animations and quite intuitive controls).

But I'm not with you on how those things made it more gamey - Origins was plenty gamey enough as it is; from the camera view, to the rather ugly UI, to the woeful animations (apart from some of the finishing moves with edged weapons - those were nifty).

Though in the very climax of the story, even the final resolution of the conflict in the city was incredibly contrived, that left a lasting sour taste about the story as a whole.

I wasn't particularly bothered by how the final boss fights are handled. The two antagonists of the city force everything to a head, continue to act stupidly (hello the scummy deceitful elf!), and Hawke's finally forced to try to bring a little order/death to proceedings. I played through II multiple times and never had a problem. And, I rather liked how they left it hanging, in terms of the potential ramifications for Thedas. I've no idea if DA:I will resolve them well or poorly, but I've been looking forward to seeing how things pan out since I first cleared II.

The game launched on consoles without auto-attack. It was a month later that the first patch enabled it in the options.

I remember whining about it on the BioWare forums (happily the only thing I've ever whined about to their beleaguered community bods) after playing the fairly horrible demo, but I could swear, come day1, I was happily back to just pressing attack once.

I confess that the near mute protagonist of Dragon Age: Origins never bothered me, it let me imagine the character far more in my head. I liked the greater range of dialogue choices and that it allowed for more room for greater companion responses.

The voiceless, expressionless Warden didn't bother me at all, I adored Origins. I just preferred having a more fully formed character at the centre of the story, as opposed to a blank slate. Personally, I play something like Skyrim to role-play. If there's a cast of characters speaking and moving in cutscenes, then I think the Gordon Freeman route for the PC is a bit ridiculous.

I thought the scripts for the three variant Hawke's - Goody TwoShoes, Scoundrel/Witty Rogue, and, er, Renegade - were superbly written, and I particularly enjoyed how your choices would reflect in Hawke's incidental dialogue. DAII took cues from Mass Effect, and in turn I'd hoped ME3 would add in that device (so as to make Shepard less of a slightly schizoid bore).

This is Dragon Age, it needs to be more like Dragon Age and not like Mass Effect.

As ever, this is where I don't envy BioWare's task in gauging fan response. I thought both DA's were DA enough, and that the changes II brought about were mostly improvements. I too was fearful of just playing Dragon Effect 2, but for me, that's not what I got at all.

There is a reason after all that overall Origins is far more well thought of than DAII.

I'm tempted to say 'yes, because fanboys are a ranty, petulant, self-entitled minority'... Being rushed was the main flaw in II. A significant proportion of fans just whined because it wasn't a direct sequel - in plot and design - to Origins, which I never understood.

 

[spartan231490]

I honestly hope 3 is a return to bases. There aren't a lot of good tactical RPGs out there, and there are a lot of action hack 'n slash, so I'd like to see a return to DA: origins in terms of leveling up, gearing your allies, and encounters that require tactical deployment. I would like the visual style of DA2 combat to stick around, it's much more engaging. I definitely want to see the thing DA2 did with having encounters spawn waves be gone. It's virtually impossible to deploy your forces and abilities tactically if you have no idea what the size and deployment of the enemy is.

It's a nice touch every once in a while, when it makes sense for enemies to remain hidden and look for an opportunity, but when it happens in every fight then it removes the tactical nature of the gameplay because you treat every fight the same. Keep your forces clustered and don't use anything with a long cooldown unless you're fucked. Hope you don't run out of healing before the end of the waves. I mean, that's an interesting tactical situation that could be an enjoyable addition to the game, but when every single fight is that way, it's no longer about tactics, because you use the same tactic every time. It's also a barrier to immersion when I can see for 100 yards in every direction, or I'm in a cave/room with no hiding places, and 5 waves of 5 guys jump out of nowhere to attack me. Were they hiding in quantum foam?

There's a lot of potential in that franchise, but I'm really afraid they aren't going to do it justice.

 

[Phasmal]

I hope 3 has improved on the combat, and kept the conversation system from 2.

Also I hope they leave my Hawke alone. I don't want her bought back, just make an offhand remark about how happy she is making half-elf babies with Fenris. There was no happy ending for my Warden, so leave my Hawke alone.

Other than that I just hope it's fun.

 

[Michael Rogov]

Don't generally post on the Escapist but when it comes to Dragon Age posts I gotta come out of my cave and say something. DA:O was my favourite game of last generation. Masterpiece. Perfection. Played it five times and after a long enough break from it I'll play it again. And then the second game happened..... It's just a game, I've since long gotten over it and even like hearing the opinions of those that like the second game but it's just not for me. As for Inquisition? I won't be buying it until a while after initial release. I wish Bioware all the best with it and might play it if the story has a massive affect on the world of Thedas (seemingly will) and has enough callbacks to the Warden and basically anything to do with the original.

The reason I won't be buying it is simple: they're sticking with the voiced protagonist. Any game from now on that has a voiced protagonist won't get my initial support. I'm very much of the opinion that voiced protagonists are a broken gameplay feature that kill any chance for actual roleplaying. Some day I'm going to write a thesis on why silent protagonists are as close to perfection as we'll ever see when it comes to video game roleplaying. Some day. Bioware could literally strip every other "RPG" aspect of their games away from this point forward and as long as they told me they were bringing silent PCs back I'd be first in line. Hell, I'd buy all my friends a copy.

Silent protagonists aren't mutes. If you claim that your version of the Warden or Revan, or Spirit Monk have no personality that's not a failing of the system itself. It's a failing of your imagination. If you'd rather the game do the work for you, ok. That's up to you.

This actually happens all the time. Initially post about Dragon Age, rant about voiced vs. silent PCs.

 

[Augustine]

I suppose, the arbitrarily teleporting foes, coupled with endless recycling areas ever remained as painful reminders of the fact that I am playing a game

The spawning enemy were shite, agreed. Not only was it a tad contrived, it often replaced Origins quite careful placement of enemies and turned certain fights into Horde moments, as opposed to structured battles/challenges (yet I still appreciated and enjoy II's more kinetic animations and quite intuitive controls).

But I'm not with you on how those things made it more gamey - Origins was plenty gamey enough as it is; from the camera view, to the rather ugly UI, to the woeful animations (apart from some of the finishing moves with edged weapons - those were nifty).

Though in the very climax of the story, even the final resolution of the conflict in the city was incredibly contrived, that left a lasting sour taste about the story as a whole.

I wasn't particularly bothered by how the final boss fights are handled. The two antagonists of the city force everything to a head, continue to act stupidly (hello the scummy deceitful elf!), and Hawke's finally forced to try to bring a little order/death to proceedings. I played through II multiple times and never had a problem. And, I rather liked how they left it hanging, in terms of the potential ramifications for Thedas. I've no idea if DA:I will resolve them well or poorly, but I've been looking forward to seeing how things pan out since I first cleared II.

On both made I was speaking purely demonstrate how my personal experience was shattered by the several of the game's design choices. I make no general appeals. This is my reaction, nothing more.

 

[spartandude]

Its on my radar but unless i hear its the most amazing thing ever im not getting it. Mostly because ive avoided installing Origin on my computer and until its issues are taken care of i will not put it on here. Im also keeping my distance because i simply dont trust Bioware at the moment. I hated DA2, TOR and dont get me started on ME3.

So while i am keeping an eye on it... well casually taking glances at it through the scope of a sniper rifle from very far away every now and then i will likely not be buying it any time soon regardless of its quality.

 

[Dandark]

Im hoping to buy Dragon age inquisition but for me at least, it's going to depend entirely on how much EA messes it up. If they leave it alone and Bioware release a decent game then fine i'll probably get it.

If I hear advertising for three different DLC packs before it is even released and a bunch of pre-order or microtransaction crap then I will likely pass. EA managed to scare me off of buying Mass effect 3 even though I was hyped for it(Thank you EA for letting me know not to buy that one) so im going to wait and see if they do the same for the third dragon age game as well.

 

[Mikejames]

I'd like to see them combine the best of Origins and DA2 for Inquisition. Build on core story and character concepts, avoiding the open-world pitfalls of quantity over quality.

The reason I won't be buying it is simple: they're sticking with the voiced protagonist. Any game from now on that has a voiced protagonist won't get my initial support. I'm very much of the opinion that voiced protagonists are a broken gameplay feature that kill any chance for actual roleplaying.

I think there are arguments for both sides.

I liked the prologues in Origins, as well as the large variations in dialogue, but the warden could also come across passively, bouncing off the evident personalities of other characters and staring blankly during many an emotional moment. Of course Hawke could be expressive, while also going on to say what I didn't intend through the more vague conversation options.

So I wouldn't say that either choice is without advantage and disadvantages.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Merril - The retard elf that things blood magic is a good idea and demons are sure just nice folk ready to help repair your old furniture.

This isn't a question of development at all, this is a question of rationality.

Characters don't have to be rational in order to be developed.

Anders - The retard mage (See a pattern there?) that gets possessed by a good spirit, which then turns into a bad spirit, because of raesons.

Again. Not a question of development at all, but a question of rationality and, to a lesser extent, storytelling.

Actually, the reasons why this happens are very well explained. Much of that explanation also took place in Origins.

Isabelle - The pirate slut. Wow what an original amazing character.

Again. You not liking a character (even to the point of being willing to throw vacuous insults at them) doesn't make them underdeveloped.

The sooner you work this out, the sooner you will have a worthwhile opinion.

Whatshername - The tough woman. OHMAGAD so original! A woman that can hold a shield and still have them felings, revolutionary.

Umm.. actually, that kind of is revolutionary.

Maybe that's a sad testament on something, but even if it wasn't just that.. even if your definition didn't rely on unecessarily bracketing out a whole bunch of other stuff, it would still be better.

Whatshisname - The slave elve. With tatoos. and anger issues. WOW how incredible.

Again, where is the lack of development?

You've pointed out specific attributes of a character you don't like or didn't find appealing. This is not the same thing as demonstrating they are underdeveloped.

I can't even remember some of their names. Fact is calling them developing characters is just laughable. They start this way and they stay this way. The characters don't develop, they never move an inch.

Actually, in almost all cases that is entirely dependent on choices made by the player. If you simply indulged those characters in their delusions or problematic behaviours, then of course they didn't change because the player chose to reinforce them. But actually, every single character (with the exception of Aveline and Varric) could have some kind of variable resolution.

In Origins you could significantly alter the outcome, by pushing some of the more naive characters, namely alistair and leliana, into accepting the harshness of the reality.

Which results in.. them being willing to have threesomes?

Origins did this with two characters. In DA2, it is actually the standard model of how characters work. You always have a binary choice, one of which is to encourage the character (which results in them continuing their current trajectory) and the other of which is to challenge them (which results in change). The difference is that the resulting change is more varied.

Fenris, for example, gets to either continue being a massive douche wallowing in self pity or realize that he needs to move on and start a new life.. or he gets to go back into slavery, but I guess that's the "Alistair becomes a wandering drunk" option.

They shouldn't just tell us that justice is now evil and we just have to accept it.

It's explained in pretty much the first line of dialogue on the subject.

"..but I guess I had too much anger. Once he was inside me, he changed."

Besides, justice isn't evil. What the hell gave you that impression? Why does a person need to be evil to do things which hurt people, or which have negative consequences for others, and if that were true, virtually every character in DA2 is evil. If anyone is actually evil it's Anders, but then we're talking about the person whose first act in the series was to crack jokes about a couple of Templars being killed horribly.

On an abstract level, isn't it actually kind of reasonable to think that an immortal being whose very essence is related to absolute moral judgement and who has no understanding of patience or time might occasionally do things which are disruptive or extreme or out of control. I thought that was pretty well explained, certainly there are more than a couple of lines of dialogue devoted to it.

Name a single other character in the series whose personality and behaviour hasn't changed upon becoming possessed?[footnote]And no, Wynne was never actually possessed.[/footnote]

The Demon quest with Merril was also really poorly written. It's apparent from the very start that Merrils idea is just plain retarded, but they force us to go along with it or don't do the quest at all.

It's apparent to the player that Merrill's idea is retarded, but it's not apparent to Merrill.

That's because Merrill is a separate character. She's not a very sensible or likeable character in some ways, but who the hell confuses those things for character development?

What they should have done was make it that we have the option of trying to keep merril from going through with it. When she refuses to led it go you can try to restrict her to keep her from going to the cave, but she escapes eventually. Then you run after her and finally stumble in when the demon is allready summoned.

So what you're basically saying is you want the option to refuse to do the quest and still get the rewards?

Alternately, just don't do the quest at all.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with Merrill's character development, it has more to do with the fact that Hawke is a character rather than an avatar, which is a legitimate (if somewhat opinionated) complaint but has nothing to do with character development.

 

[Amaror]

walloftext

i could reply angrily, but i can see that we have a very different understanding of what a well developed character is and how quest should allow you to not take the retarded, ... sorry almost slipped into arguing right there.

I think we would never reach an understanding so let's just aggree to disaggree and call it a day, i am in no mood to argue right now.

 

[Terminal Blue]

i could reply angrily, but i can see that we have a very different understanding of what a well developed character is and how quest should allow you to not take the retarded, ... sorry almost slipped into arguing right there.

I think we would never reach an understanding so let's just aggree to disaggree and call it a day, i am in no mood to argue right now.

Well, I'm fine with not reaching an understanding.. but just out of pure curiosity what do you think character development actually is?

Because I don't think whether or not a quest provide you with as many options as you would like actually comes into character development at all.

 

[Amaror]

Well, I'm fine with not reaching an understanding.. but just out of pure curiosity what do you think character development actually is?

Because I don't think whether or not a quest provide you with as many options as you would like actually comes into character development at all.

No those were two seperate issues.
Character development is the way character develop and change over the course of a story. Those changes don't have to be giant changes, but they need to be consistent with the story.
Maybe it's because we played the game in different ways but i didn't see any character development in the characters whatsoever.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Character development is the way character develop and change over the course of a story. Those changes don't have to be giant changes, but they need to be consistent with the story.

That's a character arc.

Character development includes the character arc, but it's much more than that. It's also about what information is revealed about a character and how believable they are as a person. Note that simply behaving in a way which is not sympathetic or rational does not equate to poor character development.

Now. For example, I'm going to concede to you that Merrill is kind of borderline, because the motivation for her actions (as well as being incredibly stupid to the player, who is knowledgable about the setting) are never particularly well explained. It relies, ultimately, on accepting the notion that she is obsessed (whether through personal weakness, or magical compulsion) with the idea that restoring the Eluvian will somehow help her people. What is difficult to explain is why she is willing to ignore the wishes of her people, to the point of exile, because of this belief.

The fact that her motivation is stupid from the perspective of the player would mean nothing, however, if it was adequately justified. If she had some conceivable reason to believe that eluvian would somehow restore the elves to greatness, that would make more sense. You can apply the same thing backwards to my earlier criticism too. If Morrigan had a reason to believe that Kolgrim was anything other than a fanatical (if highly unorthodox) religious zealot, her wanting to side with him would have made sense. As it was, it contradicted everything we know about her character at that point.

These are the actual failures in character development. Simply not being likeable doesn't count.

On the subject of character arcs.. the only character who doesn't really have an arc in DA2 is actually Varric. Even Aveline has getting over her dead husband, finding new love, learning the true meaning of family etc (or not, as it's perfectly possible to skip all that, but it's there). Varric's "arc" is basically that he goes from being a smooth dwarf Hawke meets in the marketplace to being either Hawke's best bud, or Hawke's passive-aggressive best bud. He learns nothing, nothing motivates him to change his outlook. Even betrayal by his own brother generates only a momentary burst of anger, not any deeper realization or shift in personality. All he gets from the experience is a story to tell.

So yeah. The most popular (and I'm not denying it, the most well developed) character in DA2 actually has virtually no arc. If there was ever evidence that development goes beyond simply having an arc, I think we have it.