Hopes for Dragon Age III

[wintercoat]

My hopes for DA3 are that the people who butchered Anders and threw Justice under the bus are kept far, far away from the game. Seriously, fuck whoever decided that Anders needed a personality change. Can you imagine what DA2 would have been like if Anders stayed the way he was in Awakening? They would have needed to restrict party make-up, lest you put Anders and Varric into the party at the same time and cause the universe to collapse from the awesome. Also, whoever wrote Sebastian needs to stay away too.

Oh, also, I want combat to be a mixture of both of the first two games. DA:O's combat felt slow and plodding for anyone but a dual-wielding rogue, whereas DA2's combat felt spastic. I want to feel like everyone's actually doing something, but I don't want them flailing around like a lunatic.

And don't they dare leave out Arcane Warrior again! One of the very few games where you get to play as a warrior mage, and they had to take it away.

I would like the interactions with party members to feel more intimate, especially with the love interest. In Origins and Awakening, they felt rather mechanical since they were just face-to-face talks. I liked that in 2, the talks would play out more naturally, with characters moving around, gesturing, throwing half-empty bottles of wine at the wall. It made them seem more like people, rather than cardboard cutouts. But I also want more intimacy between the PC and the chosen love interest. Have intimate scenes after the cheesy awkward sex scene, for example. Change combat dialog to reflect the change in relationship. Just don't leave it a one and done thing with a mention at the end. If I'm going to throw my PC into a relationship, I want it to mean something other than I got to watch a shitty sex scene.

I liked the branching trees from DA2, but there just wasn't enough places to put points. Origins had the same problem, even after Awakening added new places to put them. I ended up just filling out trees for the hell of it. It should matter where I put my points. Give me more skills, more branches, more customization. And whatever you do, don't take things away to give the player less. The problem isn't too many points, it's that there aren't any good places to put them all.

 

[Arina Love]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

 

[Knight Templar]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

 

[chainguns]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

Depends if you think the only problem with ME3 was the ending. As far as I'm concerned the ending was just so egregiously bad that it stole attention from the remaining serious flaws which are discussed more rarely.

But BioWare already sent itself down by jettisoning its existing customer base without adequately considering how it would get the mainstream audience. In short it lost the customers it had trying to get the customers that it couldn't get without a *much* wider overhaul (than just bigger boobs and more gore). Combine that with EA's greedy monetization and all you need is for the last man out of there to turn out the lights.

 

[Knight Templar]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

Depends if you think the only problem with ME3 was the ending. As far as I'm concerned the ending was just so egregiously bad that it stole attention from the remaining serious flaws which are discussed more rarely.

I make that assumption because most if not all of ME3's other issues don't stem from the game itself, they stem from things introduced back in ME2. Mostly Cerberus.

But even then you are still deciding to punish one group for the actions of another, simply because you are unhappy with the entertainment products they have produced, or the manner in which they have done so. When the wish is so outlandish as a game that will kill Bioware, then to not wish for something actually good and 100% redeeming is nothing but vindictive. Both are just as unlikely as the other, so to hope things get worse isn't something I think can be justified. Edit: "you" in the rhetorical sense.

 

[Arina Love]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

Depends if you think the only problem with ME3 was the ending. As far as I'm concerned the ending was just so egregiously bad that it stole attention from the remaining serious flaws which are discussed more rarely.

I make that assumption because most if not all of ME3's other issues don't stem from the game itself, they stem from things introduced back in ME2. Mostly Cerberus.

But even then you are still deciding to punish one group for the actions of another, simply because you are unhappy with the entertainment products they have produced, or the manner in which they have done so. When the wish is so outlandish as a game that will kill Bioware, then to not wish for something actually good and 100% redeeming is nothing but vindictive. Both are just as unlikely as the other, so to hope things get worse isn't something I think can be justified. Edit: "you" in the rhetorical sense.

i don't care about justification or rationality, it's a pure blind rage without logic.

 

[Chris Tian]

Bioware basically said each game will be new individuals significant to the DA universe in that period.

Yeah it seems i am the only one who hadn't heard of this.
My problem with that is not that i liked Hawke so much or anything, its just that DA2 becomes so pointless an futile if Hawke doesn't make a big appearance in DA3. I mean DA2 is all about Hawke derping around Kirkwall doing mostly minor or personal stuff, that has very little influence at anything. The only thing noteworthy happening is the Qunari battle. Everything else just gets hinted at or started, the real story and resolve of those things would have to be in DA3 and thus become the storys of the DA3 protagonist. The only thing tying all the minor quests and plots and whatnot together is Hawke, so DA2 becomes the story of how Hawke became who he/she is, but didnt really do much. And if Hawke doesn't really matter, since he has very little influence at anything, except getting rid of the qunari in Kirkwall, DA2 has zero significance within the trilogy.

 

[Knight Templar]

i don't care about justification or rationality, it's a pure blind rage without logic.

The sad thing is that's a very common responce, minus the self awareness.

 

[Chris Tian]

But I agree, going full open-world might be a bad idea. BioWare has just no experience with that, and it's not that easy to do - just ask Bethesda. I'd rather have them focussing on getting combat and story right.

Oh god that would be SUCH a bad, bad, bad idea. They really should stick to their strong suit. I mean a little more exploration and less "narrow" level design would be nice and definitly doable, but trying to go Skyrim-style open world would go full on Hindenburg. They should remember what their meat and potatoes (characters and storytelling) was, and concentrate on that. Additionally figure out where they want to go with the combat, tactical or action, and optimize it according to that.

I never get that, shouldn't it be a bigger risk, from a buisness perspective, to try to copy a successful product you know nothing about and doen't have a consumer base for, than to stick to your own successful product you are well known for?

 

[Odbarc]

I am currently replaying the Dragon Age games and while i still love Dragon Age: Origins as much as ever, my opinion of Dragon Age 2 changed a bit during my second time playing it.
Originally it was a massive disappointment and while it still cant hold a candle to DA:O, now i have fun playing it.

What brings me to the topic i want to talk about: What are you expecting from Dragon Age 3?

I, for one am mildly hopefull and here is why:

First off: I think the root of most of the shortcoming of DA2 is that they rushed it out in like less than half the time they should have taken to develop it properly. But it has the bones of a good game, they just paintet them pink instead of fleshing them out and hoped nobody would notice. And it seems they won't repeat that mistake with DA3.

Secondly: In my opinion DA2 isn't such a bad game on its own, its greatest failure is being worse than its predecessor and failing everyones expectations. Like I said, i think it hat some good parts that just would have needed polishing (and balancing in case of the combat).

Thirdly: Another big shortcoming was completely avoidable, and that is the super awkwardly paced mess of three unrelated main-storylines. I will never understand why they did this, it makes no sense. You have the perfect setting for the main conflict, mages vs. templars, right from the start. Either you or your sister are a apostate in a city de facto ruled by templars. They could have hurled Hawke right in the middle of that conflict. Why wait two boring acts to kick that off?

And last but not least, i am a very optimistic guy

So, your thoughts?

I'm playing it on the PC instead of console and I find it's actually quite enjoyable for some odd reason. Maybe it's that my taste in games has changed, but I can't seem to put it down now.

For the third game... I'd like to predestine my class specialty as the starting narrative.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I know I'm no moderator, and not even the OP, but:

Please don't rant about the ME3 ending here beyond the extent to which it is relevant for Dragon Age 3. But if you really really must, at least please watch your language and show some moderation. There are many people who are as smart and educated as you are, and care as much about storytelling as you do, and liked the ending. I do not want to hide that I am one of them, and every time I read such a rant, it's itching in my fingers to write a reply, but that would derail the thread completely.*

I know it's a forum and so you shouldn't expect much, but I found this threat to be quite enjoyable and remarkably civilized so far, despite people having very different opinions about Dragon Age.

~

* I wouldn't have to do it myself anyway: http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-words-on-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3/

 

[Glaice]

I'd prefer if they work on a new, original IP than churning out sequels to a series ruined by it turned into a mindless action hack-n-slash.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Potential because, first and foremost, the game seems to be about the mages vs. templars conflict. This can make for a much more original, interesting story than your generic "save the world from evil" story that plagued Dragon Age: Origins. The big theme, freedom vs. security. Moral ambiguity. No good vs. evil conflict.

It's Bioware.

There will be no/very little moral ambiguity, even in games where they built a system in which "no really, there is no good or bad choice", they still fucked up and watered it down to good vs. evil(Jade Empire).

I stopped caring about their moral choice systems, and instead I want to have an epic adventure, like I did with Mass Effect.

Oh, but they can keep the combat from DAII, god knows I hate the DA:O MMO-style combat because of how slow and unnatural it feels.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I would like to see the Grey Warden return and preffered if Hawke wasn't going to be in the third game, although I think he/she will.

Less action`y gameplay from DA2 and more party based battles from DAO.

Other than that, from what I've seen thus far it seems I will enjoy it. Time will tell.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Potential because, first and foremost, the game seems to be about the mages vs. templars conflict. This can make for a much more original, interesting story than your generic "save the world from evil" story that plagued Dragon Age: Origins. The big theme, freedom vs. security. Moral ambiguity. No good vs. evil conflict.

It's Bioware.

There will be no/very little moral ambiguity, even in games where they built a system in which "no really, there is no good or bad choice", they still fucked up and watered it down to good vs. evil(Jade Empire).

I stopped caring about their moral choice systems, and instead I want to have an epic adventure, like I did with Mass Effect.

Oh, but they can keep the combat from DAII, god knows I hate the DA:O MMO-style combat because of how slow and unnatural it feels.

But there is moral ambiguity in a many BioWare games. It might not always be executed well, but it exists. In Dragon Age: Origins, you find it everywhere (Spoilers galore). Is it right to imprison mages? Is it right to make templars to drug addicts? Is it right to use blood magic in some circumstances? Which dwarven faction of Orzimmar is better for the dwarves? How should you deal with the followers of the Qun? Does Sten deserve being given a chance for atonement? Is right to not tell Grey Warden recruits about the negative consequences of becoming a Grey Warden? Should you help out each and everyone with their problems even though you have a bigger task to do? What about the Dalish Elves and the Werewolves? Should you let some douche allow to rape a couple of women because killing him might have dire consequences for your people? Do you accept Morrigan's "offer"? Is it right to use the Hammer of the Deeps or what it was called?
And, generally, you have many opportunities to show mercy if you so desire.

Mass Effect is no different. Should you cure the genophage? Do you side with the Geth or with the Quarians? Do you spare the Rachni? Do you reprogramm the rogue Geth or kill them? Which choice does Shepard make at the end of all things? They are all morally very different. The Illusive Man is a very ambiguous character. And the list goes on... I just remember Dragon Age better because I played it more recently.

The Star Wars games and Jade empire I haven't played, can't comment on that, and regarding Baldur's Gate II... there were some choices you can make too, but I don't remember that all too well anymore, so I better remain silent.

 

[Chris Tian]

Potential because, first and foremost, the game seems to be about the mages vs. templars conflict. This can make for a much more original, interesting story than your generic "save the world from evil" story that plagued Dragon Age: Origins. The big theme, freedom vs. security. Moral ambiguity. No good vs. evil conflict.

It's Bioware.

There will be no/very little moral ambiguity, even in games where they built a system in which "no really, there is no good or bad choice", they still fucked up and watered it down to good vs. evil(Jade Empire).

I stopped caring about their moral choice systems, and instead I want to have an epic adventure, like I did with Mass Effect.

Oh, but they can keep the combat from DAII, god knows I hate the DA:O MMO-style combat because of how slow and unnatural it feels.

But there is moral ambiguity in a many BioWare games. It might not always be executed well, but it exists. In Dragon Age: Origins, you find it everywhere (Spoilers galore). Is it right to imprison mages? Is it right to make templars to drug addicts? Is it right to use blood magic in some circumstances? Which dwarven faction of Orzimmar is better for the dwarves? How should you deal with the followers of the Qun? Does Sten deserve being given a chance for atonement? Is right to not tell Grey Warden recruits about the negative consequences of becoming a Grey Warden? Should you help out each and everyone with their problems even though you have a bigger task to do? What about the Dalish Elves and the Werewolves? Should you let some douche allow to rape a couple of women because killing him might have dire consequences for your people? Do you accept Morrigan's "offer"? Is it right to use the Hammer of the Deeps or what it was called?
And, generally, you have many opportunities to show mercy if you so desire.

Mass Effect is no different. Should you cure the genophage? Do you side with the Geth or with the Quarians? Do you spare the Rachni? Do you reprogramm the rogue Geth or kill them? Which choice does Shepard make at the end of all things? They are all morally very different. The Illusive Man is a very ambiguous character. And the list goes on... I just remember Dragon Age better because I played it more recently.

The Star Wars games and Jade empire I haven't played, can't comment on that, and regarding Baldur's Gate II... there were some choices you can make too, but I don't remember that all too well anymore, so I better remain silent.

You have a point with all those choices/dilemma you mention, but i always feel bioware presents them very black and white-ish, there is mostly one option the games clearly favor.

What DA2 did right, and better than Origins, was the characters and character interactions. Hell, that was mainly what allowed me to slog through the slow and irrelevant first act and disjointed third act as well as the terrible combat. Anders was god awful though, whoever was in charge of writing him in DA2 should have more oversight in the future if not outright fired.

I actually liked the characters and interactions in both games very much.
Exept for Anders, i totally agree with you there. I could have lived with him if he wouldn't be a must-have for every party setup, unless your Hawke is a healer. I mean if a companion will be essential for 90% of all playthroughs, it would be nice if he's not so annoying that i want to ff-kill him all the time just so he shuts up.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wow, a multi-quote, anti-elitist wall of text, that no-one on this board will be bothered to read.

The fuck do I care? This isn't Shakespeare in the park. I was quoting you under the assumption that YOU would read it. And you did! Hurray!

Wonderful post. For someone of your age you seem to be unaware that your reply turned this into a private conversation descending rapidly into the dreary world of semantics, and off topic.

Oh no, semantics! You know that semantics have a purpose, of course? To divine meaning and connotation? If the connotation of your statement is that you are affecting an air of superiority, calling attention to it is giving you an opportunity to refine and clarify your statement. Pointing out straw men and hyperbole isn't really semantics, it's basic logic and critical thinking skills, but let's assume those are "dreary" as well. Shall we package this up under a general rule of "How Dare You Question Me, I Am Chainguns"?

You decided to read elitism into that ("sneering disdain", "true scotsman" etc) and go all ad-hominem in a fabulous tirade of semantics

Oh no, semantics!

Did I do an ad-hominem? I kind of doubt it, but let's check...

NOPE. For heavens SAKE, what is with this forum and ad hominem? It takes 2 seconds on google to figure out what an ad hominem is. It's not short hand for "I didn't like what you said".

The closest thing we have to an ad hominem in this discussion is this:

so even though you are unworthy

And you're obviously being facetious.

...eloquently proving that forum-abbreviated generalizations are not 100% accurate.

Then why do it? You went on to later demonstrate you're perfectly capable of making a competent argument. Why be lazy? Why do the "argle bargle graphics" thing? Why make the EXTREMELY tiresome "everything is a COD clone" remark, when "everything" is very evidently not? You made a snooty post, and then got aggrieved when I pointed at it and called it snooty. The easier, less DREARY solution would have just been to not make a snooty post to begin with.

Funnily enough, I do think that good games are those that align with my tastes. Duh?

Why is that a duh moment? It never occurred to me that the limit of my personal tastes was the limit of quality. I'm not sure why that would occur to you. Or anyone, for that matter.

As for the "games of every variety available" - I was talking AAA, and I dare say you knew that.

How would I know that? How do we even define what is AAA and what is simply AA? We had a hell of a time doing that in another thread on the subject.

And you do realize that clarifying this point qualifies as semantics, right? Dreary! This clarification for the sake of understanding is SO DULL. I'd rather make wild guesses!

I know there is variety in the indie market and kickstarter is doing great (I have pumped >$400 into KS so far), but it would be nice to say a better than 90:10 action:nonaction split in AAA. Last year we got ... xcom, this year Rome II, possibly Europa Universalis IV. Now count the reflex- based games this year. PS the 90:10 is forum-speak, if the exact ratio is 87:13, please feel free to call "hyperbole" again and launch another wall of angry text.

Jesus christ, neither one of us is going to sit here and COUNT GAMES, but...oh wait, here's a list. Fuck it, I don't even know what half these games are, they're off platform. I need to stick to PC. Another HOMM expansion just got launched, was that an action game? What about HOTS, do you consider that an action game? The Sims expansion and (cough, gag) SimCity? Cities in Motion...Defiance...I guess Defiance is actiony, although it's technically an MMORPG (and a bad one by all accounts)...TOR expansion...AOE2HD (what was the point of an HD expansion to a 10+ year old RTS?). There's some shit I don't know in there. Like, I have no idea what "A World of Kelflings" is. There's a couple of actiony games here...most notably Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite. But show me the COD clone. Show me the Muslim shootin' game. Because I'm not seeing it.

Re "damn those people" (hair physics and cutscenes) just look at the shape and state of the AAA market. People buy what they like ('guided' by the hype machinery like the escapist), publishers make more of what they like.

Why can't they be guided by their tastes? Or by market research? I'm assuming that's what guides YOUR decisions, right? Why is the assumption automatically that other people are hype blinded buffoons?

I look at this and observe that "people" want good graphics, shooting Russians/Muslims and little or nothing asked of them. If you look at the game shelf of your Walmart or Tesco and come to a different conclusion, then let's hear it.

I buy all my games off digital distribution and have since...I'm going to say 2010. Who buys games from Walmart? I think I already made a snarky comment about the foolishness of using the shelf at Walmart as a barometer for ANYTHING.

But don't rail against elitism and don't *sugggest* that a phrase containing the word "people", "gamers" /whatever broad brush term is inaccurate or mostly made up, by default. Because then we end up in boring, thread killing walls of text like your post and this one now.

Well, I'll tell you what I find boring. I find people using hyperbole or sweeping generalizations to make tired, easily debunkable arguments boring. I actually found looking through the 2013 releases and trying to figure out the action/non-action split vaguely educational and interesting. Perhaps you are wired differently. You seem to have a mortal hatred of semantics, we've established that much. Perhaps you'd prefer to drift through a thread, make a few sniffy comments about what "those people" might prefer, and then wander away without some needling oppositional statement popping up in your inbox. Different strokes for different folks. If that's the case, there's probably a mechanism to disable notifications when you get quoted.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Laidlaw already said combat will be fast (exact words were "not lardy style like Origins"), so seems like you should be happy.

Good, I'm glad. Laidlaw looks to be on the same page with that, because I wholly agree with his "lardy style" interpretation of Origins. I want my characters too look like they are fighting not slowly and playfully reenacting or cuddle fighting.