Hopes for Dragon Age III

[Smeatza]

3. As Chris Tian already said, the mages vs. templars conflict has nothing to do with racism, it is about freedom vs. security. The reason to control mages is very real - they often are dangerous. And this is a conflict I find interesting precisely because it is morally ambiguous.

Yeah it's not.
Imprisoning someone for something they could do is never a sound moral choice. The Templars vs. Mages conflict is a case of practicality vs. morality.
The practical choice is to lock up these potentially dangerous people, the moral choice is not to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

 

[Chris Tian]

3. As Chris Tian already said, the mages vs. templars conflict has nothing to do with racism, it is about freedom vs. security. The reason to control mages is very real - they often are dangerous. And this is a conflict I find interesting precisely because it is morally ambiguous.

Yeah it's not.
Imprisoning someone for something they could do is never a sound moral choice. The Templars vs. Mages conflict is a case of practicality vs. morality.
The practical choice is to lock up these potentially dangerous people, the moral choice is not to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong.

Moral is not this absolute thing you know. Just saying one thing is amoral does not make it so. If it were there would not be such a thing as moral ambiguity.
It gets very hypothetical now: I think you would sing a very different song if there were people out there that could spontaniously explode with a 150m killradius for no reason whatsoever. So the Templars clearly have some moral ground to stand on. Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to confince you. Because in this case we have clearly different morals, yes that is plural and there is such a thing.

But what i like most about your post is that you make CloudAtlas point very well, this is an interesting theme because its not black and white and we can discuss it like we do.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

The difference between the way the mage-templar situation is presented in the two games is astonishing.

In Ferelden the Circle seemed more like a magic university than anything else. A university that you didn't have a choice about attending, admittedly, but Irving and Greagoir seemed to have a mostly amiable working relationship, and trusted Senior Mages seemed to be allowed a lot more freedom (Wynne and others were allowed to accompany the King's army, and Ines in Awakening was off on a bontany expedition with no one keeping an eye on her).

By contrast, the Circle in Kirkwall was a glorified prison camp, with the Templars acting like most brutal kind of commandants, performing the rite of tranquility on anyone who looked at them funny, and wanting to kill any mage who'd been out of sight for more than a minute. Yet, as you say, they were proved right, since practically every mage you met in the game was a lunatic who was just waiting for the Templars to look away so they could start abusing blood magic, and whose first reaction when they got into the slightest bit of trouble wasn't 'fight or flight' but 'turn into an abomination and let loose all over the city'. First Enchanter Orsino doesn't even seem to consider alternative escape plans before turning himself into a giant flesh golem and attacking you even if you were on his side.

I get that relations were supposed to be strained, and that the curse of Kirkwall was slowly driving everyone who lived there mad, but neither side emerged from the story looking particularly good. If DA:3 is going to focus on the conflict, I'd like to see it with a bit more depth than just Nazi Templars versus Mad Anarchist Mages.

 

[CloudAtlas]

3. As Chris Tian already said, the mages vs. templars conflict has nothing to do with racism, it is about freedom vs. security. The reason to control mages is very real - they often are dangerous. And this is a conflict I find interesting precisely because it is morally ambiguous.

Yeah it's not.
Imprisoning someone for something they could do is never a sound moral choice. The Templars vs. Mages conflict is a case of practicality vs. morality.
The practical choice is to lock up these potentially dangerous people, the moral choice is not to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong.

To you, it is not. You made your moral judgement. And you know what? In DA:O I played a mage, and she didn't much cherish being imprisoned in the circle either. And in general I value freedom highly. So, as for DA2, I started favouring the mages side, but I became less sure about that with every atrocity that a mage committed. Then again, siding with the templars... they did horrible things too. Especially the practice of making someone tranquil is... I mean, that's probably a fate worse than death.

Is it morally right to imprison someone just because he might commit a crime in the future? No. But should you close your eyes to the dangers the negative consequences not imprisoning them will have on everyone else? Is it morally right to totally disregard the Greater Good? That's sort of the utilitarian perspective.

And you shouldn't forget that these consequences are very real in the world of Dragon Age, and they are dire. Every mage runs the risk of being possessed by a demon, and this risk is substantial: You see it happening many times in both Dragon Age games, and the results were always bad. Like, really bad. And they would have been even worse if there hadn't been a Warden/Hawke to show up just in time.

So, yea, I still think this conflict has the potential to deliver many great moral dilemmas, where no choice is particularly palatable.

Anyway, for story relying on moral ambiguity to work, it is not necessary that every potentially difficult choice that is presented to you is actually ambiguous for you. There were many instances in any Dragon Age (or Mass Effect) game where I didn't hesitate a second, although these choices were potentially ambiguous - they just weren't for me. It's enough if enough choices make you think, however much "enough" is enough for you. Alright, enough with enough now.

 

[Chris Tian]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

I had the feeling the game pulled me very hard to the mage-side. If you are not an apostate yourself your sister is. Your father was an apostate too. You pick up two additional apostate companions, at least one of them has to be part of your party constantly if you want to be somewhat effective and prevail on the higher difficulties.
So being really pro-templar is always a somewhat strange option since you protect at least two apostets, one of whom is a blood mage, the other one possesed by a spirit, through the whole game.

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

The difference between the way the mage-templar situation is presented in the two games is astonishing.

In Ferelden the Circle seemed more like a magic university than anything else. A university that you didn't have a choice about attending, admittedly, but Irving and Greagoir seemed to have a mostly amiable working relationship, and trusted Senior Mages seemed to be allowed a lot more freedom (Wynne and others were allowed to accompany the King's army, and Ines in Awakening was off on a bontany expedition with no one keeping an eye on her).

By contrast, the Circle in Kirkwall was a glorified prison camp, with the Templars acting like most brutal kind of commandants, performing the rite of tranquility on anyone who looked at them funny, and wanting to kill any mage who'd been out of sight for more than a minute. Yet, as you say, they were proved right, since practically every mage you met in the game was a lunatic who was just waiting for the Templars to look away so they could start abusing blood magic, and whose first reaction when they got into the slightest bit of trouble wasn't 'fight or flight' but 'turn into an abomination and let loose all over the city'. First Enchanter Orsino doesn't even seem to consider alternative escape plans before turning himself into a giant flesh golem and attacking you even if you were on his side.

I get that relations were supposed to be strained, and that the curse of Kirkwall was slowly driving everyone who lived there mad, but neither side emerged from the story looking particularly good. If DA:3 is going to focus on the conflict, I'd like to see it with a bit more depth than just Nazi Templars versus Mad Anarchist Mages.

In the game its mentioned on several occasions that the Kirkwall Templars are very draconian compared to their ferelden counterparts. That is why the mage/templar conflict errupts there. So i am not sure what the point of your first sentence is. Is it just an observation or do you like/dislike it? Or do you find it implausible?

I would like to see both sides as sane in DA3 too. That everyone goes crazy-bloodthirsty-monster was kinda stupid and dragged the whole thing down. Because i wont really care what happens to either side if i cant relate to any of them. The conflict is a lot more intese for me if i can actually relate to both partys and have trouble to decide who to support.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

I had the feeling the game pulled me very hard to the mage-side. If you are not an apostate yourself your sister is. Your father was an apostate too. You pick up two additional apostate companions, at least one of them has to be part of your party constantly if you want to be somewhat effective and prevail on the higher difficulties.
So being really pro-templar is always a somewhat strange option since you protect at least two apostets, one of whom is a blood mage, the other one possesed by a spirit, through the whole game.

I suffered story collapse [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17745] after I sided with the mages and Orsino flipped out. Any immersion in the story shattered and I recalled the mind-bogglingly large number of instances where mages used blood magic or acted erratically or dangerously. As Uncle Comrade said, both sides were portrayed as crazy, but one side is trying to contain the crazy.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

snip

In the game its mentioned on several occasions that the Kirkwall Templars are very draconian compared to their ferelden counterparts. That is why the mage/templar conflict errupts there. So i am not sure what the point of your first sentence is. Is it just an observation or do you like/dislike it? Or do you find it implausible?

I would like to see both sides as sane in DA3 too. That everyone goes crazy-bloodthirsty-monster was kinda stupid and dragged the whole thing down. Because i wont really care what happens to either side if i cant relate to any of them. The conflict is a lot more intese for me if i can actually relate to both partys and have trouble to decide who to support.

Yeah, the first sentence was mostly just an observation. I picked up on the Kirkwall Templars being more hard-line to start with, plus the whole 'city driving people mad' thing didn't help. It's just, I played DA2 immediately after finishing Origins, where my mage warden had been quite content with life in the circle, and happy to keep the status quo going.

Then I got to Kirkwall, saw how the circle worked there and thought "Well that's no good at all." I came away from that thinking that perhaps the best thing for mages would be to just keep their heads down and try not to give themselves away. (Mind you, I always found it weird that the notoriously draconian Templars are perfectly fine with Hawke/Bethany, Anders and Merril roaming the streets in robes with staves strapped to their backs firing spells about the place. It was quite amusing to hear Cullen say "Mages aren't like you and me" when he'd only recently witnessed me conjuring up a fireball in the middle of a fight)

But yeah, my point was, having seen the vast difference between the Ferelden and Kirkwall situations, I think it would be a shame if both sides just end up being crazed fanatics in DA3. I'd quite like to see a faction who want go back to the way things were before, or perhaps even a group of mages and templars who've banded together to stay out of the fighting. There's a lot they could do with the war, I'd hate to see it reduced to two extremes.

Between bloodthirsty Templars killing every mage they found, regardless of whether they posed a threat or not, or Mages saying "Well if the Templars think I'm a blood mage I guess I'd better prove them right!" I found the end of DA2 very stupid. I'd much rather have had an option for Hawke to just shake his/her head and leave them to it, rather than be forced to pick between two sides, neither of whom I agree with.

 

[Legion]

For them to take absolutely nothing from Mass Effect 3 and nothing from Dragon Age 2 except possibly the art style. Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age: Origins stand out as unique games that are very different from one another. Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 are extremely similar in many ways in both how they work with mechanics, as well as the way the stories worked.

That's not to say that neither game did anything right, but they are completely different games from their predecessors, and as somebody who preferred the originals to the sequels, it's natural for me to want them to not keep going in the same direction.

I want Dragon Age 3 to be an RPG, not an action game with "RPG elements". I don't want auto-dialogue, I don't want pretend choices that end up with the same result except a different line of dialogue, I don't want my character to have their personality decided by the writers.

Sadly from what I have read by the developers on the Bioware forums (the last time I was there anyway), they are planning to continue in the same vein that they have in their last few games.

As it stands I am going to cautiously keep an eye on it, but I am honestly not expecting anything good from them.

 

[P.Tsunami]

I'm in the "my faith in Bioware has been thoroughly shaken" crowd, but I'm not dismissing DA3 out of hand. So, let's talk (realistic) hopes.

1. Well-written, likeable, interesting characters. Here's where Bioware really shines, in character development and dialogue. DA:O was a bit hit-and-miss on this, but gave me a decent bunch of characters I really enjoyed. DA2 was spectacularly awful, delivering a single character I didn't want to push off a cliff (the dwarf). I sincerely hope for a good character cast, and if Bioware doesn't deliver I absolutely will consider the game a failure.

2. A story that goes somewhere. Bioware isn't the best at plot (with the bright exception of Jade Empire). And that's fine. But as long as they stick to something tried-and-true and simple, it'll be enough. That was one of DA2's failings. It mostly meanders around with no real purpose or direction.

3. A general focus on politics and intrigue. Orlais (where the game will be set) has been heavily forshadowed (and in the Leliana's Song DLC portrayed as) a web of intrigue and political games. I hope Bioware makes the best of this and lets me absolutely delve into this. I want to feel like a mastermind puppeteer, please.

4. The main character needs to be one of two things. Either you make them interesting, relatable and likeable, as exemplified by Mass Effect. Or, as in DA:O, make the character a blank template, giving me the freedom to project what traits I wish upon them. If I'm not afforded that freedom, I want something way better than Hawke in return.

5. As much character customization as reasonably possible. I love The Sims. You know why I love The Sims? The insane amount of personal touches. I'd love to be able to essentially play dress up with my character.

6. The game is made within a modest budget. Bioware or its franchises is not well served by bloated production and marketing budgets (SW:TOR, I'm looking at you), given that their sales numbers generally can't compete with a lot of their competitors.

7. Aesthetics to complement the overall narrative ideas. In this, DA:O was amazing, but it was one of the things DA2 also did sort of right. Ideally, I'd like to see somewhat of a return to the gritty style of the first game, rather than the glossy sheen of the second, but that's just personal taste.

As for game mechanics, I couldn't care less. Just make it playable and without QTEs and I'll be fine.

I also have one unrealistic hope; that the game runs without EAs god damn Origins and doesn't have an always-online requirement. Of course, there's absolutely no hope of that. I'm prepared to be entirely unable to play the game for two weeks after launch.

 

[P.Tsunami]

I want Dragon Age 3 to be an RPG, not an action game with "RPG elements". I don't want auto-dialogue, I don't want pretend choices that end up with the same result except a different line of dialogue, I don't want my character to have their personality decided by the writers.

Yeah, also this.

 

[Chris Tian]

I suffered story collapse [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17745] after I sided with the mages and Orsino flipped out. Any immersion in the story shattered and I recalled the mind-bogglingly large number of instances where mages used blood magic or acted erratically or dangerously. As Uncle Comrade said, both sides were portrayed as crazy, but one side is trying to contain the crazy.

cut

Yeah we are on the same page here, the events with Meredith and Orsino at the end were the crap sherry on top of that mess of a story.
When that happend in my first playthrough i just got up and left the game for a few days, that was just to much.
I almost belive they might give an explanation for that along the lines "the veil is super thin in kirkwall because of the suffering of the slaves, and thats why everyone went batshit bonkers". Wich wouldn't be that bad, they could keep the conflict but tone down the crazy a thousand notches.

Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 are extremely similar in many ways in both how they work with mechanics, as well as the way the stories worked.

Sadly from what I have read by the developers on the Bioware forums (the last time I was there anyway), they are planning to continue in the same vein that they have in their last few games.

Could you elaborate both statements?
I'm not sure what you mean, i do not see too much similarity between ME3 and DA2. I had more the feeling DA2 tried to be like ME2.
And thus i'm not sure what you mean by "same vein".

I'm in the "my faith in Bioware has been thoroughly shaken" crowd, but I'm not dismissing DA3 out of hand. So, let's talk (realistic) hopes.

1. Well-written, likeable, interesting characters. Here's where Bioware really shines, in character development and dialogue. DA:O was a bit hit-and-miss on this, but gave me a decent bunch of characters I really enjoyed. DA2 was spectacularly awful, delivering a single character I didn't want to push off a cliff (the dwarf). I sincerely hope for a good character cast,

I think thats most definitely going to happen. the good cast i mean. But then again i liked DA2 cast for the most part so i am probably more optimistic than you in that regard.

3. A general focus on politics and intrigue. Orlais (where the game will be set) has been heavily forshadowed (and in the Leliana's Song DLC portrayed as) a web of intrigue and political games. I hope Bioware makes the best of this and lets me absolutely delve into this. I want to feel like a mastermind puppeteer, please.

Oh i don't hope for that, like you statet yourself a overly complex plot is not Biowares strong suit. And a focus on intrigue would kinda require that.

5. As much character customization as reasonably possible. I love The Sims. You know why I love The Sims? The insane amount of personal touches. I'd love to be able to essentially play dress up with my character.

I fear you might get disapointet here, unless you mean only for the main character. I already talked about the video, wich I can't find again sorry, i saw a while back where a Bioware guy talked about companion armors. He said that you could customize them a little, but your companions would always keep their distinctive look. It sounded a little like Shepards basic armorparts in ME2. Where you could exchange the breastplate etc. but the overall look would always be very similar.

 

[Frozengale]

Here's how to make DA3 a success

-Base combat off of DA2 combat and skill trees (except the endless waves of guys)

-Base character interaction off of DA1 interactions (I want to actually talk to my companions whenever)

-Have the story center around the conflict between Mages and Templars
* Don't have all Templars be A-holes
* Don't have blood magic ALWAYS lead to "NOW I'M INSANE AND GOING TO BE EVIL FOR NO GOOD REASON MWAHAHAHAHA" Did no one else remember that Jowan turned out alright despite Blood Magic? Also Merrill. And there is mention of several Blood Mages in the Grey Wardens.

-Have Side-quests that actually explore the Fade and the relationships between the Demons and Spirits. So far all we see is "I'M A SPIRIT OF GOOD! TALLY-HO WE MUST SAVE THE WORLD AND DO GOOD BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS SO GOOD!" and "I'M A DEMON I EAT BABIES AND CHEW ON THEIR BONES BECAUSE I'M EVIL! HAVE YOU REALIZED I'M EVIL YET OR DO YOU NEED ME TO HUMP YOUR MOTHER'S CORPSE WHILE BURNING KITTENS?! EVILLLLLLLLLL!"

- Better Companions. Here is a list of every companion I found boring or annoying : Sten, Alistair, Morrigan, Oghren, Wynne, Dog, Justice, Leliana (unless you play her DLC), Nathaniel, Velanna, Oghren (Awakening), Loghain, Anders (DA2), Carver, Fenris. So yeah like 80% of the companions suck. I'm sure Sebastian and Bethany suck but I never played with either of them. I'm not even going to touch on all the horrible temporary/DLC companions in Origins.

- Don't bring back all the horrible Micro from DA1. I know people like micromanagment in RPG's but seriously go play with a spreadsheet. I don't need to play dress up with my companions, especially when they each have unique and interesting costumes. I don't want to sit there and be all , "Well I could give them the Boots of Purple with + 2 Armor and -1 Speed OR I can give them the Boots of Green Vomit with + 1 Armor and + 1 Speed." Every friend that I have tried to get to play DA:O is immediately turned off by the annoyingly high amount of micromanagement (And these are people that play stuff like Starcraft a game all ABOUT micromanagement) If they make it so that I can choose my companions armor then make it be a choice between complete sets that fit that character (So I can have a heavy armor, a light armor, a medium armor and then variations on those that I can unlock or upgrade).

- Don't force me to be a Grey Warden again. I really hated the whole "YOU GREY WARDEN GO SAVE WORLD NOW KTHXBAI!" story.

- Have Companion Quests be more like DA2 rather then the boring ones in DA1. Also make more of them like Varric's. You know where I have an actual reason to give a crap about the quest since Varric's brother tried to kill me as well.

 

[Frozengale]

Double Post. Whoops.

 

[Sp3ratus]

While i was thinking about how i fought the small and big battles of DA2 i realized that you are right, even with a full damage setup there is quite some tactic and thinking involved, about wich character does what and how to spec them for that , its just different than in DA:O. And like I already admitted DA:O had a balancing issue (aka Arcane Warrior) too. So i guess my problems with DA2's combat came mostly from my mindset, i expectet DA:O like combat, and at first glance it looked like it, but felt "wrong".
I imagine this realization will make my next playthrough more entertaining.

On a aditional note: It's not that i didn't like the DA2 combat at all, I had lots of fun with it too.
So if you are interestet in the whole damage thing and maybe want to try it, here are the guides i based my favorite Hawkes on, they are both with additonal guides as to how to spec companions and setup tactics.

For the Force Mage/Blood Mage [http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/305/index/7126577]
And the Vanguard/Berserker/Reaver [http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/305/index/6616406]

Both guides are quite extensive wall of text, but if you just look at the skills of each, and the short description what companion does what, you might allready get the gist.

Thanks, man. I'll definitely check it out and try it out for my next playthrough, whenever that'll be. I'm glad I convinced you that DA2 is at least somewhat tactical, even if it's not to the same degree as you expected, going in.

Also, I think you'll enjoy the DLC. I saw you mentioning you bought it, but hadn't played it in another post. It addresses a lot of the problems people have with the vanilla game, such as additional areas to visit, not as much realiance on waves and so on. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, whenever you get around to play it.

 

[darlarosa]

I think that a lot of significance will be placed on things hinted at in DA:Legacy, and whether or not Hawke is viewed as a champion of the mages or Templars. Both the Grey Warden and Hawke vanish for unknown reasons, and most likely the game will deal with tracking them down and figuring out what role they play in the greater context of everything, and possibly working with them.

Well I just got all the DLC for Dragon Age 2 and haven't played them jet, so i have no idea what goes on in Legacy and Mark of the Assassin (no spoilers please ) and thus can't comment on that.
But unless what happens there is a lot more significant than everything else that happend during DA2, tracking down Hawke makes not much sense. I also never really got why Cassandra is searching for him either.
Thats my whole point, Hawke didn't do anything important, or was even caught up in anything major. He helped with the Qunari, thats it. So why would they need him/her for anything?

Well,I'm gonna be a total asshole and say well duh you don't know why Cassandra is looking for Hawke they never tell you because it's an obvious lead into the next game. They never explain anything so there was nothing to get. >_> sorry I can't not be an asshole at this moment.

But Legacy shows a connection between the Hawke bloodline and the Grey Wardens(not a spoiler).

 

[Imp_Emissary]

My hope for dragon age 3 is that my companions and I can have a conversation about...

Spoiler: THIS.

I kind of understand why they haven't let us talk about it yet, but they really should now in the next game.

Especially given what's going on in the game's world now.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

That it won't exist? Or at least that it'll just be a unique story in the setting instead of an actual sequel to anything from previous games.

 

[Raine_sage]

I have to admit I'm kind of not a fan of mages/templars just because I hate it when games make moral choice exclusively centered around an arbitrarily binary faction. I say arbitrary because both sides are right and wrong in different ways so I really can't feel invested in either.

I dunno maybe it's just my personal preference but I really hope they have the kinds of moral choices present in DAO, where the focus wasn't so much on which side was "right" as opposed to "There is a war happening, what lengths are you willing to go to in order to stop it?"

Each choice in that game was framed in terms of "What will help you win the war and do you think it's worth it?"
You were generally given partial information initially and later on the game would show you all of it and you could determine if you did the "right" thing or if you went too far. It was a nice exercise in not going off half cocked and taking everything at face value.

I'd like to see more of that in DA3, mages and templars if they must, but maybe with more of a focus on "when does necessary bleed over into extreme"

 

[Glaice]

It will probably be disappointing like DA2 was.