Things you'd like to see in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I'm not sure if you're praising Hudson, or condemning him, but here's where I heard that it was mostly his fault that the ending was shite.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

Yes, the ending was cut short, but they could've still thought up something better instead of "God Child"

I'm condemning mate. Thanks for the link, it seems as if Casey got stuck too much up his own backside.

I've seen the ending on Youtube, but the game itself was so bad I couldn't bring myself to get anywhere near finishing it. The "Deeper RPG system" quote is what baffled me, as they essentially turned the game into an "interactive" movie, and I use that term very loosely.

Ah, my apologies then, I just got back from a day's worth of revision at my school, so I am exhausted(also it doesn't help that both the subject and the lessons themselves are dull as hell).

 

[Terminal Blue]

1) Systematically disregard the opinions of anyone simply wanting a remake of Origins.

2) Take the actual good bits from Origins. Things like the expansive area design, non-random encounters, cohesive story and semi-meaningful choices, character customization, enemies with reasonable health and combat having actual weight.

2) Take the good bits from Dragon Age 2. Things like RPG elements which aren't broken to hell, limited healing, a semi intuitive class system, character arcs which aren't entirely player initiated, recurring background characters and stories which focus on the politics and lore of the actual world rather rather than generic fantasy 101.

3) Mash them together into a big ball of awesome and fun.

4) Innovate on the above. Add something new which you think would be cool, something which isn't simply retreading previous games but which actually moves the franchise forward.

Bioware has, in my opinion, become far too fixated on pleasing everyone. Sadly, much of their core fanbase seems to be composed of insane foaming neckbeards who think 4th edition D&D is out to kill them and their family. Meanwhile, EA wants them to appeal to some stereotypical "average gamer" marketing construct whose only evidence for existing is that someone has to be buying all those modern shooters. It's not going to work. You're going to need to piss someone off, and frankly I don't care who it is provided the resulting game is flavored something other than wallpaper paste.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

After seeing their E3 trailer my biggest concern is the main storyline. I really wish for something well written, interesting and coherent, but seeing Morrigan and the Qunari in the trailer put a huge dent into that hope.

They have to many big threats/possible storylines now: Morrigan plus her old god child, the Qunari and the mage vs. tepmlar war.
The way Biowares writing was in the past few games I just can't see them tying all that togehter properly.

So I want to see them succeed at that despite my doubts.

And balanced combat. I don't care if action or tactical, but for the love of Andraste balance it and don't try to mix both so poorly again.

They aren't making a canonical decision on the god child. I'm fairly sure Gaidar has came out and said that.

Captcha: taco tuesday
Always having fun without me.

What exactly will that mean? That it will not play a greater role?

I thought they dont care at all for your decisions, didn't the book "Asunder" made several things canon despite that those things could be different depending on your choices throughout DA:O?

But the OGB was the major decision at the end of the game. They also danced around Hawke's decision on who to side with in Asunder.

I'm still not clear what you think that ("They aren't making a canonical decision on the god child.") will mean for the story.

They didn't make the big decision at the end of Mass Effect 2 canon either, it just had exactly zero impact on the events of Mass Effect 3.

I totally expect our descicion regarding the OGB to impact at most one line of dialouge, which will either be "It's the Warden's" / "It's Alistair's" / "It's randomorlesianwarden's" respectively.

There was no baby for me. :|
That is what I'm talking about. Origins was a standalone game. That is the problem. It really isn't suited for sequels. There are just too many choices.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

If the combat is anything like DA2, I'm not getting it. I wish they'd make it more flexible, more loose, less like a PC game. Then I'd check it out. You can always include an option for automatic combat, where you decide which moves will be made beforehand. For me, I want gritty, hands on combat. Not button mashing. Gritty, intelligent, combat that YOU control.

Dragon Age isn't for you then. It was specifically designed to be like the old school PC games of old - like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale etc. The point of Dragon Age is that it's not supposed to be another crappy action-RPG.

I certainly don't want another crappy action RPG. I didn't say that, I said, Gritty, intelligent combat that you control.

Now...this Bauldur's Gate...you said PC exclusive...so you can't be talking about Dark Alliance for PS2 no?
I have Dark Alliance 1 and 2 for PS2 and both are pretty solid games.

You must have hated Dragon Age 2.

Well why did you say it should be less like a PC game? Dragon Age combat was designed to be like Baldur's Gate. Not the consoles Baldur's Gate which were action-RPGs but the PC exclusive Baldur's Gate which were tactical, RTS style RPGS.

I did hate Dragon Age 2 for a myriad of reasons.

I said that b/c I'm hopelessly old school. I like action where it doesn't feel like you're stuck to the middle of the screen. To lay my cards out, I'm not much of a PC gamer. Vindictus looks super good though...except I've heard bad things about the Nexus support online so oh well.

Do tell about DA2...I beat it and all, but I didn't keep it. Sold it back. I mean...it was a decent game but I think it could have been done better. I think a lot of folks were pissed b/c of the combat, especially if you played the demo first (like I did).

 

[endtherapture]

If the combat is anything like DA2, I'm not getting it. I wish they'd make it more flexible, more loose, less like a PC game. Then I'd check it out. You can always include an option for automatic combat, where you decide which moves will be made beforehand. For me, I want gritty, hands on combat. Not button mashing. Gritty, intelligent, combat that YOU control.

Dragon Age isn't for you then. It was specifically designed to be like the old school PC games of old - like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale etc. The point of Dragon Age is that it's not supposed to be another crappy action-RPG.

I certainly don't want another crappy action RPG. I didn't say that, I said, Gritty, intelligent combat that you control.

Now...this Bauldur's Gate...you said PC exclusive...so you can't be talking about Dark Alliance for PS2 no?
I have Dark Alliance 1 and 2 for PS2 and both are pretty solid games.

You must have hated Dragon Age 2.

Well why did you say it should be less like a PC game? Dragon Age combat was designed to be like Baldur's Gate. Not the consoles Baldur's Gate which were action-RPGs but the PC exclusive Baldur's Gate which were tactical, RTS style RPGS.

I did hate Dragon Age 2 for a myriad of reasons.

I said that b/c I'm hopelessly old school. I like action where it doesn't feel like you're stuck to the middle of the screen. To lay my cards out, I'm not much of a PC gamer. Vindictus looks super good though...except I've heard bad things about the Nexus support online so oh well.

Do tell about DA2...I beat it and all, but I didn't keep it. Sold it back. I mean...it was a decent game but I think it could have been done better. I think a lot of folks were pissed b/c of the combat, especially if you played the demo first (like I did).

Well the combat of Baldur's Gate is very old school, so I'm not sure what you want this game to be - a side scrolling fighter? The Legend of Zelda? Final Fantasy? It's not any of those things and it's not supposed to be.

The combat was okay in DA2 but it was very tedious and the wave based system sucked. My main problems in DA2 came from the awful story, cliched characters, ugly graphics and utterly horrible environment and level design.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

If the combat is anything like DA2, I'm not getting it. I wish they'd make it more flexible, more loose, less like a PC game. Then I'd check it out. You can always include an option for automatic combat, where you decide which moves will be made beforehand. For me, I want gritty, hands on combat. Not button mashing. Gritty, intelligent, combat that YOU control.

Dragon Age isn't for you then. It was specifically designed to be like the old school PC games of old - like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale etc. The point of Dragon Age is that it's not supposed to be another crappy action-RPG.

I certainly don't want another crappy action RPG. I didn't say that, I said, Gritty, intelligent combat that you control.

Now...this Bauldur's Gate...you said PC exclusive...so you can't be talking about Dark Alliance for PS2 no?
I have Dark Alliance 1 and 2 for PS2 and both are pretty solid games.

You must have hated Dragon Age 2.

Well why did you say it should be less like a PC game? Dragon Age combat was designed to be like Baldur's Gate. Not the consoles Baldur's Gate which were action-RPGs but the PC exclusive Baldur's Gate which were tactical, RTS style RPGS.

I did hate Dragon Age 2 for a myriad of reasons.

I said that b/c I'm hopelessly old school. I like action where it doesn't feel like you're stuck to the middle of the screen. To lay my cards out, I'm not much of a PC gamer. Vindictus looks super good though...except I've heard bad things about the Nexus support online so oh well.

Do tell about DA2...I beat it and all, but I didn't keep it. Sold it back. I mean...it was a decent game but I think it could have been done better. I think a lot of folks were pissed b/c of the combat, especially if you played the demo first (like I did).

Well the combat of Baldur's Gate is very old school, so I'm not sure what you want this game to be - a side scrolling fighter? The Legend of Zelda? Final Fantasy? It's not any of those things and it's not supposed to be.

The combat was okay in DA2 but it was very tedious and the wave based system sucked. My main problems in DA2 came from the awful story, cliched characters, ugly graphics and utterly horrible environment and level design.

I hear you with DA2. Tedious is a good word, and the combat could have been better like way better, like Vindictus. This is what I'm talking about. I want this game to come to consoles!


If people think that this kind of gameplay is worn out, then I guess I'm too old. Of course all games can't be this, but I think in 2013 there should be no excuse for terrible to mediocre combat. All action RPG's should have kick ass combat. Heck, by now we should be having games with solid everything, but I'm "preaching to the choir" as the saying goes.

 

[infohippie]

No "awesome button" and dump the shitty DA2 combat system. In fact, dump anything remotely related to DA2, pretend that DA2 never existed, and carry on from DA Origins.

 

[Lictor Face]

Make sure it is just Dragon Age 1 and expand on it and add more content ( new weapons, party members, enemies, locations etc )

Do NOT change the working formula that our dear buddies at EA gladly did for us ( Dragon age two makes me weep )

 

[Chris Tian]

There was no baby for me. :|
That is what I'm talking about. Origins was a standalone game. That is the problem. It really isn't suited for sequels. There are just too many choices.

Ah, okay now I get it. Well, in my scenario you would get the: "It's the child of a random Orleisian Warden" dialogue line.
I have a hard time imagining how they will bring back Morrigan without something cheap like that, to bring all possible choices of DA:O to the same outcome.

I mean she can't just appear and say: "Oh well, that thing with the god baby I foreshadowed like mad at the end of the Blight an during my encounter with The Warden after that, didn't turn out like planned. I left it in this mysterious unkown dimension/plane of existence, to wich I traveled through the Eluvian." to every Character that imported a save with the Old God Child.

(btw, your Avatar makes everything you write "sound" so sad)

Even without the Child, they still have Mage vs. Templar war-, Qunari threat-, and Darkspawn-storylines.

I don't get why Bioware brings in so many open storylines. They should have learned that tying together several big plotpoints is not their strong suit at the moment. We saw that in Dragon Age 2 main storys, which were an incoherent mess with almost no connection to each other. We saw that in Mass Effect 2, which seems to have very little connection or impact on Mass Effect as a trilogy, and we saw that in ME 3, in which somehow Cerberus became the main bad guy during the effing Reaperwar.

After Dragon Age 2, without Legacy, they would just have had Mage vs. Templar and Qunari, as major threat for the third game and the Qunari not even all that much, since the attack on Kirkwall seemed to be an isolated incident. The Darkspawn were defeated as a immideate threat during the first game, Morrigan left for some unkown dimension, "even beyond the Fade" so that storyline could easily slumber until a later game.

So why didn't they just go with this, they would have had plenty of material for Dragon Age: Inquisition and even two more games after that. All without the trouble of having to bring to many, until now, unrelated storylines together.

Oh boy that just became much more of a wall of text than I had planned.

TL;DR The trailer looks like Bioware heads into Dragon Age: Inquisition, trying to tie to many storylines together. I really want them to pull that off, but I wouldn't call myself hopefull.

 

[endtherapture]

I hear you with DA2. Tedious is a good word, and the combat could have been better like way better, like Vindictus. This is what I'm talking about. I want this game to come to consoles!


If people think that this kind of gameplay is worn out, then I guess I'm too old. Of course all games can't be this, but I think in 2013 there should be no excuse for terrible to mediocre combat. All action RPG's should have kick ass combat. Heck, by now we should be having games with solid everything, but I'm "preaching to the choir" as the saying goes.

You want the combat in Dragon Age to be something it's not supposed to be. The game series was originally designed to be a return to the top-down, old school RPG games of old. As I've said multiple times now, Dragon Age is not an action RPG, should not have action-RPG combat, and you're clearly not the target audience and posting suggestions on what the combat should be like isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

[Bat Vader]

I would like to see Oghren back in the game as well as Oghren being a romance option too. I want to be able to have conversations anywhere like in Dragon Age: Origins.

 

[gibboss28]

Oh... And Varric as a love interest.

You can't handle the chest hair.

Anywho

My want is simple.

Get rid of that stupid fucking conversation wheel. Shove your good/bad/sarky options up your ass and give me more dialogue options to pick from. It got really annoying in DA2 when you would pick one of the only three options available because it sounded like something your character would say, and then when he/she spoke it didn't actually seem to relate to the option you picked.
No fucking thank you.

Also, a non voiced character in conversations would be nice, because that was probably the reason why that stupid conversation wheel with three word options came into existence.

 

[Texas Joker 52]

You can't handle the chest hair.

Oh, I'm betting my Female Inquisitor could handle his chest hair, and manage to convince Bianca to share.

Though, my Male character would be more interested in, say, a Qunari girl.

Spoiler: It is a shame we haven't seen a Qunari woman in-game yet. But...

They are pretty, in the concept art at least.

 

[Chris Tian]

However, we also see the Arishock & Cassandra Pentaghast in the trailer - so 3 of the 4 main characters in it are directly tied in with DA:2. That gives me the message that Bioware haven't learnt a thing, will heavily involve DA:2, and that they will right royally fuck this up like they have DA:2, ME:3 and to a lesser extent ME:2 too.

Considering the fact that The Witcher 3 is out around the same time, i know what I'll be saving my money for.

It can't be the Arishok, I killed that mofo in this maddening, unbalanced crapfest of a duel, if they revive him I will find out whos decision that was and show them a few cool moves that involve breaking limbs in ways that don't heal properly.

And deciding between the game thats the sequel to the best recent RPG and which has trailers that look awesome and show lots of gameplay and the seuqel to the most disappointing recent RPG, which has one short pure CGI trailer that was most likely not even done by the Devs themselves. I cant even find a metaphor for how easy that decision is for me....

OPTIONS YOU FUCKERS. If I wanted a healer in DA2 I was stuck with that amazingly retarded fuck Anders, or being a mage myself. Let me train my companions how I want, maybe give them some special things if they go along the "proper" line of advance, but dont fuck me over if I dont want to drag around the most drooling idiot in the story.

110% that. How could they make the most annoying NPC story/character wise, and the most important npc for 90% of party setups gameplay wise, the same f*cking guy.
And that you had basically only one option for wich party-role a npc could fill annoyed me like hell too. Even Hawke had very very limited "usefull" options, spec-wise.

Combat, Balance DA2 and DAO combat, DA2 was aimed too much at teenage methheads that need something AWESHUM to happen every 2 seconds, DA:O was a bit slow, and for the love of fuck do not put in waves that make tactics meaningless when they jump literally out of mid air into combat.

I would prefer they would decide for either action or tactical party combat and then do that properly. DA2's combat is basically a mix from both of these and thats what dragged it down for me. Its so fast that you have to pause every two seconds to issue orders to your companions, because if you leave them to their "tactics" they will just kill each other and/or themselfs with FF, that kills the "action-feeling". And that the only valid tactic is "kill everything as fast as it pops up" really limits the "tactic-feeling".

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

There was no baby for me. :|
That is what I'm talking about. Origins was a standalone game. That is the problem. It really isn't suited for sequels. There are just too many choices.

Ah, okay now I get it. Well, in my scenario you would get the: "It's the child of a random Orleisian Warden" dialogue line.
I have a hard time imagining how they will bring back Morrigan without something cheap like that, to bring all possible choices of DA:O to the same outcome.

I mean she can't just appear and say: "Oh well, that thing with the god baby I foreshadowed like mad at the end of the Blight an during my encounter with The Warden after that, didn't turn out like planned. I left it in this mysterious unkown dimension/plane of existence, to wich I traveled through the Eluvian." to every Character that imported a save with the Old God Child.

(btw, your Avatar makes everything you write "sound" so sad)

Even without the Child, they still have Mage vs. Templar war-, Qunari threat-, and Darkspawn-storylines.

I don't get why Bioware brings in so many open storylines. They should have learned that tying together several big plotpoints is not their strong suit at the moment. We saw that in Dragon Age 2 main storys, which were an incoherent mess with almost no connection to each other. We saw that in Mass Effect 2, which seems to have very little connection or impact on Mass Effect as a trilogy, and we saw that in ME 3, in which somehow Cerberus became the main bad guy during the effing Reaperwar.

After Dragon Age 2, without Legacy, they would just have had Mage vs. Templar and Qunari, as major threat for the third game and the Qunari not even all that much, since the attack on Kirkwall seemed to be an isolated incident. The Darkspawn were defeated as a immideate threat during the first game, Morrigan left for some unkown dimension, "even beyond the Fade" so that storyline could easily slumber until a later game.

So why didn't they just go with this, they would have had plenty of material for Dragon Age: Inquisition and even two more games after that. All without the trouble of having to bring to many, until now, unrelated storylines together.

Oh boy that just became much more of a wall of text than I had planned.

TL;DR The trailer looks like Bioware heads into Dragon Age: Inquisition, trying to tie to many storylines together. I really want them to pull that off, but I wouldn't call myself hopefull.

I think it is because they don't have an overarching plan when they make these games. They were obviously making it up as they went along with Mass Effect and it is clear that Origins wasn't meant to be connected to any other Dragon Age game.Then they decided to try to cash in on the Dragon Age brand by calling their second game 2. So they threw in some references and made some cameos. The big problem is that they gave you two big choices at the end of each game. They have three ways to handle those. Make them meaningless like you suggested, make one canonical over the other, or incorporate the branching paths in a meaningful way. One and two are easy, but are going to piss people off. Three isn't very realistic. Now for the third game they have kind of written themselves into a corner. They created the expectation that Inquisition should tie together the first and second game. I don't think they can do it either. I'm not getting it until it hits the bargain bin, personally. And "buzz kill" Pinkie Pie just fits most of my posts right now.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Honestly? Personally? Take out everything you added for DA2. Put back everything you removed from DA:O.

I didn't like the voiced protagonist. I didn't like the limited character creation. I didn't like the time-traveling narrative. I didn't like the super saiyan combat. I didn't like the anime-inspired character designs. I didn't like the enemy roof ninja spawns. I didn't like the linear, narrow, reused dungeons. I didn't like the focus on one bizarrely sparse and ugly city. I didn't like the way your decisions and alliances had little or no impact on dialogue, events, or the end game.

DA2 = about a dozen steps backwards for the franchise. Anything that makes DA3 more like the first game and less like the second is good.

 

[Chris Tian]

I think it is because they don't have an overarching plan when they make these games. They were obviously making it up as they went along with Mass Effect and it is clear that Origins wasn't meant to be connected to any other Dragon Age game.Then they decided to try to cash in on the Dragon Age brand by calling their second game 2. So they threw in some references and made some cameos. The big problem is that they gave you two big choices at the end of each game. They have three ways to handle those. Make them meaningless like you suggested, make one canonical over the other, or incorporate the branching paths in a meaningful way. One and two are easy, but are going to piss people off. Three isn't very realistic. Now for the third game they have kind of written themselves into a corner. They created the expectation that Inquisition should tie together the first and second game. I don't think they can do it either. I'm not getting it until it hits the bargain bin, personally. And "buzz kill" Pinkie Pie just fits most of my posts right now.

I think you hit the nail on the head with "they make it up as they go". Thats exactly the feeling I got from their recent overarching storys as well. That's why I hoped they would try to keep it as simple as possible.

I for one did not expect DA3 to tie the first two together. I totally expected a game that would have the Mage-Templar War as a single main story, untill I played the Legacy DLC.

And the main choice at the end of DA2 doesn't make any difference I think. It always comes down to "everyone goes crazy" and Hawke kills the leaders of both factions. And since Hawke is a totally passive Lord/Lady of Fail who never makes any difference at all, I don't think it matters even a little who he/she actually sided with.

I don't even get why the Seeker is trying to find out where he/she went during the framing story of DA2.