Dragon Age 3

[Kahunaburger]

At least with the unvoiced dialogue I could see the sentence my character would say and could see whether or not it would fit. With the dialogue wheel, not so much. Very little characterisation with the Nice/Joke/Asshole wheel.

Truth. The implementation of the dialogue wheel in Dragon Age 2 is awe-inspiringly bad. We get three personalities, each of which is equally nonsensical and insufferable both alone and in any combination.

Now, there are good defined/voiced protagonists in RPGs. Hawke is not one of them.

 

[endtherapture]

I don't think DA2 was a perfect game. But I played DA:O and... I couldn't finish it. The story felt scatter shot and the big bad guy never seemed like a actual threat beyond your character just feeling betrayed (I suppose) over his mentor being killed at the hands of some traitor general. A mentor we had no REAL time to get to know so as to feel it when he got, got. Personally I remember being underwhelmed with his death because I never really got any time to get to know him, it was like they just trusted you to like him because he was vaguely obi Wan Kenobi-ish so you could just put that character into him. HOWEVER when I killed Anders OH BUDDY did that decision turn my gut.

My point is in DA2 they took their time to let us get to know the places and characters much more then in DA:O where i never felt a connection with any character and other then the drunk dwarf with his marriage and Alistair with his strangely depressing humor. The rest I can't really remember their story lines or character arcs. So I worry because of this outcry I worry they're going to go back scatter shot story telling and uninspired characters.

Also because DA2 and ME2 and 3 I honestly cringe every time I hear the word streamlined. EA seems to think streamline means cut out every thing that isn't directly related to fighting. Sigh I wish there was a retake Bioware movement instead of Mass Effect.

I played a character that was just rude to Duncan the entire time he was alive. You're not really supposed to feel sad cos you don't know him, you just see how it affects Alistair. I did get angry at Loghain though, he was a brilliant villain. The villains in DA2 are there...I suppose, but just as shit gets good, they die. There was no actual threat or anything in DA2.

In DA you saw all your travelling companions change and grow over the course of like a year. DA2 was disjointed in it's time frame, and a lot more scatter-shot as you put it, because the characters were static and no one changed over the entire course of 10 years.

 

[Legion]

It's easier to say what I don't want really.

I don't want guards magically dropping from ceilings inside of mansions.
I don't want a choice of two endings that end up being identical.
I don't want a game rushed out of the door so fast that it's swamped with bugs.
I don't want characters that can die in previous games to be brought back "because the writers want them to" (Don't make them killable then, you tools).
I don't want to visit the same cave 6 times and the game pretending I have gone somewhere different.
I don't want to only be able to afford one decent item throughout the entire game.
I don't want companions to spend ten years wearing the same outfit, especially when it's impractical.
I don't want 'speak to your companion for their opinion on something' to be a side-quest. It's hand holding at it's worst.
I don't want every single love interest to be bisexual, just to make things easier for the writers (nothing wrong with gay, lesbian or by LI's, but a bit of variety adds to realism).
I don't want to be a mage in a city full of oppressive Templars and have nobody seem to bloody realise it, even when I use magic in front of them.
I don't want to be a mage siding with mages and for some bizarre reason have them all try to kill me despite my previous actions showing I support them.

Dragon Age 2 did do a lot of things right, but the above are the things that stand out for me as the poor choices.

- Keep the voiced main character, seriously. Having a mute player in a world full of people who will verbally spill their guts on a whim is jarring, stupid, lazy and unimmersive. There is simply no reason to not have it in this day and age and other bioware games have proved it can be done.

I'd like the voiced character more if they didn't keep on making them say things without prompting. An issue that never happens with unvoiced characters.

They also need the lines you choose from be what you actually say as opposed to 'summaries' as often they are completely different than from what the wording implies.

I do *like* Bioware's choices for their characters though, they are good at picking decent voice actors, I just can't stand it when they make them say things that are completely out of character for the character I have been playing. This doesn't happen in DA:O or Fallout etc.

 

[Scorpid]

I played a character that was just rude to Duncan the entire time he was alive. You're not really supposed to feel sad cos you don't know him, you just see how it affects Alistair. I did get angry at Loghain though, he was a brilliant villain. The villains in DA2 are there...I suppose, but just as shit gets good, they die. There was no actual threat or anything in DA2.

In DA you saw all your travelling companions change and grow over the course of like a year. DA2 was disjointed in it's time frame, and a lot more scatter-shot as you put it, because the characters were static and no one changed over the entire course of 10 years.

I disagree. I saw Meryl changed quiet alot from her starry eyed state where there was a solution for everything, till she realized that those solutions can have consequences worse then the problems they solved. Or perhaps Anders even. He went from standing by that spirit, for me till at the very end realizing how far it had taken him into extremism right before he got put down. OR our lovely guard lady who bemoaned her fate for the first act and then slowly, grade school style, fell in love again where before she thought that would never happen. OR Fenris goes from constant loner who believes his life is forfeit and he merely wishes to take as many with him before he goes to the point where he gets what he thought he never could and now is forced to realize that his nihilistic tendencies were not driven by "the man" but by himself alone. Isabelle was the only companion I disliked, I found her repulsive with her impulsive nature but I never really dug into her story and she left at the end of the 2nd act never to be seen again.

But what sold the game for me was the setting. So much conflict to tell a story and keeping the player confined to a single city to tell it I thought was brilliant idea. I watched the city change and became invested in it, till by the end when things go downhill I felt personally responsible in making sure that no one was left to threaten my beloved Kirkwall again. Something I never felt in Origins with it's entire continent.

The city was the story and that's why its abnormal way of telling three separate stories worked in my opinion. If it had been three separate stories in three separate cities then i would agree that it would have been unfocused, but the fact that you started to learn of people and faces of Kirkwall and how each of the acts effected them drew me in. But it's not a perfect game, the stream lining of the inventory did it no favors as well as the fact that they tried to reuse the same levels over and over again which is not excused by them keeping it to one city.

 

[RagTagBand]

- Keep the voiced main character, seriously. Having a mute player in a world full of people who will verbally spill their guts on a whim is jarring, stupid, lazy and unimmersive. There is simply no reason to not have it in this day and age and other bioware games have proved it can be done.

Eh, I found the dialogue wheel that was used with the voiced character completely unimmersive than anything else to be honest.

At least with the unvoiced dialogue I could see the sentence my character would say and could see whether or not it would fit. With the dialogue wheel, not so much. Very little characterisation with the Nice/Joke/Asshole wheel.

But that has nothing to do with the voiced character, thats a GUI issue...And i'm not sure how that's any less or more "Immersive"; Both ways are inherently unimmersive for underlining you're playing a game with set responses.

They could easily keep the DA:O "click these lines of text" options, rather than the wheel, but have a voiced character.

 

[Kahunaburger]

[
They could easily keep the DA:O "click these lines of text" options, rather than the wheel, but have a voiced character.

That would be better, because a dialogue wheel is apparently too much for Bioware to handle without shoehorning all dialogue into 2-3 categories, plus "investigate." The problem with a voiced protag is that it limits the possible range of protagonists in the game. One of the cool aspects of DA:O is that you could play anything from a human ex-noble to a dwarf outcast.

 

[Scorpid]

I am expecting it to be total crap, and I will wait about a week after its out before I go within 5 feet of it.

If its good, like DA:O, then I will pick it up.

I think the only good thing they could take from DA2 would be Varric.

Posh; a few manly chest hairs, and some well timed jokes, and you fall in love. There is far more good things in DA2 then Varric. Varric is a good character it's true however in the end lot more good then bad beyond him. Such vehemence to this game can only be attributed to the famed echo chamber effect of internet I suppose. Same thing that ME3 is getting, if we listen to the internet then the baby MUST be thrown out with the bath water.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Isabelle was the only companion I disliked, I found her repulsive with her impulsive nature but I never really dug into her story and she left at the end of the 2nd act never to be seen again.

Interesting. I actually played DA2 a lot with Isabelle, and she stuck around the entire game. I guess some choices in DA2 did matter.

 

[Scorpid]

Isabelle was the only companion I disliked, I found her repulsive with her impulsive nature but I never really dug into her story and she left at the end of the 2nd act never to be seen again.

Interesting. I actually played DA2 a lot with Isabelle, and she stuck around the entire game. I guess some choices in DA2 did matter.

Yeah I said I was going to rat on her to try and save Kirkwall and she fled like a chump.

 

[Pockydon]

DA:2's combat system, mixed with everything else from origins. That would be a near perfect game for me.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I guess some choices in DA2 did matter.

Unless retconned in DA3.

 

[Whimsi]

i want to see....nothing, absolutely nothing, well other than horrible failure, review and sales wise. ME3 ending spit in my face was last straw now i'm actively root against BW and everything they doing(was fan until ME3). i hope DA3 bomb so hard it will sink the whole company with their EA overlords.

This whole ending nonsense has baffled me. Everyone I've heard is saying "I have loved Bioware until this. Now they are shit!" So you're saying that Bioware is a horrible company that makes horrible games because of the ending of one game? Because that retroactively makes you enjoy their other games less?

Even giving you and the other naysayers the benefit of the doubt and saying that the ending to ME3 is shit (I haven't finished it yet, will weigh in when I do...but I can safely say that even if my game throws monkey feces through the screen at me, it will not change how much I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2...hell, the Baldur's Gates for God's sake), how does that make the rest of their game library, games you and many others profess to enjoy, shit retroactively? That makes no sense. My theory is that everyone is holding Bioware up to unreasonable standards because they make fantastic games, so every failure on their part looks infinitely worse than, say, Obsidian or even Bethesda (though after Skyrim, people will be unreasonably hard on them as well). When Bethesda made Oblivion, which seems to me by general consensus to be lackluster, people just wrote it off. But then they made Fallout 3 and everyone forgot how horrible their games could be. How about people be a little more reasonable and admit Bioware made a mistake, but have faith in the company they love, that made games that they love, and give them a chance to make it right?

Does a company have to be Nintendo or Sega, having hundreds and hundreds and thousands of games to their name before they're allowed the forgiveness due them after one failure? I swear, people are impossible.

Edit: I'm not saying a company should get a free ride, but I think the benefit of a doubt should be given once in awhile when a company has shown to have a significant amount of talent. Good devs are so hard to come by these days, but hey, let's shoot them when they don't please us.

I usually don't even look at who makes a game. If the game looks fun to me, I buy it. If it doesn't, I don't. If it disappoints me, I shrug and put it aside. If I enjoy it, I play it many times. The worst I will do is on a company like Squenix or Lionhead that has disappointed me multiple times, I will rent a game they make that looks enjoyable rather than spending money on it.

 

[Scorpid]

Indeed. Keep things in perspective. Bioware makes great games, name me one game that has gone to such scope as Mass Effect series has with such style and still hitting 9 out of 10 of their marks. Mass Effect is a true epic in scale and to say all of it is horrible because of a lazy ending is unfair to the series, the creators and really video games. Even when Bioware is at its worst it has so far still managed to stay well above average and is therefore far from terrible and only worthy of spite.

 

[Nieroshai]

I dunno what was up with Origins Sten, and the fact that Qunari look nothing like him, I just figuremaybe he's a half-breed? Or from a race the Qunari have conquered?

All the DA:O Qunari looked like that(not just Sten,) they just decided that they liked the other look better and despite DA2s obvious problems, I agree with them on that point. The Qunari as a whole were hugely improved.

Its kind of like how in the original Star Trek the Klingons looked like a race of space Puerto Ricans with crazy hair and then randomly got head ridges in TNG. Someone basically decided it looked better and retconned it.

I like the look better too, but it just bugs me how radically different they are. It is dialogue canon in Origins that Qunari are a race of giants, not half-ogres. If they're gonna go the Star Trek route, they should at least explain the retcon. Heck, a reason darkspawn went from uruk-hai to undead would be nice too.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Even giving you and the other naysayers the benefit of the doubt and saying that the ending to ME3 is shit (I haven't finished it yet, will weigh in when I do...but I can safely say that even if my game throws monkey feces through the screen at me, it will not change how much I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2...hell, the Baldur's Gates for God's sake), how does that make the rest of their game library, games you and many others profess to enjoy, shit retroactively? That makes no sense. My theory is that everyone is holding Bioware up to unreasonable standards because they make fantastic games, so every failure on their part looks infinitely worse than, say, Obsidian or even Bethesda (though after Skyrim, people will be unreasonably hard on them as well). When Bethesda made Oblivion, which seems to me by general consensus to be lackluster, people just wrote it off. But then they made Fallout 3 and everyone forgot how horrible their games could be. How about people be a little more reasonable and admit Bioware made a mistake, but have faith in the company they love, that made games that they love, and give them a chance to make it right?

Hey, man, I didn't forget how bad Bethesda games can be.

But on the subject of Bioware, I think there are a few reasons why people have such a strong negative reaction to them. These are true of me, and based on what I've seen I feel it's true of others.

1) There are aspects of their writing that are profoundly shitty. Whether it's cringeworthy lines, creepy sexism, re-used storylines, or lazy plotting, you can find things that are undeniably bad in most Bioware games. This is made worse by:

2) As you said, people have high standards for Bioware. There are things in their games that are actually well-written. While playing a Bioware game, you're constantly asking yourself why can't the whole game be like this?

3) Because of a combination of people leaving, being re-assigned, etc., the ratio of 1:2 seems to be increasing.

4) Both Bioware and EA are incompetent at PR. You've got things like David Gaider arguing with people on the Bioware forums, ME3 ending with a "lol, buy our DLC" screen after DLC controversy, and a variety of questionable business practices that have been discussed to death on this forum. This is mostly just funny to me, but it authentically pisses people off, particularly people that are invested in Bioware IPs.

 

[Arina Love]

i want to see....nothing, absolutely nothing, well other than horrible failure, review and sales wise. ME3 ending spit in my face was last straw now i'm actively root against BW and everything they doing(was fan until ME3). i hope DA3 bomb so hard it will sink the whole company with their EA overlords.

This whole ending nonsense has baffled me. Everyone I've heard is saying "I have loved Bioware until this. Now they are shit!" So you're saying that Bioware is a horrible company that makes horrible games because of the ending of one game? Because that retroactively makes you enjoy their other games less?

Even giving you and the other naysayers the benefit of the doubt and saying that the ending to ME3 is shit (I haven't finished it yet, will weigh in when I do...but I can safely say that even if my game throws monkey feces through the screen at me, it will not change how much I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2...hell, the Baldur's Gates for God's sake), how does that make the rest of their game library, games you and many others profess to enjoy, shit retroactively? That makes no sense. My theory is that everyone is holding Bioware up to unreasonable standards because they make fantastic games, so every failure on their part looks infinitely worse than, say, Obsidian or even Bethesda (though after Skyrim, people will be unreasonably hard on them as well). When Bethesda made Oblivion, which seems to me by general consensus to be lackluster, people just wrote it off. But then they made Fallout 3 and everyone forgot how horrible their games could be. How about people be a little more reasonable and admit Bioware made a mistake, but have faith in the company they love, that made games that they love, and give them a chance to make it right?

Does a company have to be Nintendo or Sega, having hundreds and hundreds and thousands of games to their name before they're allowed the forgiveness due them after one failure? I swear, people are impossible.

Edit: I'm not saying a company should get a free ride, but I think the benefit of a doubt should be given once in awhile when a company has shown to have a significant amount of talent. Good devs are so hard to come by these days, but hey, let's shoot them when they don't please us.

I usually don't even look at who makes a game. If the game looks fun to me, I buy it. If it doesn't, I don't. If it disappoints me, I shrug and put it aside. If I enjoy it, I play it many times. The worst I will do is on a company like Squenix or Lionhead that has disappointed me multiple times, I will rent a game they make that looks enjoyable rather than spending money on it.

ME3 was spit in my face and i will spit in theirs. ME 1 and 2 was my favourite games of all time, and i will hold grudge for ME3 for as long as i live. For me all Bioware games from here on out is POS not worth even half-price. i don't care about redemptions and benefit of a doubt. Taken more time they could have made ME3 a good game and good story instead they just made a moneygrab with shit ending. I'm done with bioware and your preaching will not convert me.
It's all about revenge not rationality.

 

[BuddhaGeek]

I WANT to have faith that Dragon Age III will be good but after Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2, my faith in Bioware is pretty much shot...

 

[MrGseff]

I basically want something along the lines of 'improvements on DA:O' this includes improved graphics, a better combat system that isnt a hack and slash and also a storyline that actually makes the decisions you make matter. Also actually multiple endings... none of that idiotic endings of Dragon Age 2 where your choices made no different outcome whatsoever.