EA Explains Why Dragon Age: Inquisition Isn't Dragon Age III
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
The truth of the matter is, calling it Dragon Age III would be to closely linking it with Dragon age II. They hope that by naming it Dragon Age: Inquisition they can possibly tie it to Origins some how or at leave avoid the direct association with DA2 it would have if they called it DA3.TWEWYFan said:
Yes EA, let us worry about the name and numbers that go on the effing box and not the things that really dug into my sides about the second title. More copy-paste dungeons and increasingly watered-down rpg elements ... yay ...
It's... a name...
Annoyingly and depressingly, they probably did take a good while to come with this decision. On the other hand, if they gave this much thought to the rest of the game...chiefohara said:
Indeed and that is my hope. Dragon Age 2 had one year of development. That was ridiculous, and the overused textures in all locations and the unnecessary hundreds of waves of always-the-same enemies (of which not a single one was any different from enemies on the previous game, except for the new Qunari and darkspawn models, the Final Boss and DLC enemies) for blatant padding was proof of that.Malisteen said:
I hope, cautiously, but I hope they learned.
Call me crazy (no, seriously, do it, I like it) but this tendency to avoid numbers in the title feels like stores who permanently keep up the "Grand Opening" banner, an attempt to pass something as fresh and new and shiny, even when it is part of a longstanding franchise, so newcomers are suckered into thinking that there's no backstory to pay attention to.
Or worse, reboot after reboot meant to erase past installments from memory so people keep buying the new one, even if it is of lower quality, or, worse, a re-thread of previous formulas.
Regarding marketing techniques that become increasingly obnoxious: Watch on YouTube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1gv9EXqRHA]
Or worse, reboot after reboot meant to erase past installments from memory so people keep buying the new one, even if it is of lower quality, or, worse, a re-thread of previous formulas.
Regarding marketing techniques that become increasingly obnoxious: Watch on YouTube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1gv9EXqRHA]
"Don't let anyone know we're trying to milk the trilogy structure for all it's worth!"TWEWYFan said:
Between this change and the comment on DA:I and ME4 sharing the same engine, I am really starting to think that Bioware has jumped the shark and gone full retard.
I remember people getting upset DA2 wasn't subtitled, now people are going to get upset the next game isn't numbered, and will follow the patten of every other title in the setting.
Do some people just want to be angry, or a, I reading too much into this? Likely a bit of both.
Do some people just want to be angry, or a, I reading too much into this? Likely a bit of both.
I know this is a really, really petty complaint, and I'm still going to get DA:I, but am I the only one who thought the noses on all the characters (other than Morrigan) looked terrible? Seriously, they were big and chunky... it was weird. I don't know why, but it seems to be some kind of tradition that with every new Bioware game, the character noses look worse. Mass Effect 3 was especially notable for not having a single nose that didn't have something wrong with it in the character creation menu (particularly for poor Sheploo). Actually, default Shep's nose didn't look too bad, but it was mysteriously absent from the custom face menu. Ok, I'll stop talking about noses now...
OT- I think it would have helped (minutely) DA2's case if they had given it a subtitled name (just of the top of my head, Dragon Age: Champion) instead of just a number (without even a subtitle). The flat number just served to highlight what a rushed sequel it was, and while I still think it was a really good game, I can't argue that it wouldn't have benefited significantly from more development time (something they seem to be keenly aware of with Inquisition). Basically, these were two different (mostly unrelated) stories told in the world of Thedas, which is great, but you need to make it clear that's what you're going for, which they seem to have realized. I'm cool with them dropping the number. At least they didn't name it Dragon Age: One, that would have just been dumb.
OT- I think it would have helped (minutely) DA2's case if they had given it a subtitled name (just of the top of my head, Dragon Age: Champion) instead of just a number (without even a subtitle). The flat number just served to highlight what a rushed sequel it was, and while I still think it was a really good game, I can't argue that it wouldn't have benefited significantly from more development time (something they seem to be keenly aware of with Inquisition). Basically, these were two different (mostly unrelated) stories told in the world of Thedas, which is great, but you need to make it clear that's what you're going for, which they seem to have realized. I'm cool with them dropping the number. At least they didn't name it Dragon Age: One, that would have just been dumb.
There are only two possible scenarios in which I would even care about DA:I. 1) Morrigan is not in it AT ALL 2) I can kill her off in like the first 5 minutes, or so. I might be fine, if 3) Flemeth has taken her over finally.
DA:I? More like DA:Fanservice. "The players liked the sideboob? OK, let's make our most incoherent character into a plot driving element." *sigh*
DA:I? More like DA:Fanservice. "The players liked the sideboob? OK, let's make our most incoherent character into a plot driving element." *sigh*
I actually like that they are doing this. While it was all definitely connected, I felt like Origins and 2 were their own separate stories of a much larger world. The only thing I'm even remotely miffed about now is that DA2 is just...DA2 with no subtitle. It didn't bother me, but after having this have no III in it, just kinda makes 2 stand out even more. Its nothing to get riled up about, but it just makes me wish it was different.
On the other hand, it does sort of seem like they are trying to distance themselves from 2 (which I found to be more enjoyable that Origins, but its still a pretty sub par Bioware game). Well whatever the reason, its just a name.
On the other hand, it does sort of seem like they are trying to distance themselves from 2 (which I found to be more enjoyable that Origins, but its still a pretty sub par Bioware game). Well whatever the reason, its just a name.
I got a bad feeling about this. Dropping the 'III' means that they are trying to cut links to DA:O and DAII, which enables them to handwave away having to deal with importing save game decisions from the previous games. I expect a lot of our choices in the two previous games are going to be ignored with the excuse that 'that's for the REAL DAIII'.
This would make sense if they didn't already talk about save importing.Tien Shen said:
OT: I have no issue with this. It distances it from II and it establishes itself as it's own thing. My main issue with two is it's rushed nature, they don't seem to be doing that this time, with it slated to come out after just under 4 years of development.
