Frostbite 2 engine and Dragon Age 3

[Templarixx]

I am extremely excited about DA 3 because it is supposed to have co-op, but this just helps to add excitement.

why would they put coop in Dragon Age?

Why wouldn't they? It would only add more sales and the game would most likely receive higher ratings for including co-op. Many critics seem to vote down when a game doesn't have a co-op and the critic feels it should.

Co-op could be fun, the second player doesn't make choices and imo, if you find a good friend, they probably wouldn't care and would just like to enjoy being able to play co-op.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[WickedSkin]

Maybe they should have the guys from DICE work with Bioware on that one.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Inb4 the art style stays shitty, but just uses shinier graphics.

Seriously, before I actually get excited about DA3, I'd want to know if it's going to suck or not. As in mobs of enemies respawning around my party, or every character being a dark whiny *****, or all the dungeons looking the same. THAT is what needed changing, not the graphics.

I'm taking this news and the fact that EA is committed only to games with MP now to mean that DA3 is going to suck balls, since more attention will be dedicated to the graphical face-lift and the multiplayer component than what actually matters in an RPG: story, characters, campain pacing, and engaging and balanced combat.

Skyrim missed on four of those. Yet it's still considered a good RPG. And even as far as characters it kind of errs. There are a few good ones, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Random Argument Man]

So does this mean DA3 will be a FPS? Anyone??

Did you seriously asked this question or are you just trolling?

Not trolling. Just not sure what to expect with a new engine. Wiki says it has destruction mechanics and has been used for a number of FPS. I'm only familiar with Unreal. I was hoping by learning more about the engine that runs the game to figure out what the game may look like or play. That's all.

Sheesh, knowing that I would've saved myself a lot of trouble and not creating a debate with two other guys...which one told me he was cool-headed but started to get emotionnal when that other guy responded....

Anyhow, I've spoken my piece. Glad everything is more clarified to me.

 

[Korten12]

I am extremely excited about DA 3 because it is supposed to have co-op, but this just helps to add excitement.

why would they put coop in Dragon Age?

Why wouldn't they? It would only add more sales and the game would most likely receive higher ratings for including co-op. Many critics seem to vote down when a game doesn't have a co-op and the critic feels it should.

Co-op could be fun, the second player doesn't make choices and imo, if you find a good friend, they probably wouldn't care and would just like to enjoy being able to play co-op.

Couldn't agree with you more.

People always say: "Well my friends won't want to sit through the chatting sections"

But that's not all friends. I know one of my friend who normally just watches would love to play even if he couldn't make choices and such.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Bullshit. Where's modern gaming's answer to the Infinity Engine series, Monkey Island, Chrono Trigger, Prince of Persia, Sid Meyer's Civilization 3, Mech Warrior, Resident Evil, C&C Red Alert, Duke Nukem 3D, Dungeon Keeper, Populous, Total Anihilation, StarCraft, Warcraft, Grim Fandanngo? And that's just off the top of my head.

The decline in quality of gaming is especially noticeable in the RPG and Shooter genre. How do you go from Half Life, Doom, P:T and BG to the current trend of copying whatever CoD does and calling it a day?

Dude, did you forget that there were so many clones of Doom that the word "doom clone" became its own genre? There were more "Doom clones" then there have been CoD clones, if only because games back then were so cheap to make compared to today.

As for good modern day shooters: Bioshock, STALKER, The Half-Life/Portal metaseries, TF2, Borderlands, CS:GO Just to name a handful, and lets not forget other games in different genres such as The Witcher, Dark/Demon souls, Amnesia, just off of the top of my head.

As for how we get from Doom to CoD..... its easy..... instead of making games who had little to no story, and whose maps were basically giant mazes that send you looking for cardkeys just so you could get into another room of enemies who had little to no justification for exciting beyond "they exist for you to kill them", game makers started to focus more on plot, and giving your actions some sort of meaning.

As I've told you before, whilst making money was a goal it wasn't the primary goal. Developers were more concerned with creating a great game than making the next multi million dollar "success" story.

Remember, back then budgets were fairly small. It's funny how, even with the hardware, software and budget limitations at the time developers still managed to create amazing games whereas today we've got games with a budget of upwards to three hundred million dollars that are nothing more than rehashes or attempts at copying whatever the FOTM is.

You mean like how back in the day there were tons of doom clones, and BG clones, copying those games which were the FOTM back then?

Also, having a more limited budget, only means that game devs focused more on how to conserve their budget, so they could make as much profit as possible.

Morrowind was a game about exploration. You were basically left to your own devices for the majority of the story. I don't remember caves being as repetitive as you describe them, in fact they were usually complex and filled with goodies. I think you're confusing Morrowind with Skyrim here. The only legimitimate complaint against it would be the combat system which was indeed shitty.

Actually, no, I am defiantly thinking of Morrowind.

Most of the caves and ruins were pretty linear, and the NPCs were mostly dead NPCs that walked back and forth between two places and had the same generic dialog as everyone else.

If anything skyrim's dungeons have more diversity then Morrowind's and skyrim's NPCs, instead of walking between two points over and over, walk between 5-6 points over and over, and have their own dialog.

I would defiantly say that in terms of dungeons, and the vast majority of NPCs, Skyrim has IMPROVED over Morrowind.

I disagree. I found Morrowind to be a much more complex and engaging experience than any of the other Elder Scrolls. You just need the right mindset to play it. Some people might not enjoy it's style and that's fine because there were games back then that catered to their needs as well.

Lol, the right mindset...... that's rich.

I love games that give you free exploration of everything, which is why I prefer skyrim over Morrowind, because exploring was far better, and far more rewarding.

No, the difference between post DA:O and pre DA:O is EA. They basically shat on Bioware and the Bioware label. The "change in audience" as you put it oversimplifies the impact EA had on Bioware. Bioware became a division of EA immediately after the purchase happened. Post 2008 there was no Bioware, just EA masquerading as it.

And who are you to determine what "real" Bioware is? ohh right..... no one.

There is a noticeable difference between the complexity of, say, Mass Effect, which was a simple game to begin with, and Mass Effect 2. I have no problem appealing to a different audience. The thing is, EA didn't try to appeal to a different audience, they basically just gutted everything that made Bioware games great in the past and hoped for the best.

Yes there was a noticeable difference between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2

Mass effect 2 had
-A far better skill system
-Shooter mechanics that worked instead of the "I can stand in one spot and never die" mechanics ME1 had.
-A cover system that WORKED
-Considerably less repetitive, and far more detailed, locations
amongst other things

Is that why EA marketted ME2 as a hardcore RPG for the RPG crowd whilst omitting the fact that it was basically a badly made TPS? The same thing happened with Dragon Age 2. Also, what possible audience could EA be targetting the new casual Bioware games at? The casual crowd doesn't care, they're looking for something that you can just pick up, play for a few minutes then stop. The hardcore crowd certainly doesn't care, the things that appealed to them were simplified to hell and back. Who were they trying to actually appeal to then?

I would say Me2 was a more fun TPS then say Gears of War was.

Also, considering that tons of people still buy their games, and tons of people have little to no problem with them, apparently people DO care.

 

[Nelle]

Knew it from the first day the Frostbite 2 engine has announced.

EA will lend Dice's own engine to it's other divisions (hence Bioware) like EA made that engine. But oh well, EA owns Dice and i think it's kinda fair.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I'm calling it; Dragon Age 3 is an FPS.

If that actually happens, I will feel the most hollowed joy I have ever felt in my entire life.

Yes awesome awesome awesome, I want to see Bioware burn to the ground so the industry will take note you do not fuck with the people who made you, I want to see a glorious group of passionate developers rise from their ashes, produce fantastic, labor of love games for 7-10 years and then sell out for a quick payday and then burn to the ground so that a new developer can.... where am I

Well, I was more thinking along the lines of drowning in the delicious but deserved fanboy tears. =/

 

[JediMB]

Yes there was a noticeable difference between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2

Mass effect 2 had
-A far better skill system
-Shooter mechanics that worked instead of the "I can stand in one spot and never die" mechanics ME1 had.
-A cover system that WORKED
-Considerably less repetitive, and far more detailed, locations
amongst other things

1) I have to disagree on the skill system. While ME2's model was made far better in ME3, I have to say that I prefer the more subtly incremental system of the original Mass Effect. This is a matter of taste, though, I admit.

The real sin of the ME2 system was that non-combat class skills were ripped out of the game altogether, which took away the the whole balance of Non-Combat Utility VS Combat Strength for classes.

2+3) Shooting mechanics were improved, yes. This was a good thing. However, the ridiculous focus on (and poor implementation of) the Gears-style cover system made combat in the game very repetitive. This, again, was largely fixed in Mass Effect 3, where the cover system and environments were redesigned to encourage more forward momentum during combat.

Another issue, later fixed in ME3, was that the usefulness of the franchise's signature Biotics was reduced to an absurdly low level. They went from overpowered in ME1 to mostly useless on difficulties above Normal in ME2. ME3 finally struck a nice balance by reworking the health/armor/shield/barrier mechanics.

4) Less repetitive locations, yes. But also less numerous, and instead we got planet scanning... which is infinitely more repetitive than locating resources on the planets in ME1.

 

[mad825]

-Shooter mechanics that worked instead of the "I can stand in one spot and never die" mechanics ME1 had.

I'm sorry, did you just apply realism to Mass Effect?

In any case you are wrong as this is somewhat class and difficulty factors that come into play.

 

[SajuukKhar]

1) I have to disagree on the skill system. While ME2's model was made far better in ME3, I have to say that I prefer the more subtly incremental system of the original Mass Effect. This is a matter of taste, though, I admit.

The real sin of the ME2 system was that non-combat class skills were ripped out of the game altogether, which took away the the whole balance of Non-Combat Utility VS Combat Strength for classes.

balance? Mass Effect 1? what game did you play? There was no balance in ME1, not at all.

2+3) Shooting mechanics were improved, yes. This was a good thing. However, the ridiculous focus on (and poor implementation of) the Gears-style cover system made combat in the game very repetitive. This, again, was largely fixed in Mass Effect 3, where the cover system and environments were redesigned to encourage more forward momentum during combat.

Another issue, later fixed in ME3, was that the usefulness of the franchise's signature Biotics was reduced to an absurdly low level. They went from overpowered in ME1 to mostly useless on difficulties above Normal in ME2. ME3 finally struck a nice balance by reworking the health/armor/shield/barrier mechanics.

I personally never had a problem with the cover, or looking for cover, in ME2, I always found something that I could hide behind and advance to.

Signature? I don't know when a generic replacer for "mages" became signature, but I never played Biotics that much, so it never bothered me.

4) Less repetitive locations, yes. But also less numerous, and instead we got planet scanning... which is infinitely more repetitive than locating resources on the planets in ME1.

10 cakes > 500 turds. Having less locations means nothing if they are better quality. Quality always takes precedence over quantity.

Funny, I found planet scanning far LESS boring then searching for minerals in ME1's boring, lifeless, musicless, sound-of-wing-blowing-in-your-ears-at-all-times planets.

Planet scanning was fast, easy, and didn't involve that terrible, terrible, buggy that flipped the moment you hit a blade of grass, a vast improvement IMO. Though it was still dull in the long run.

 

[JediMB]

1) I have to disagree on the skill system. While ME2's model was made far better in ME3, I have to say that I prefer the more subtly incremental system of the original Mass Effect. This is a matter of taste, though, I admit.

The real sin of the ME2 system was that non-combat class skills were ripped out of the game altogether, which took away the the whole balance of Non-Combat Utility VS Combat Strength for classes.

balance? Mass Effect 1? what game did you play? There was no balance in ME1, not at all.

You know, the way some classes are better at shooting and standing up to damage, while other classes can hack locked container? The very basics when it comes to RPG classes?

I personally never had a problem with the cover, or looking for cover, in ME2, I always found something that I could hide behind and advance to.

The problem wasn't finding cover. The problem was that it was mostly exactly as Yahtzee describes cover-based shooters.

Signature? I don't know when a generic replacer for "mages" became signature, but I never played Biotics that much, so it never bothered me.

Biotics.

The manipulation of mass through Eezo.

Mass Effect.

It's the name of the game.

10 cakes > 500 turds. Having less locations means nothing if they are better quality. Quality always takes precedence over quantity.

Funny, I found planet scanning far LESS boring then searching for minerals in ME1's boring, lifeless, musicless, sound-of-wing-blowing-in-your-ears-at-all-times planets.

Planet scanning was fast, easy, and didn't involve that terrible, terrible, buggy that flipped the moment you hit a blade of grass, a vast improvement IMO. Though it was still dull in the long run.

I thought both could be equally boring, but at times the planets in ME1 were quite atmospheric.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Using a graphics engine does not mean that gameplay changes. It should only look pretty. Mass Effect kept using the Unreal 3 engine. I don't see much people complaining about that.

It's not just a graphics engine. It's a physics engine too.

And what this means is that: The sound and particle effects should be AMAZING, as will the lighting effects. The fact they're using the frostbite could make DA3 one of the prettiest RPGs ever.

But... I'm not hoping for anything. Bioware is not what it used to be. Either DA3 will prove Bioware is a worthless producer now, or it will show their renaissance.

But the engine itself is nothing to be concerned over... if anything, you should be excited!

I'm excited honestly and I'm one of the few that didn't complain (that much) during DA2. I'm happy for a new graphics engine since DA:O looked somebody used a cardboard box and put some paint on it. Character animation and terrain felt awkward. In DA2, I liked the changes to the character looks and it didn't felt like I was meeting the same person twice. However, Kirkwall was Kirkwall...It was nothing spectacular.

So I'm happy for a change in the looks and hoping for an interesting world.

Although, I don't like it when people say "Bioware is not what it was suppose to be". Two games made a forum that would defend Bioware at every turn to a cynical crowd that hates life. Ok, Dragon Age 2 felt rushed. That's a good reason to have some concerns. Besides the ending of ME3, did anyone say while playing the last game of the trilogy "It doesn't feel like the old Bioware"? I'm wondering about that.

As for the ending of ME3, I understand both sides of the argument. I understand that marketing told things that didn't meet to expectations. I understand with all the choices and it's understandable to have a reaction of "Wait, they pulled that of their ass!". I also understand that Bioware told us it was their creative decision. They stook with it until things went way too far. However, I'm like Jim Sterling on the matter. If they didn't felt confident with their stance, they have the right to fix it. The extended cut put a band-aid on a very large wound. Does it fix things? Well, Bioware could do things to at least calm the flying accusations out of nowhere.

Although, I'll agree with one thing from the haters: Day-1 DLC is a dick move.

 

[SajuukKhar]

You know, the way some classes are better at shooting and standing up to damage, while other classes can hack locked container? The very basics when it comes to RPG classes?

Which was entirely unnecessary to the game.

The necessity for a specialized lockpcking class only came about because of the idiotic nature of locks in ME1. The removal of class balance born out of bad game design that was changed in MEe2 =/= a bad thing.

The problem wasn't finding cover. The problem was that it was mostly exactly as Yahtzee describes cover-based shooters.

Its how ALL cover based shooters are.

Biotics.

The manipulation of mass through Eezo.

Mass Effect.

It's the name of the game.

By that logic the starship drives used in Mass Effect are not generic at all simply because they use ezerro also. Changing one maguffin for another doesn't make biotics that signature, it just makes them generic with another name.

Now, something unique like Half Life 2's grav gun is something signature.

I thought both could be equally boring, but at times the planets in ME1 were quite atmospheric.

The planets were about as atmospheric as standing in a totally white void is "deep"

 

[Tigerlily Warrior]

So does this mean DA3 will be a FPS? Anyone??

Did you seriously asked this question or are you just trolling?

Not trolling. Just not sure what to expect with a new engine. Wiki says it has destruction mechanics and has been used for a number of FPS. I'm only familiar with Unreal. I was hoping by learning more about the engine that runs the game to figure out what the game may look like or play. That's all.

Sheesh, knowing that I would've saved myself a lot of trouble and not creating a debate with two other guys...which one told me he was cool-headed but started to get emotionnal when that other guy responded....

Anyhow, I've spoken my piece. Glad everything is more clarified to me.

Yeah, I saw that when I went through the chain. Yikes! But still appreciate your thoughts. Thanks again.

 

[Frostbite3789]

if you buy games made by EA you are literally the fucking devil and the entire reason gaming has gone to shit lately.

The Mass Effect series is one of my favorite series out there. Even after finishing 3.

Dragon Age: Origins was awesome. DA2 was well worth the $20 I got it for.

I love the NHL franchise and buy it nearly every year.

The Battlefield games are amazing.

Come at me bro.

Edit: Also you can't buy games made by EA. They don't make games. They publish them. I buy games made by EA Canada, Bioware and DICE.

 

[VeryOddGamer]

Or the fact that Mass effect was never intended to have sequels ( i dont fucking care what EA made them say)

Really? The ending of the first game was pretty sequel-tastic to me.

 

[Dunc2j]

Or the fact that if i remember correctly the first Mass Effect was published by Microsoft before Bioware was bought by EA. And bioware saying waaaayyy before release that it was a trilogy. "EA made them say it" kinda doesn't hold up.

 

[RicoADF]

snip

You make a fair point, but you've got to remember that Source hasn't just been used for FPS games. Dota 2 uses Source, as well as a number of games not developed by Valve such as Alien Swarm.

Engines are more flexible than you think and can be modified to suit the developer's needs. Hell, Need For Speed: The Run and the upcoming Command & Conquer use Frostbite.

You are correct, and like I said in a previous post, traditionally it made more of a difference, however it's basically no issue anymore.