Hopes for Dragon Age III

[CloudAtlas]

Let me give you an example, If you were a monarch, and given the choice between letting thousands die from a horrible disease, or creating a cure, at the cost of a 5 year old girls life, would you consider this a moral choice?
Because it's not.
Let's break it down and get to the core of the morality of the decision. Taking one action will lead you to murder an innocent child and succeed in helping your subjects, taking the other action will lead to you failing in helping your subjects.
There is nothing morally wrong with failing, there is with child murder.
You could try and justify it, with the argument "more people survive if you take the second choice." But that is not a point of morality, it's a point of practicality.

But only in the morality system you chose for yourself here - but that is not the only one there is. If you adopt the utilitarian perspective, you'd only be concerned with maximizing overall utility, or the Greater Good. Granted, that's a simplistic description, and there's more than one branch of utilitarianism, but bear with me here. So, in your example, as result of your choice either thousands are dead, or just one. Clearly, thousand deaths are worse than one, so killing the girl is clearly the morally superior choice - from a utilitarian point of view. You might not like the utilitarian philosophy, you might think it's wrong, but that's not the point.

Things are a bit more complicated in reality, though. Your sick subjects might feel very uncomfortable with the idea of sacrificing a child for their cure, and the rest of your people might share this sentiment, so overall utility might actually be lower in the kill-the-child alternative, but that would probably be a bit beyond the scope of this example.

A good, entertaining, and very popular introduction to these issues is "Justice with Michael Sandel" - you might find it interesting. First episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY


So, no, I think your example very well qualifies for a moral dilemma. It is, in fact, a classic dilemma - Michael Sandel talks about it too, already in the first episode I believe.

 

[chuckdm]

1. The narrative of Mass Effect 3 is about many things. It is about literally saving the galaxy from annihilation - that is Shepard's overarching goal.

No, it isn't. That is Shepherd's goal in Mass Effect 1, and saving the galaxy from a considerably slower annihilation is the goal of Mass Effect 2. This is why I didn't complain about those, because yes, that IS what I want. In ME3, the superfluous reason as to why Shep is doing that he's doing is to stop the Reapers. But every interaction he has with the reapers, be it the reaper on Rannoch or any of the various dialog with indoctrinated organics, is all about the Organic vs. Synthetic conflict. In effect, ME3 is like one of those pictures where someone screwed up the zoom - it's heavily focused on one aspect of the picture and blurry elsewhere, paying only lip service to what should have been the prime directive of the game. The fact that you aren't even allowed to MENTION your alliance between the Geth and Quarians to Starchild shows how the developers had tunnel vision here. Even if that alliance didn't change Starchild's mind, Shep would never work so hard to make that alliance work, then fail to even mention it to Starchild. Why? Because it serves to disprove that the whole Organics vs. Synthetics conflict is necessary to begin with.

And you know what? I loved all of it. And I'm not the only one. So don't be so arrogant to assume that everyone hated the deeper themes, that everyone would have preferred a simpler, shallower story. None of that is true, and frankly, a bit insulting.

There's nothing deep about this. That's my whole damn point. It's Organics vs. Synthetics. And guess what? Shep is an Organic. He's fighting to save Organics. And even if you choose to save the Geth, you're still using them to defeat Synthetics as part of a mostly Organic army. The game spends all this time and effort drawing your attention to this forced moral conflict and yet you can't even side with the Synthetics. I agree that'd be silly, but that's kinda the point - the only GOOD, moral choice is peace and coexistence, which in the end is the only choice you cannot make. Even the Synthesis ending posits that without destroying everything that makes either Organics or Synthetics unique, they can never have peace. That's not peace. It's genocide and selective breeding of a master race, but prettier.

2. I don't think the concept of moral choice, and moral ambiguity, is what you believe it is. It is about making choices between morally distinct alternatives, but nothing says that one of those choices has to be clearly morally superior than the others.

My point exactly. Neither side is morally distinct from the other any more than either is superior. On one hand, we can damn the many to protect the whole from the few. On the other, we can damn none to protect none from the few. That is, neither freedom for all the Mages, nor total lockdown of all the Mages, is a good choice. They are both BAD CHOICES. Neither is even 1% better than the other. This isn't a choice we can weigh and apply a modicum of logic and reason to - either side is a coin toss and both heads and tails lose. Neither choice has to be drastically superior. But one MUST be at least SLIGHTLY superior to the other, or else it is not a moral choice, but merely a choice. For the side we chose to be moral, there must be something about it that makes it a better choice than the other side. But here, there isn't. Both sides are totally morally bankrupt, as neither solution solves even a tenth as many problems as it creates.

Moral choices that lack a (at least slightly) more moral option to choose are not moral choice. They are coin tosses that we fool ourselves into thinking are superior choices because we aren't allowed to simply not choose, and the consequences of choosing poorly are dire. So we tell ourselves one option is better. That isn't moral choice. It's false moral choice. Mages vs. Templars is false moral choice.

And, from a gameplay perspective: aren't difficult, ambiguous choices, choices that make you think about what might be the right thing to do, much more interesting?

Yes they are. Until NEITHER is the right thing to do. Then they're frustrating, not interesting. That's Mages vs. Templars.

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, and precisely because it is connected to our real world experiences. Every society in the world struggles to find a balance between freedom and security.

I'd argue that it is still predominantly about racism, but let's say you're right. Let's look at an example. If we abolish the TSA tomorrow and next week the terrorists fly another plane into another building, then obviously that was the wrong choice. If we start requiring passports just to travel state-to-state and 5,000 totally innocent people end up locked away for a year just so we can catch zero terrorists, obviously that was probably the wrong choice too. In both cases, the arguments against EITHER choice are as strong, if not stronger, than the arguments in favor of either choice. In effect, the only right choice is to do nothing, because the odds of something good or bad happening are equally high, yet by doing nothing, we achieved the same level of failure without the expense.

In this case, neither choice is better. I wouldn't expect either choice to be 50% better. But if we're going to go to the expense - and have to be responsible for our choices too - then one choice had damn well better be at least 1% better than the other. And they're not. They are equally bad all around, and neither has even a slight advantage over the other, or a disadvantage that is not cancelled out by the other. Both choices suck equally, and the collateral damage from either choice makes neither worth choosing.

So no, this is still bad moral choice, or really, not moral choice at all. A good, functional moral choice system should not be black-and-white, nor should it be a coin toss. It should be like a real world quarter, actually - weighed 5% in one choice's favor, but not obvious to the naked eye. This gives the player a "right" choice to make, but doesn't make it easy. It shouldn't be easy. But it should be rewarding. If both choices are outright awful, there's no reward, only regret. Mages vs. Templars leads to nothing but regret no matter what the hell you do.

4. With all your ranting against moral ambiguity, you seem to forget that DA:O, the one game which you seemed to like, is full of morally ambiguous choices, you have to make them from the very beginning to the very end. I could name countless examples of that on the top of my head. Pretty much the only thing that is not ambiguous in some way is, well, the darkspawn. They are evil and need to be destroyed.

True, but DA:O is ABOUT the darkspawn (and really the Archdemon.) It's a well-crafted game for this very reason. The plot driver, the one thing that guides everything you do, is defeating the Archdemon. Everything else is a means to that end. All the moral choice in DA:O is used for side quests. That isn't to say it's not important.

In fact, DA:O uses Mages vs. Templars in the BEST way it can be used - solely to determine whose help you gain against the blight. Hell, ME3 even did this right once. Quarian, Geth, or Both? Mages, Templars? But the question here is different because it's not in a vacuum. If the entire game of DA:O was the "return to the tower" mission and nothing else, it'd be an awful game. But the fact that we can add some weight to one side of the scales - we can pick sides on the merit of which side is more useful against the Blight - gives is an ever-so-slightly better choice (Mages) and makes the moral choice system really work.

But an entire game built around that mechanic just fails. This is why ME3 and DA2 failed, even if nobody wants to admit it. All the story problems (mechanics are unrelated), endings or otherwise, are limited by trying to fit them into these frameworks. If they'll just drop the stupid Alliance vs. Horde crap for DA3 I promise you it'll be better.

But they won't, and I'll end up arguing this again next year. *sigh*

 

[CloudAtlas]

Go play an older RPG, coincidentally from this very same developer, Buldars Gate 1 and 2 and Neverwinter Nights. These are slow games, certainly not "actiony" positively "lardy." These are mother fucking RPGs. Seems the antithesis to action games does it not?

I did play Baldur's Gate 2, and I loved it. But I wouldn't want to play a modern game with such a combat system anymore. If you do, that's fine, of course, I just disagree with the suggestion that "actiony" combat systems would be inherently, objectively less appropriate for an RPG.

Certainly RPGs can incorporate things from action games, works well enough in the tales series and star ocean games in the JRPG side of things. All sorts of genres have incorporated RPG mechanics, and have helped these genres with more tools to work with.

But straight up combining RPG and action? Maybe one day some developer will be able to accomplish this and make it work successfully and create some new genre, but given how hard all attempts have been so far, seems ill fated to ever work.[/quote]

For me, an RPG is just about, well, being able to play a role. That's all. Being able to play a role like Warrior, Ranger, Rogue, whatever, and/or being able to behave noble or ruthless. I don't even necessarily request a level progression system. But I can do just fine without worrying about stats, numbers, chances and all that.

Tastes are just different, I guess.

 

[CloudAtlas]

1. The narrative of Mass Effect 3 is about many things. It is about literally saving the galaxy from annihilation - that is Shepard's overarching goal.

No, it isn't.

It was my Shepard's overarching goal. Did I play the game wrong then?

The fact that you aren't even allowed to MENTION your alliance between the Geth and Quarians to Starchild shows how the developers had tunnel vision here. Even if that alliance didn't change Starchild's mind, Shep would never work so hard to make that alliance work, then fail to even mention it to Starchild. Why? Because it serves to disprove that the whole Organics vs. Synthetics conflict is necessary to begin with.

Your reasoning is just flawed. Organics and Synthetics living peacefully together in one instance only proves that they need not always be at war, but nothing more. It could happen again, as it presumably did countless of times before. What differences does it make in the end if this one synthetic race doesn't try to annihilate its creators, but the next one does? And that's the point. You can read that same flawed logic in every ME3 ending thread, but iteration doesn't make it any more correct.

And you know what? I loved all of it. And I'm not the only one. So don't be so arrogant to assume that everyone hated the deeper themes, that everyone would have preferred a simpler, shallower story. None of that is true, and frankly, a bit insulting.

There's nothing deep about this. That's my whole damn point. It's Organics vs. Synthetics.

And everything else that I listed and that you choose to ignore. And decisions like what to do with the genophage made people ponder so much that they even wrote whole articles about it. I guess that's deep enough alright, and it has nothing to do with synthetics either.

2. I don't think the concept of moral choice, and moral ambiguity, is what you believe it is. It is about making choices between morally distinct alternatives, but nothing says that one of those choices has to be clearly morally superior than the others.

My point exactly. Neither side is morally distinct from the other any more than either is superior. On one hand, we can damn the many to protect the whole from the few. On the other, we can damn none to protect none from the few. That is, neither freedom for all the Mages, nor total lockdown of all the Mages, is a good choice. They are both BAD CHOICES. Neither is even 1% better than the other. This isn't a choice we can weigh and apply a modicum of logic and reason to - either side is a coin toss and both heads and tails lose. Neither choice has to be drastically superior. But one MUST be at least SLIGHTLY superior to the other, or else it is not a moral choice, but merely a choice. For the side we chose to be moral, there must be something about it that makes it a better choice than the other side. But here, there isn't. Both sides are totally morally bankrupt, as neither solution solves even a tenth as many problems as it creates.

Moral choices that lack a (at least slightly) more moral option to choose are not moral choice. They are coin tosses that we fool ourselves into thinking are superior choices because we aren't allowed to simply not choose, and the consequences of choosing poorly are dire. So we tell ourselves one option is better. That isn't moral choice. It's false moral choice. Mages vs. Templars is false moral choice.

I'm sorry, but you still don't understand the concept of moral choice and moral ambiguity. I'm repeating myself, but choices only need to be morally distinct, but no choice needs to be clearly morally superior. There is no single, clear-cut, valid morality system or theory of judging the moral value of an action. What makes these choices interesting is that there are different concepts, different goals, that are in conflict with each other, and asks you to weigh them against each other to make a judgement. And your judgement will be different from the judgement of others - if one alternative was "at least 1 %" better than the other, wouldn't everyone (who wants to do "the right thing") make the same decision then? And, yes, sometimes no alternative is very appealing. And you know what? That's just how life is. Sometimes you just don't know what is the right thing to do, and that doesn't let you sleep.

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, and precisely because it is connected to our real world experiences. Every society in the world struggles to find a balance between freedom and security.

I'd argue that it is still predominantly about racism, but let's say you're right.

Then I doubt you know what "race" and "racism" means.

4. With all your ranting against moral ambiguity, you seem to forget that DA:O, the one game which you seemed to like, is full of morally ambiguous choices, you have to make them from the very beginning to the very end. I could name countless examples of that on the top of my head. Pretty much the only thing that is not ambiguous in some way is, well, the darkspawn. They are evil and need to be destroyed.

True, but DA:O is ABOUT the darkspawn (and really the Archdemon.) It's a well-crafted game for this very reason. The plot driver, the one thing that guides everything you do, is defeating the Archdemon. Everything else is a means to that end. All the moral choice in DA:O is used for side quests. That isn't to say it's not important.

That is your personal opinion, to which you are of course entitled, but it is nothing more than that. I found this part of the story the most boring. I would even go as far as saying that the main story felt oddly out of place to me: you have this world full of interesting, morally ambiguous conflicts, and then you have the Archdemon. He he looks like a dragon, he wants to annihilate the whole world, and that's why he must be stopped, obviously, and that's all there is to him. No conflict, no deeper meaning, nothing.

In fact, DA:O uses Mages vs. Templars in the BEST way it can be used - solely to determine whose help you gain against the blight. Hell, ME3 even did this right once. Quarian, Geth, or Both? Mages, Templars? But the question here is different because it's not in a vacuum. If the entire game of DA:O was the "return to the tower" mission and nothing else, it'd be an awful game. But the fact that we can add some weight to one side of the scales - we can pick sides on the merit of which side is more useful against the Blight - gives is an ever-so-slightly better choice (Mages) and makes the moral choice system really work.

It looks like you might be quite the utilitarian. What's the morally right choice? The one that benefits the Greater Good the most, obviously. Or, in other words: The ends justify the means. But, again, what is morally right or morally wrong is not that simple, and, I hope I'm not patronizing him, while Smeatza probably would call your decision morally right, he would do so for a very different reason.
That said, I didn't know whether mages or templars are better for the Warden's cause, so I couldn't have made the decision on this account anyway.

But an entire game built around that mechanic just fails. This is why ME3 and DA2 failed, even if nobody wants to admit it. All the story problems (mechanics are unrelated), endings or otherwise, are limited by trying to fit them into these frameworks. If they'll just drop the stupid Alliance vs. Horde crap for DA3 I promise you it'll be better.

Yea, I know, all the people who loved Mass Effect 3 are just too dumb to see the truth.

 

[Chris Tian]

cut

For a choice to have a moral aspect to it, it is by no means necessary for one option to be considered better within the moral system. The whole definition of a moral dilemma is, that both options are equal und that is hard to decide what is the right thing to do.

One might even argue that, if one choice can be considered clearly superior, measured by the applied moral standarts, it is much less of a moral choice. That is the argument Smeatza made.
Because then the decision becomes much easier and thus less moral ambiguous.

What you are saying is, that you want to make a morally right choice and that the Templar/Mages conflict in Kirkwall offeres none. Since whoever you choose they decide its monster time.


And how in the world is the Templar vs. Mages conflict in any way about racism?

ME3 and DA2 failed? Maybe some of my expectations but i had many hours of fun with both, that was the sole reason i purchased them, i even bought all DLC for both by now. I would say that counts as success.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Why I have hope for Dragon Age 3? It says "inquisition" in the subtitle, which implies I'm going to be amidst a time of religious strife. I just hope i'll get to fight religious dogma.

 

[Pinky's Brain]

So, your thoughts?

Combat probably won't be without depth (like DA2) or slow as molasses and with little depth (like DA:O). With ME3 they showed they can find a decent medium between the shooter crowd and the power using crowd, so I expect they can do something similar here. As for animation/model/level/story quality, I have no hope left ... it's been all down hill from ME1/DA1, why should DA3 break the trend?

Maybe multiplayer can save the game, like it did with ME3 for me ...

 

[Zeldias]

All I want from DA3 is to not go back to what DA:O was. Not saying I dislike that style of play entirely, but I found most of the actual gameplay of DA:O tragically boring; in DA2, I felt I had more to actually be involved in. And the stuff like choosing your race had such little impact that I failed to see the point of it (Not that I expected six different games, just that I found what we did get largely pointless other than to feel like I made a decision).

Also greatly prefer the dialogue wheel and a talking protagonist to DA:O's style.

This is coming from a person that played Baldur's Gate and all that other stuff.

I really really do want to have a home base that I can rule and make actual meaningful decisions. I really liked the ruler system in NWN2 and wished stuff like that could've been seen in ME, so I'm hoping for a more expanded and interesting system to appear in DA3.

 

[Chris Tian]

Maybe multiplayer can save the game, like it did with ME3 for me ...

I postet earlier that I could imagine a good MP for Dragon Age 3, since the party based combat should translate to MP pretty well.
You could play coop and each player gets control of one partymember or something like that, or two players control two each.
Also there is probably a big ass war going on, wich would provide a similar setup to the ME3 multiplayer. That could even provide the grounds for team pvp.

I myself am not a big multiplayer fan so that wont do anything for me though.

 

[Sebastian Melmoth]

I've mainly been a fantasy person, so I was mainly in my little corner enjoying the Dragon Age games and the Elder Scrolls games and enjoying them all very much. But I broke down and bought the Mass Effect Trilogy and I found the combat system so much more engaging than Dragon Age franchise's system. I know they are completely different genres, but genre is just tapestry and furniture ultimately, especially in Bioware's recent games where the importance seems to be placed on the characters and their interpersonal relationships. With this little bit in mind (and sorry if some of these are a repeat)

Hope #1: A more engaging fighting system. It would be nice is cover and stealth could be brought to the series, especially for the rogue type classes.
Hope #2: Allow of to chose different races again. (I always prefer Elf races to play as... they're prettier (lawls)
Hope #3: This is tied to #1, but I hope they make magic more fluid with weapon attacks ala Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
Hope #4: That the characters' relationship effects how well they perform together in combat.

 

[Chris Tian]

Hope #1: A more engaging fighting system. It would be nice is cover and stealth could be brought to the series, especially for the rogue type classes.

Cover? You mean they should have to abandon the "rpg" combat system completely and change to a shooter core gameplay mechanic? Seriously?

Hope #2: Allow of to chose different races again. (I always prefer Elf races to play as... they're prettier (lawls)

That is sadly not going to happen, Bioware already stated it will be a human hero.

Hope #4: That the characters' relationship effects how well they perform together in combat.

Isn't that already the case in both DA games? In DA:O your companions get stat boni depending on the relationship witch the Warden. And in DA2 they get a special skill if Hawke gets enough friendship or rivalry.

 

[Sebastian Melmoth]

Hope #1: A more engaging fighting system. It would be nice is cover and stealth could be brought to the series, especially for the rogue type classes.

Cover? You mean they should have to abandon the "rpg" combat system completely and change to a shooter core gameplay mechanic? Seriously?

I definitely don't think they should abandon the rpg combat system entirely or go anywhere near a shooter mechanic. I just didn't find it nearly as engaging as the combat systems of Mass Effect, Skyrim or KoA. I just found all the different classes to more or less operate the same way, save for the positions of the classes on the battlefield (Mages in the back, Warriors up front and Rogue stabbing from behind or tossing arrows. This might be more or a case of being wanting to have the best of all worlds.

Hope #2: Allow of to chose different races again. (I always prefer Elf races to play as... they're prettier (lawls)

That is sadly not going to happen, Bioware already stated it will be a human hero.

Hope #4: That the characters' relationship effects how well they perform together in combat.

Isn't that already the case in both DA games? In DA:O your companions get stat boni depending on the relationship witch the Warden. And in DA2 they get a special skill if Hawke gets enough friendship or rivalry.

I was thinking of Xenoblade Chronicles with this one. However to expand on what I meant, it would be cool if the relationships you decided to pursue and the friendships you maintained actually changed the party make-up. Like for example, let's say one of your party members is against the idea of other races pursuing relationship with each other and if you (a human person) decide to have a relationship with an elf or dwarf, they get angry and decide they can't follow you. It would make that person an obvious jerk and all, but it would be interesting if Bioware went that route, and they might have already, but none of my characters in Origins or Awakening got to the point where they left the group.

I've just been playing through Dragon Age 2 this week (finally getting to it) and I just don't find it nearly as enjoyable as Origins and Awakening. If DA3 isn't going to have multiple race options it might be a pass for me.

 

[Chris Tian]

Hope #1: A more engaging fighting system. It would be nice is cover and stealth could be brought to the series, especially for the rogue type classes.

Cover? You mean they should have to abandon the "rpg" combat system completely and change to a shooter core gameplay mechanic? Seriously?

I definitely don't think they should abandon the rpg combat system entirely or go anywhere near a shooter mechanic. I just didn't find it nearly as engaging as the combat systems of Mass Effect, Skyrim or KoA. I just found all the different classes to more or less operate the same way, save for the positions of the classes on the battlefield (Mages in the back, Warriors up front and Rogue stabbing from behind or tossing arrows. This might be more or a case of being wanting to have the best of all worlds.

Hope #2: Allow of to chose different races again. (I always prefer Elf races to play as... they're prettier (lawls)

That is sadly not going to happen, Bioware already stated it will be a human hero.

Hope #4: That the characters' relationship effects how well they perform together in combat.

Isn't that already the case in both DA games? In DA:O your companions get stat boni depending on the relationship witch the Warden. And in DA2 they get a special skill if Hawke gets enough friendship or rivalry.

I was thinking of Xenoblade Chronicles with this one. However to expand on what I meant, it would be cool if the relationships you decided to pursue and the friendships you maintained actually changed the party make-up. Like for example, let's say one of your party members is against the idea of other races pursuing relationship with each other and if you (a human person) decide to have a relationship with an elf or dwarf, they get angry and decide they can't follow you. It would make that person an obvious jerk and all, but it would be interesting if Bioware went that route, and they might have already, but none of my characters in Origins or Awakening got to the point where they left the group.

I've just been playing through Dragon Age 2 this week (finally getting to it) and I just don't find it nearly as enjoyable as Origins and Awakening. If DA3 isn't going to have multiple race options it might be a pass for me.

I was a little confused because you said it would be nice if cover was brought to the games, that would only make sense in a shooter based gameplay, would it not?

I like your other idea very much. If your potential companions would depend on what friendships/relationships you pursue or what decisions within the plot you make, that would be interesting. Also some companions being mutually exclusive would add replay value.
The companions in DA:0, DA:A und DA2 can all potentially leave you. In DA:O if you get this friendship-o-meter to -100. And in DA2 each one has a certain point in their personal side quest where your decisions decide if they stay or leave, but you are always able to have all companions available.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Hope #1: A more engaging fighting system. It would be nice is cover and stealth could be brought to the series, especially for the rogue type classes.

Cover? You mean they should have to abandon the "rpg" combat system completely and change to a shooter core gameplay mechanic? Seriously?

I would welcome that very much, but I doubt it's going to happen. I prefer Mass Effect (3)'s combat too, by far, and the combat gameplay itself wasn't even exactly a paragon of shooter gameplay.

I prefer Skyrim's direct gameplay to the hotbar-based, auto-targeting mechanics of Dragon Age or almost any MMORPG. It's just more fun, more engaging, and immersive for me.

 

[Chris Tian]

Hope #1: A more engaging fighting system. It would be nice is cover and stealth could be brought to the series, especially for the rogue type classes.

Cover? You mean they should have to abandon the "rpg" combat system completely and change to a shooter core gameplay mechanic? Seriously?

I would welcome that very much, but I doubt it's going to happen. I prefer Mass Effect (3)'s combat too, by far, and the combat gameplay itself wasn't even exactly a paragon of shooter gameplay.

I prefer Skyrim's direct gameplay to the hotbar-based, auto-targeting mechanics of Dragon Age or almost any MMORPG. It's just more fun, more engaging, and immersive for me.

Man, that would give me a heart attack.

I enjoy ME3 or Skyrims combat a great deal, hell i think ruining Cerberus' day with Charge, Nova and Biotic Punch sits firmly on the top of my "best action combat of all times" list, right next to the jungle-guerilla-ninja action from Far Cry 3. And if they are going to make a Fantasy RPG with such action rich combat, hell yes! I'm game.
But don't take away the more tactical, party based combat from Dragon Age for that. That would be as if ME3 had gotten a XCOM like round based strategy combat style.

 

[Colt47]

I don't have the slightest interest in DA3. EA burned every bit of good will I have for them with Sim City, Origin, Dead Space 3 Shooter Edition, Project 10 dollar, and their blatant copycatting of whatever seems to be popular. Not to mention the horrible commercial advertising they had come up with for previous titles like Dead Space, Dante's Inferno, and other issues. If they want even a slight hope of selling their games and regaining good will, they need to kill origin and use either steam or just release games without always online DRM because right now they are coming off just as badly as Zinga or some other penny pinching publisher looking for ways to skim more money out of people.

They make Activision look like a saint compared to them, and I really don't like Activision. (Though not enough to stop my WoW sub. That will likely change once FFXIV ARR comes out and ESO.)

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That would be as if ME3 had gotten a XCOM like round based strategy combat style.

Holy shit that would be awesome. I would buy that game RIGHT NOW.

You take this idea to EA immediately.

 

[Talshere]

Snip

The lead project designer for DA:O actually walked out on DA2 because "It wasnt going in a direction he was happy with" (FYI this man is Brent Knowles who also helped develop Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights and Jade Empire. The fact they seem to have gone back to that more story based gameplay gives me hope. Also, because they tried to make DA2 more console friendly it look HORRIBLE on PC. Much worse than DA:O 2 years older.

 

[Chris Tian]

That would be as if ME3 had gotten a XCOM like round based strategy combat style.

Holy shit that would be awesome. I would buy that game RIGHT NOW.

You take this idea to EA immediately.

Haha yeah, as a spin-off probably, but as a direct sequel? I don't know, that would piss alot of people off, myself included. Still now I want an XCOM clone(ish) set in the ME universe, dammit.
But I think the EA execs would lough me out of the room

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Also, because they tried to make DA2 more console friendly it look HORRIBLE on PC. Much worse than DA:O 2 years older.

Ehhhh...not so much. Yeah, it looked pretty bad, but DA:O looked demonstrably worse. There were some BAD graphics in DA:O.

Still now I want an XCOM clone(ish) set in the ME universe, dammit.

So do I. Thanks for getting me excited about something that will never exist.

I'll never forgive you for this. Never.