Hopes for Dragon Age III

[Chris Tian]

I think that a lot of significance will be placed on things hinted at in DA:Legacy, and whether or not Hawke is viewed as a champion of the mages or Templars. Both the Grey Warden and Hawke vanish for unknown reasons, and most likely the game will deal with tracking them down and figuring out what role they play in the greater context of everything, and possibly working with them.

Well I just got all the DLC for Dragon Age 2 and haven't played them jet, so i have no idea what goes on in Legacy and Mark of the Assassin (no spoilers please ) and thus can't comment on that.
But unless what happens there is a lot more significant than everything else that happend during DA2, tracking down Hawke makes not much sense. I also never really got why Cassandra is searching for him either.
Thats my whole point, Hawke didn't do anything important, or was even caught up in anything major. He helped with the Qunari, thats it. So why would they need him/her for anything?

 

[chuckdm]

No.

No, no, no.

No more mages, no more templars, and NO MORE MAGES VS TEMPLARS!!!

THIS was the grand lesson nobody learned from ME3. The flaw in ME3 was that they wrote themselves into a box - Organics vs. Synthetics - and then had to contrive an ending for the whole damn franchise that would drive home the Organics vs. Synthetics point that should've been somewhere between a "subplot" and a "quasi-important generalized story point" rather than being made, halfway through the third game in the series, into being the overarching primary driving force in the whole thing.

Compared to Mages vs. Templars, I'll take "hero embarks on a quest to kill bad guy A" any day of the week. Mages vs. Templars is NOT good writing, NOT good story, and NOT EVEN good use of moral choice. If a "moral choice" has two answers and NEITHER IS ACTUALLY THE MORALLY CORRECT THING TO DO then it is NOT A MORAL CHOICE, BONEHEAD! Ambiguity and moral choice do not mix. Ever. Never ever. And don't give me that crap about how it's supposed to be some sort of allegory for real life racism or whatever. In real life racism, an entire race gets imprisoned for hundreds of years with prejudices lasting for over 100 more, and the worst the other side can say is they don't like the oppressed people's music. That isn't ambiguous - white people were wrong, and the correct moral choice is to end slavery and racism, period. This isn't a shade of gray, this is a clear and obvious choice. Ten percent of all black people aren't blood mages, or any equivalent thereof, and even the worst of the worst aren't capable of causing blood-mage-like devastation (plus if we're drawing that comparison, the vast majority of both genocides and serial killings in the past 2,000+ years are on the heads of white people anyway.)

So no, there is NOTHING good about the Mages vs. Templars construct, just as Organics vs. Synthetics is what really doomed ME3, because some asshat writer at BioWare decided he wanted to be "artsy" and instead of giving us the "just go to war and beat all the bad guys" ending we all wanted and would've been perfectly fucking happy with, he had to write an ending to fit within this whole totally artificial framework.

And since we have confirmation that Mages vs. Templars is basically the whole damn backstory of ME3, I won't be buying it. Wild horses and a free copy of the collector's edition a year before release couldn't make me play that game.

I just wish I had a memory eraser machine so I could wipe out my DA2 experience and leave DA:O untarnished in my mind.

 

[Chris Tian]

Mages vs. Templars is NOT good writing, NOT good story, and NOT EVEN good use of moral choice.

That statement makes just no sense. "Mages vs. Templars" is just a setup, a story framework, so it has no inherent quality whatsoever, neither good nor bad.
Or did you mean the way that Bioware handled the Mages vs. Templars conflict in Dragon Age 2?

If a "moral choice" has two answers and NEITHER IS ACTUALLY THE MORALLY CORRECT THING TO DO then it is NOT A MORAL CHOICE, BONEHEAD! Ambiguity and moral choice do not mix. Ever. Never ever.

If you think morality is always about one clearly right thing and one clearly wrong thing, and there is no moral ambiguity, then you dont seem to have a firm grasp of what morality means.

And don't give me that crap about how it's supposed to be some sort of allegory for real life racism or whatever. In real life racism, an entire race gets imprisoned for hundreds of years with prejudices lasting for over 100 more, and the worst the other side can say is they don't like the oppressed people's music. That isn't ambiguous - white people were wrong, and the correct moral choice is to end slavery and racism, period. This isn't a shade of gray, this is a clear and obvious choice. Ten percent of all black people aren't blood mages, or any equivalent thereof, and even the worst of the worst aren't capable of causing blood-mage-like devastation (plus if we're drawing that comparison, the vast majority of both genocides and serial killings in the past 2,000+ years are on the heads of white people anyway.)

Acutally the Mages vs. Templar theme has very little to do with racism, but more with safety vs. freedom. Since the Templars are not just prejudiced. Every mage poses a very real threat, because even the nices mage of all times can become an abomination if he lacks the proper training or is not carefull enough.
So the rest of your racism-rant makes also no sense at all.

 

[Smeatza]

They need to stop replacing substance with style.
They replaced a combat system that worked nicely, with a combat system that looked nice.
They replaced character customisation that worked nicely, with character customisation that kept your characters looking "nice."
They replaced a dialogue system that worked nicely, with one that sounded nice.

Basically I want an RPG this time around. Not an adventure game masquerading as an RPG.

 

[CloudAtlas]

No.

No, no, no.

No more mages, no more templars, and NO MORE MAGES VS TEMPLARS!!!

THIS was the grand lesson nobody learned from ME3. The flaw in ME3 was that they wrote themselves into a box - Organics vs. Synthetics - and then had to contrive an ending for the whole damn franchise that would drive home the Organics vs. Synthetics point that should've been somewhere between a "subplot" and a "quasi-important generalized story point" rather than being made, halfway through the third game in the series, into being the overarching primary driving force in the whole thing.

Compared to Mages vs. Templars, I'll take "hero embarks on a quest to kill bad guy A" any day of the week. Mages vs. Templars is NOT good writing, NOT good story, and NOT EVEN good use of moral choice. If a "moral choice" has two answers and NEITHER IS ACTUALLY THE MORALLY CORRECT THING TO DO then it is NOT A MORAL CHOICE, BONEHEAD! Ambiguity and moral choice do not mix. Ever. Never ever. And don't give me that crap about how it's supposed to be some sort of allegory for real life racism or whatever. In real life racism, an entire race gets imprisoned for hundreds of years with prejudices lasting for over 100 more, and the worst the other side can say is they don't like the oppressed people's music. That isn't ambiguous - white people were wrong, and the correct moral choice is to end slavery and racism, period. This isn't a shade of gray, this is a clear and obvious choice. Ten percent of all black people aren't blood mages, or any equivalent thereof, and even the worst of the worst aren't capable of causing blood-mage-like devastation (plus if we're drawing that comparison, the vast majority of both genocides and serial killings in the past 2,000+ years are on the heads of white people anyway.)

So no, there is NOTHING good about the Mages vs. Templars construct, just as Organics vs. Synthetics is what really doomed ME3, because some asshat writer at BioWare decided he wanted to be "artsy" and instead of giving us the "just go to war and beat all the bad guys" ending we all wanted and would've been perfectly fucking happy with, he had to write an ending to fit within this whole totally artificial framework.

And since we have confirmation that Mages vs. Templars is basically the whole damn backstory of ME3, I won't be buying it. Wild horses and a free copy of the collector's edition a year before release couldn't make me play that game.

I just wish I had a memory eraser machine so I could wipe out my DA2 experience and leave DA:O untarnished in my mind.

I have to disagree with you on many points.

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. And isn't that exactly what you want?
It is just not only about that. It is also about deeper themes like the value of life, the value of synthetic life, what is life, the value of cooperation, the consequences of ignorance, free will, the meaning of mortality, circles of life, and so on. And in my opinion all of that is combined quite well into the larger narrative. The organics vs. synthetics conflict (of which the reapers are neither!) is very central, yes, and used to illustrate many of these themes, but that is not all there is.

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.


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. That's just like life is - often there is no clearly right or wrong alternative. And what seems right at the time you make a decision could turn out to have horrible, unforeseen consequences. What is the right thing to do anyway, or more abstract, what is the moral value of an action? Philosophers think about that since millenia, and there's more than one "morality system".
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?

3. 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.
Racism is a theme in Dragon Age too, yes, but mostly with the treatment of elves, and it doesn't play a large in the overall narrative (unless you play as city elf).

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.

 

[craftomega]

Basic math.

Me1 9/10
DA:O 9/10
Me2 8/10
DA2 6/10
Me3 7/10
SW:TOR 8/10 (But they lost over 100 million on it so its still a massive flop)

= DA3 = 6-7/10

With EA track record of forcing there producers to release games on stupid schedules or competing in markets saturated with similar games, I have no hope of Bioware ever coming back to greatness.

-They will forever be living in mediocrity as all the most skilled people have left and there management is weak.

-Their forums are unusable as they have become as toxic as LOL.

-Their games have become generic and lack originality or even a sense of ingenuity.

-Please tell me how can they make another good game that even approaches NWN, KOTOR, ME1, DA:O?

 

[Chris Tian]

THIS was the grand lesson nobody learned from ME3. The flaw in ME3 was that they wrote themselves into a box - Organics vs. Synthetics - and then had to contrive an ending for the whole damn franchise that would drive home the Organics vs. Synthetics point that should've been somewhere between a "subplot" and a "quasi-important generalized story point" rather than being made, halfway through the third game in the series, into being the overarching primary driving force in the whole thing.

I have to disagree with you on many points.

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. And isn't that exactly what you want?
It is just not only about that. It is also about deeper themes like the value of life, the value of synthetic life, what is life, the value of cooperation, the consequences of ignorance, free will, the meaning of mortality, circles of life, and so on. And in my opinion all of that is combined quite well into the larger narrative. The organics vs. synthetics conflict (of which the reapers are neither!) is very central, yes, and used to illustrate many of these themes, but that is not all there is.

Well i promised myself i wouldn't react to ME3 comments, so the thread wouldn't get derailed by this, but it seems appropriate in this context.

Saying that the Organics vs. Synthetics conflict drove ME3 into a corner is just not true.
I always thought of this as more of a sub-plotpoint that was used to ask questions like:
What is life?
Whats the meaning of life?
What is the value of life?
I was totally surprised, when starchild declared organics vs. synthetics as the central theme.

And, central theme or not, the organics vs. synthetics conflict was never in a "box". That would mean that a narrative has nowhere to go from a certain point. Shepard basically resolves it with the quarian/geth peace, Bioware could easily have left it at that if they had not chosen to bring it up in the ending again.

The only thing here i can think of, where Bioware really wrote themselves into a box like you say, is the "how to defeat the reaper issue". They made them out to be this unstoppable force and then had no idea as to how to resolve that, i think. Hence the plotdevice that is the crucible, wich can solve the reaper thread in two plausible and one magical way.

The Mages vs. Templar conflict is used to explore a inherently different question: "Where is the balance between safety and freedom?" Thats way less metaphysical and a more "present" issue in our everyday lives.

And again they wrote themself nowhere near a "box" with the theme. The Templer/Mage-Conflict can instead basically go anywhere, there are dozens of ways in wich it could unfold.

 

[Chris Tian]

Basic math.

Me1 9/10
DA:O 9/10
Me2 8/10
DA2 6/10
Me3 7/10
SW:TOR 8/10 (But they lost over 100 million on it so its still a massive flop)

= DA3 = 6-7/10

With EA track record of forcing there producers to release games on stupid schedules or competing in markets saturated with similar games, I have no hope of Bioware ever coming back to greatness.

-They will forever be living in mediocrity as all the most skilled people have left and there management is weak.

-Their forums are unusable as they have become as toxic as LOL.

-Their games have become generic and lack originality or even a sense of ingenuity.

-Please tell me how can they make another good game that even approaches NWN, KOTOR, ME1, DA:O?

First off: What numbers are those? Your own, or some critic site? Either way i think some arbitary numbers are not a good way to summarize a game, or anything for that matter. And i dont think you can "calculate" what number DA3 will be.

I don't think Bioware has no talentet people anymore. DA2 had the skeleton of a great game, and ME3 was just short of being great, but they were both good in my opinion.

I dont see how unusable forums equal bad games.

Well you might be right that they are not all that inovative, but they never really were. Bioware always worked along established patterns.

I can tell you that rather easily: While they might have adopted some undesirable buisness practices from EA, I think there is still a lot of talent left at Bioware.
Although ME3 has its flaws and failed even my expectations, it gets way more hate than it deserves. DA2 deserves all the hate, since the rushed release was a lazy cashgrab. But it looks like they didn't do that to DA3.
I really dont get that, after over a decade of great games, two games that just failed expectations, but are by no means bad, can make so many people belive Bioware is burnt out. I mean i won't preorder DA3 or anything, but i definitely belive they are at least still capable of making great games.

 

[Smeatza]

3. 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.

Yeah it's not.
Imprisoning someone for something they could do is never a sound moral choice. The Templars vs. Mages conflict is a case of practicality vs. morality.
The practical choice is to lock up these potentially dangerous people, the moral choice is not to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

 

[Chris Tian]

3. 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.

Yeah it's not.
Imprisoning someone for something they could do is never a sound moral choice. The Templars vs. Mages conflict is a case of practicality vs. morality.
The practical choice is to lock up these potentially dangerous people, the moral choice is not to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong.

Moral is not this absolute thing you know. Just saying one thing is amoral does not make it so. If it were there would not be such a thing as moral ambiguity.
It gets very hypothetical now: I think you would sing a very different song if there were people out there that could spontaniously explode with a 150m killradius for no reason whatsoever. So the Templars clearly have some moral ground to stand on. Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to confince you. Because in this case we have clearly different morals, yes that is plural and there is such a thing.

But what i like most about your post is that you make CloudAtlas point very well, this is an interesting theme because its not black and white and we can discuss it like we do.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

The difference between the way the mage-templar situation is presented in the two games is astonishing.

In Ferelden the Circle seemed more like a magic university than anything else. A university that you didn't have a choice about attending, admittedly, but Irving and Greagoir seemed to have a mostly amiable working relationship, and trusted Senior Mages seemed to be allowed a lot more freedom (Wynne and others were allowed to accompany the King's army, and Ines in Awakening was off on a bontany expedition with no one keeping an eye on her).

By contrast, the Circle in Kirkwall was a glorified prison camp, with the Templars acting like most brutal kind of commandants, performing the rite of tranquility on anyone who looked at them funny, and wanting to kill any mage who'd been out of sight for more than a minute. Yet, as you say, they were proved right, since practically every mage you met in the game was a lunatic who was just waiting for the Templars to look away so they could start abusing blood magic, and whose first reaction when they got into the slightest bit of trouble wasn't 'fight or flight' but 'turn into an abomination and let loose all over the city'. First Enchanter Orsino doesn't even seem to consider alternative escape plans before turning himself into a giant flesh golem and attacking you even if you were on his side.

I get that relations were supposed to be strained, and that the curse of Kirkwall was slowly driving everyone who lived there mad, but neither side emerged from the story looking particularly good. If DA:3 is going to focus on the conflict, I'd like to see it with a bit more depth than just Nazi Templars versus Mad Anarchist Mages.

 

[CloudAtlas]

3. 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.

Yeah it's not.
Imprisoning someone for something they could do is never a sound moral choice. The Templars vs. Mages conflict is a case of practicality vs. morality.
The practical choice is to lock up these potentially dangerous people, the moral choice is not to imprison someone who has done nothing wrong.

To you, it is not. You made your moral judgement. And you know what? In DA:O I played a mage, and she didn't much cherish being imprisoned in the circle either. And in general I value freedom highly. So, as for DA2, I started favouring the mages side, but I became less sure about that with every atrocity that a mage committed. Then again, siding with the templars... they did horrible things too. Especially the practice of making someone tranquil is... I mean, that's probably a fate worse than death.

Is it morally right to imprison someone just because he might commit a crime in the future? No. But should you close your eyes to the dangers the negative consequences not imprisoning them will have on everyone else? Is it morally right to totally disregard the Greater Good? That's sort of the utilitarian perspective.

And you shouldn't forget that these consequences are very real in the world of Dragon Age, and they are dire. Every mage runs the risk of being possessed by a demon, and this risk is substantial: You see it happening many times in both Dragon Age games, and the results were always bad. Like, really bad. And they would have been even worse if there hadn't been a Warden/Hawke to show up just in time.

So, yea, I still think this conflict has the potential to deliver many great moral dilemmas, where no choice is particularly palatable.

Anyway, for story relying on moral ambiguity to work, it is not necessary that every potentially difficult choice that is presented to you is actually ambiguous for you. There were many instances in any Dragon Age (or Mass Effect) game where I didn't hesitate a second, although these choices were potentially ambiguous - they just weren't for me. It's enough if enough choices make you think, however much "enough" is enough for you. Alright, enough with enough now.

 

[Chris Tian]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

I had the feeling the game pulled me very hard to the mage-side. If you are not an apostate yourself your sister is. Your father was an apostate too. You pick up two additional apostate companions, at least one of them has to be part of your party constantly if you want to be somewhat effective and prevail on the higher difficulties.
So being really pro-templar is always a somewhat strange option since you protect at least two apostets, one of whom is a blood mage, the other one possesed by a spirit, through the whole game.

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

The difference between the way the mage-templar situation is presented in the two games is astonishing.

In Ferelden the Circle seemed more like a magic university than anything else. A university that you didn't have a choice about attending, admittedly, but Irving and Greagoir seemed to have a mostly amiable working relationship, and trusted Senior Mages seemed to be allowed a lot more freedom (Wynne and others were allowed to accompany the King's army, and Ines in Awakening was off on a bontany expedition with no one keeping an eye on her).

By contrast, the Circle in Kirkwall was a glorified prison camp, with the Templars acting like most brutal kind of commandants, performing the rite of tranquility on anyone who looked at them funny, and wanting to kill any mage who'd been out of sight for more than a minute. Yet, as you say, they were proved right, since practically every mage you met in the game was a lunatic who was just waiting for the Templars to look away so they could start abusing blood magic, and whose first reaction when they got into the slightest bit of trouble wasn't 'fight or flight' but 'turn into an abomination and let loose all over the city'. First Enchanter Orsino doesn't even seem to consider alternative escape plans before turning himself into a giant flesh golem and attacking you even if you were on his side.

I get that relations were supposed to be strained, and that the curse of Kirkwall was slowly driving everyone who lived there mad, but neither side emerged from the story looking particularly good. If DA:3 is going to focus on the conflict, I'd like to see it with a bit more depth than just Nazi Templars versus Mad Anarchist Mages.

In the game its mentioned on several occasions that the Kirkwall Templars are very draconian compared to their ferelden counterparts. That is why the mage/templar conflict errupts there. So i am not sure what the point of your first sentence is. Is it just an observation or do you like/dislike it? Or do you find it implausible?

I would like to see both sides as sane in DA3 too. That everyone goes crazy-bloodthirsty-monster was kinda stupid and dragged the whole thing down. Because i wont really care what happens to either side if i cant relate to any of them. The conflict is a lot more intese for me if i can actually relate to both partys and have trouble to decide who to support.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The Mages vs. Templars conflict had potential, it was just implemented atrociously. The whole problem with the conflict is that the Templars are right in regards to Kirkwall. Bioware knew a vast majority of people were predisposed to side with the mages, so they made almost every mage you meet into a disaster waiting to happen. Half of the damn mages in the city are blood mages or turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. By trying to balance the two sides in terms of appeal they accidentally validated one side.

I had the feeling the game pulled me very hard to the mage-side. If you are not an apostate yourself your sister is. Your father was an apostate too. You pick up two additional apostate companions, at least one of them has to be part of your party constantly if you want to be somewhat effective and prevail on the higher difficulties.
So being really pro-templar is always a somewhat strange option since you protect at least two apostets, one of whom is a blood mage, the other one possesed by a spirit, through the whole game.

I suffered story collapse [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17745] after I sided with the mages and Orsino flipped out. Any immersion in the story shattered and I recalled the mind-bogglingly large number of instances where mages used blood magic or acted erratically or dangerously. As Uncle Comrade said, both sides were portrayed as crazy, but one side is trying to contain the crazy.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

snip

In the game its mentioned on several occasions that the Kirkwall Templars are very draconian compared to their ferelden counterparts. That is why the mage/templar conflict errupts there. So i am not sure what the point of your first sentence is. Is it just an observation or do you like/dislike it? Or do you find it implausible?

I would like to see both sides as sane in DA3 too. That everyone goes crazy-bloodthirsty-monster was kinda stupid and dragged the whole thing down. Because i wont really care what happens to either side if i cant relate to any of them. The conflict is a lot more intese for me if i can actually relate to both partys and have trouble to decide who to support.

Yeah, the first sentence was mostly just an observation. I picked up on the Kirkwall Templars being more hard-line to start with, plus the whole 'city driving people mad' thing didn't help. It's just, I played DA2 immediately after finishing Origins, where my mage warden had been quite content with life in the circle, and happy to keep the status quo going.

Then I got to Kirkwall, saw how the circle worked there and thought "Well that's no good at all." I came away from that thinking that perhaps the best thing for mages would be to just keep their heads down and try not to give themselves away. (Mind you, I always found it weird that the notoriously draconian Templars are perfectly fine with Hawke/Bethany, Anders and Merril roaming the streets in robes with staves strapped to their backs firing spells about the place. It was quite amusing to hear Cullen say "Mages aren't like you and me" when he'd only recently witnessed me conjuring up a fireball in the middle of a fight)

But yeah, my point was, having seen the vast difference between the Ferelden and Kirkwall situations, I think it would be a shame if both sides just end up being crazed fanatics in DA3. I'd quite like to see a faction who want go back to the way things were before, or perhaps even a group of mages and templars who've banded together to stay out of the fighting. There's a lot they could do with the war, I'd hate to see it reduced to two extremes.

Between bloodthirsty Templars killing every mage they found, regardless of whether they posed a threat or not, or Mages saying "Well if the Templars think I'm a blood mage I guess I'd better prove them right!" I found the end of DA2 very stupid. I'd much rather have had an option for Hawke to just shake his/her head and leave them to it, rather than be forced to pick between two sides, neither of whom I agree with.

 

[Legion]

For them to take absolutely nothing from Mass Effect 3 and nothing from Dragon Age 2 except possibly the art style. Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age: Origins stand out as unique games that are very different from one another. Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 are extremely similar in many ways in both how they work with mechanics, as well as the way the stories worked.

That's not to say that neither game did anything right, but they are completely different games from their predecessors, and as somebody who preferred the originals to the sequels, it's natural for me to want them to not keep going in the same direction.

I want Dragon Age 3 to be an RPG, not an action game with "RPG elements". I don't want auto-dialogue, I don't want pretend choices that end up with the same result except a different line of dialogue, I don't want my character to have their personality decided by the writers.

Sadly from what I have read by the developers on the Bioware forums (the last time I was there anyway), they are planning to continue in the same vein that they have in their last few games.

As it stands I am going to cautiously keep an eye on it, but I am honestly not expecting anything good from them.

 

[P.Tsunami]

I'm in the "my faith in Bioware has been thoroughly shaken" crowd, but I'm not dismissing DA3 out of hand. So, let's talk (realistic) hopes.

1. Well-written, likeable, interesting characters. Here's where Bioware really shines, in character development and dialogue. DA:O was a bit hit-and-miss on this, but gave me a decent bunch of characters I really enjoyed. DA2 was spectacularly awful, delivering a single character I didn't want to push off a cliff (the dwarf). I sincerely hope for a good character cast, and if Bioware doesn't deliver I absolutely will consider the game a failure.

2. A story that goes somewhere. Bioware isn't the best at plot (with the bright exception of Jade Empire). And that's fine. But as long as they stick to something tried-and-true and simple, it'll be enough. That was one of DA2's failings. It mostly meanders around with no real purpose or direction.

3. A general focus on politics and intrigue. Orlais (where the game will be set) has been heavily forshadowed (and in the Leliana's Song DLC portrayed as) a web of intrigue and political games. I hope Bioware makes the best of this and lets me absolutely delve into this. I want to feel like a mastermind puppeteer, please.

4. The main character needs to be one of two things. Either you make them interesting, relatable and likeable, as exemplified by Mass Effect. Or, as in DA:O, make the character a blank template, giving me the freedom to project what traits I wish upon them. If I'm not afforded that freedom, I want something way better than Hawke in return.

5. As much character customization as reasonably possible. I love The Sims. You know why I love The Sims? The insane amount of personal touches. I'd love to be able to essentially play dress up with my character.

6. The game is made within a modest budget. Bioware or its franchises is not well served by bloated production and marketing budgets (SW:TOR, I'm looking at you), given that their sales numbers generally can't compete with a lot of their competitors.

7. Aesthetics to complement the overall narrative ideas. In this, DA:O was amazing, but it was one of the things DA2 also did sort of right. Ideally, I'd like to see somewhat of a return to the gritty style of the first game, rather than the glossy sheen of the second, but that's just personal taste.

As for game mechanics, I couldn't care less. Just make it playable and without QTEs and I'll be fine.

I also have one unrealistic hope; that the game runs without EAs god damn Origins and doesn't have an always-online requirement. Of course, there's absolutely no hope of that. I'm prepared to be entirely unable to play the game for two weeks after launch.

 

[P.Tsunami]

I want Dragon Age 3 to be an RPG, not an action game with "RPG elements". I don't want auto-dialogue, I don't want pretend choices that end up with the same result except a different line of dialogue, I don't want my character to have their personality decided by the writers.

Yeah, also this.

 

[Chris Tian]

I suffered story collapse [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=17745] after I sided with the mages and Orsino flipped out. Any immersion in the story shattered and I recalled the mind-bogglingly large number of instances where mages used blood magic or acted erratically or dangerously. As Uncle Comrade said, both sides were portrayed as crazy, but one side is trying to contain the crazy.

cut

Yeah we are on the same page here, the events with Meredith and Orsino at the end were the crap sherry on top of that mess of a story.
When that happend in my first playthrough i just got up and left the game for a few days, that was just to much.
I almost belive they might give an explanation for that along the lines "the veil is super thin in kirkwall because of the suffering of the slaves, and thats why everyone went batshit bonkers". Wich wouldn't be that bad, they could keep the conflict but tone down the crazy a thousand notches.

Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 are extremely similar in many ways in both how they work with mechanics, as well as the way the stories worked.

Sadly from what I have read by the developers on the Bioware forums (the last time I was there anyway), they are planning to continue in the same vein that they have in their last few games.

Could you elaborate both statements?
I'm not sure what you mean, i do not see too much similarity between ME3 and DA2. I had more the feeling DA2 tried to be like ME2.
And thus i'm not sure what you mean by "same vein".

I'm in the "my faith in Bioware has been thoroughly shaken" crowd, but I'm not dismissing DA3 out of hand. So, let's talk (realistic) hopes.

1. Well-written, likeable, interesting characters. Here's where Bioware really shines, in character development and dialogue. DA:O was a bit hit-and-miss on this, but gave me a decent bunch of characters I really enjoyed. DA2 was spectacularly awful, delivering a single character I didn't want to push off a cliff (the dwarf). I sincerely hope for a good character cast,

I think thats most definitely going to happen. the good cast i mean. But then again i liked DA2 cast for the most part so i am probably more optimistic than you in that regard.

3. A general focus on politics and intrigue. Orlais (where the game will be set) has been heavily forshadowed (and in the Leliana's Song DLC portrayed as) a web of intrigue and political games. I hope Bioware makes the best of this and lets me absolutely delve into this. I want to feel like a mastermind puppeteer, please.

Oh i don't hope for that, like you statet yourself a overly complex plot is not Biowares strong suit. And a focus on intrigue would kinda require that.

5. As much character customization as reasonably possible. I love The Sims. You know why I love The Sims? The insane amount of personal touches. I'd love to be able to essentially play dress up with my character.

I fear you might get disapointet here, unless you mean only for the main character. I already talked about the video, wich I can't find again sorry, i saw a while back where a Bioware guy talked about companion armors. He said that you could customize them a little, but your companions would always keep their distinctive look. It sounded a little like Shepards basic armorparts in ME2. Where you could exchange the breastplate etc. but the overall look would always be very similar.