Hopes for Dragon Age III

[darlarosa]

After the one two punch of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, I've kinda given up hope on Bioware as a whole. Maybe it'll be good. Hell, I WANT it to be good. But I'm not going to kid myself.

Because a 10-15 minute ending sequence dismisses the entire game?

I'll still probably check out DA3, but the information that again you can't choose race and are forced to play human is already a bad start.

I am actually hoping i get to be Hawke again, otherwise DA2 would be completly futile and the only important part would be a short summary of the last act: Templars and Mages in Kirkwall went batshit crazy and kicked off a big ass war.

Bioware basically said each game will be new individuals significant to the DA universe in that period. Based on leaks and other things you will probably be a new character possibly interacting with your Warden and Hawke. I have a feeling you will be able to import your character and you may run into your warden who will remain silent and Hawke whose personality will reflect your choices in DA2, or you will run into them indirectly(letters, their companions, etc.)


I like the voice protagonist in DA because they've created very clear distinctions in subtle ways between the games. The art design change I find interesting because it kind of reflected the fact that we aren't watching a real gritty thing in Thedas like in DA:O, but listening to Varric. More so than that the DA:O story focuses not so much on Your Character The Warden, but your character one of the wardens, which just makes narrative and structural sense because of how that organization is and how the story is written.


I am just hoping we do not have to play a Templar character, because I like playing mages and I always side mages over Templars. Other than that I am very hopeful that EA and Bioware have learned their lessons. DA2 wasn't a bad game it just wasn't what I expect from Bioware. The saddest thing about the game is how rushed you can tell it is because, from a writing perspective the game is half a draft and an outline, but they did not have time to finish it. From the perspective of a long time Bioware fan DA2 feels almost exactly like Baldur's Gate: Throne of Bhaal did except TOB had the basis of being just an expansion pack. TOB was rushed so it's a VERY limited expansion. David Gaider and others on the team actually helped write some mods, or gave Baldur's Gate modders notes and info on quests and mechanics they had to leave out. I guarantee you if this was the early 2000 and DA2 was only on PC the same thing would have happened with DA2

 

[Uhura]

While thats sounds good, i developed the habbit of taking the promises devs make for their games with a HUGE spoon of salt. The dialogue wheel in DA2 didnt really work for me either, strangely enough i had no problems with it in the ME series, but in DA2 Hawke would often say something that was not at all what the wheel indicatet and i wantet to say. And what they tried to do with these three different personalitys, the good, the bad and the witty didn't sit well with me.

Yeah, I'm usually very skeptical when it comes to pre-release comments/hype, but in this case I feel that many of the promises do sound very sensible. It's not like they have announced that DA3 has 20 different endings and that the PC gets a pet dragon/companion in the game. So yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic about the current DA3 rumors, since they are nothing too crazy or ott.

I didn't have any trouble with the dialogue wheel in ME series either. It's strange how it seems to work just fine there but feels really wrong in the DA context. Personally, I really dislike how it encourages metagaming in DA2.

snip

Nah, I doubt they'll fuck it up completely. I think they know that they can't afford more bad press.

 

[Trinab]

I think I'm done with Bioware games. I have ignored them since Dragon Age 2. I shall put my fantasy RPG hopes into Torment: Tides of Numenera, and Project Eternity.

 

[chainguns]

Yes, clearly the problem here is that I do not share your highly cultivated tastes, just as the problem before was that "gamers" as an amorphous unit do not "realize" that good games actually align with YOUR tastes, rather than theirs.

Wow, a multi-quote, anti-elitist wall of text, that no-one on this board will be bothered to read. Wonderful post. For someone of your age you seem to be unaware that your reply turned this into a private conversation descending rapidly into the dreary world of semantics, and off topic.

But I have my superiority and to prove, so even though you are unworthy, I will reply. In my first post I said:

By then, gamers - saturated with yearly FPS rehashes - will realize that not all games have to be action, cinematic, or hack and slash.

You decided to read elitism into that ("sneering disdain", "true scotsman" etc) and go all ad-hominem in a fabulous tirade of semantics, eloquently proving that forum-abbreviated generalizations are not 100% accurate. Funnily enough, I do think that good games are those that align with my tastes. Duh? What would you have me do? Go on a forum praising games I don't like, or keeping quiet about the fact that I think 90% of releases being passive cinematic and action-centric is a shame, just to blend in with the currently prevailing wind direction? Keep quiet if I don't like the status quo of something, because to speak up would be tantamount to demanding an OBE?

All that I think gamers need to "realize" is that gameplay quality and depth is slipping, variety in releases is dropping, and visuals are improving. I don't fully get what part of this subjective opinion makes you so angry- the observation, or the idea that people should "realize" something that I have observed. What I wanted to say by "realize" but didn't want to go into a wall of text of small print, is that there is a huge AAA marketing machine that is in bed with almost all the review sites, and not everyone was playing games in the 80s like we were, so it becomes harder to "realize" certain things.

As for the "games of every variety available" - I was talking AAA, and I dare say you knew that. I know there is variety in the indie market and kickstarter is doing great (I have pumped >$400 into KS so far), but it would be nice to say a better than 90:10 action:nonaction split in AAA. Last year we got ... xcom, this year Rome II, possibly Europa Universalis IV. Now count the reflex- based games this year. PS the 90:10 is forum-speak, if the exact ratio is 87:13, please feel free to call "hyperbole" again and launch another wall of angry text.

Re "damn those people" (hair physics and cutscenes) just look at the shape and state of the AAA market. People buy what they like ('guided' by the hype machinery like the escapist), publishers make more of what they like. I look at this and observe that "people" want good graphics, shooting Russians/Muslims and little or nothing asked of them. If you look at the game shelf of your Walmart or Tesco and come to a different conclusion, then let's hear it. But don't rail against elitism and don't *sugggest* that a phrase containing the word "people", "gamers" /whatever broad brush term is inaccurate or mostly made up, by default. Because then we end up in boring, thread killing walls of text like your post and this one now.

 

[chainguns]

I really hope they don't step too far back into the DA:O roots like some people want, because I found that DA2 fixed all the problems I had with DA:O.

I seriously hope they keep the fast combat(which I still found to be fine for planning, as I could still pause and give orders).

For each DA:O problem they fixed, they created five new ones.

The fast combat is a strange thing to hope for. If you run DA:O combat on Hard without pausing your party will be dead in like 12-15 seconds real time. In DA2 if you run the combat on Hard without pausing your party will be dead in 8-10 seconds. The thing that changed most in DA2 was the movement speed and the animation speed. So whereas in Origins if you paused every nanosecond you could position the Area of Effect perfectly. In DA2 the enemy moved so fast even in a nanosecond that you could actually miss out. That game was schizophrenic - it was using a semi-turn based foundation and trying to action it up so it felt more action and less strategy.

But the main difference is the encounter design and enemy variety. In Origins, if you look at the entire 100 hour game (DLC+Awakening) the majority of battles were unique, in that the terrain, composition, boss:mob ratio, scripting, were different each time. The only way tactics slots would work was if you were playing on Normal post patch 1.2 (ie the 'new' Easy). Other than that, tactics autopilot didn't work because each case was different (that, and tactics were a little buggy).

Also in Origins, the enemies had all the abilities that the player had (stun, knockdown, rogue stuff like bleed, templar stuff like smite, grab, spells, elemental attacks) whereas in DA2 they were more or less functionally equal. You almost didn't need to read the description of the enemies, just hit your abilities as soon as they were off cooldown.

On the PC you also got the removal of top down cam. So all the "think like a general, fight like a spartan" marketing was lies, much like the majority of pre-ME3 developer statements.

The only thing salvageable from DA2 combat is the CCC cross class combos, but even then you need to eliminate the awful spawn mechanic to make it work - otherwise you end up with a new wave in the middle of a fight and three of your four party members were simultaneously on cooldown and with low stamina.

Laidlaw already said combat will be fast (exact words were "not lardy style like Origins"), so seems like you should be happy.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

After what I've heard of the game it sounds like a bit of a clusterfuck. Like they are trying to do too much. 'We are looking at Skyrim' WAT why?

I'm hoping it will be a nice balance between DA:O's call back to Baldur's Gate and DA2's effort at improving on that without DA2's mistakes.

We don't all get what we want though.

Biggest thing I like is that they are using the Battlefield engine so it should look exponentially prettier than the last two games. (The hands used to really bother me)

I won't be buying DA3 until I've seen some player feedback that's for sure.

 

[Caiphus]

After what I've heard of the game it sounds like a bit of a clusterfuck. Like they are trying to do too much. 'We are looking at Skyrim' WAT why?

Because Skyrim sold silly amounts of copies, was a commercial success, attracted thousands of loyal, rabid followers (including my sexy self), and was critically acclaimed.
Almost everything DA2 wasn't. It makes PERFECT sense!

Listen, boss, there was a game two years ago that succeeded on almost every front. It's also, on a surface level, rather similar to our Dragon Age franchise. Would you rather we make DA3 more like that game, or less like that game?

And I must admit, thinking of DA3 being more like Skyrim made me more than a little excited. It shouldn't have made my heart rate increase by quite as much as it did. But, well, we all have our weaknesses.

Could turn out to be shit in the end. Hope it doesn't.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

After what I've heard of the game it sounds like a bit of a clusterfuck. Like they are trying to do too much. 'We are looking at Skyrim' WAT why?

Because Skyrim sold silly amounts of copies, was a commercial success, attracted thousands of loyal, rabid followers (including my sexy self), and was critically acclaimed.
Almost everything DA2 wasn't. It makes PERFECT sense!

Listen, boss, there was a game two years ago that succeeded on almost every front. It's also, on a surface level, rather similar to our Dragon Age franchise. Would you rather we make DA3 more like that game, or less like that game?

And I must admit, thinking of DA3 being more like Skyrim made me more than a little excited. It shouldn't have made my heart rate increase by quite as much as it did. But, well, we all have our weaknesses.

Could turn out to be shit in the end. Hope it doesn't.

To me it's just like someone saying 'We wanted to breed the perfect dog so we took a good long look at grumpy cat'

As much as I love Skyrim it's nothing like Dragon Age. It just frightens and confuses me.

 

[Caiphus]

To me it's just like someone saying 'We wanted to breed the perfect dog so we took a good long look at grumpy cat'

As much as I love Skyrim it's nothing like Dragon Age. It just frightens and confuses me.

To a marketing executive who doesn't play many games, Skyrim and Dragon Age are almost identical, I'd imagine.

And like I said, the idea of making an Elder Scrolls game in the Dragon Age universe makes me sweat, ostensibly for a much different reason than yourself.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

To me it's just like someone saying 'We wanted to breed the perfect dog so we took a good long look at grumpy cat'

As much as I love Skyrim it's nothing like Dragon Age. It just frightens and confuses me.

To a marketing executive who doesn't play many games, Skyrim and Dragon Age are almost identical, I'd imagine.

And like I said, the idea of making an Elder Scrolls game in the Dragon Age universe makes me sweat, ostensibly for a much different reason than yourself.

Maybe I'm just too negative but I have this horrible image of this frankenstein game that is trying to do too much.

If they got it right and it was like Dragon Age storyline and conversations with Skyrim's world then that would be extremely sexy. Like a modern day Baldur's Gate.

That just seems to good to be true though.

 

[Caiphus]

Maybe I'm just too negative but I have this horrible image of this frankenstein game that is trying to do too much.

If they got it right and it was like Dragon Age storyline and conversations with Skyrim's world then that would be extremely sexy. Like a modern day Baldur's Gate.

That just seems to good to be true though.

Well it's always practical to set expectations slightly low. I know I'm going to be in for a nasty shock if DA3 turns out to be a flop. I won't pre-order though. Fuq dat

I would absolutely agree with you if Bioware tried to get this one through on a similarly Spartan development time to DA2. Creating an open world in a year would be madness, and absolutely doomed to fail.
And Bioware have been on a disappointing roll recently, so it could still fail. I suppose it's anyone's guess at the moment.

But it's been a little while longer in development, and I'm hopeful that Bioware has learned some hard lessons. It would be a welcome return to form, at any rate.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Maybe I'm just too negative but I have this horrible image of this frankenstein game that is trying to do too much.

If they got it right and it was like Dragon Age storyline and conversations with Skyrim's world then that would be extremely sexy. Like a modern day Baldur's Gate.

That just seems to good to be true though.

I don't think designing areas that are significantly more open, and more persistent, than in DA:O and DA2 is a fruit that is hanging that high. I mean, the levels in DA:O and DA2 were ridiculously small and confined. So, yea, BioWare better take a damn long look at Skyrim. But I agree, going full open-world might be a bad idea. BioWare has just no experience with that, and it's not that easy to do - just ask Bethesda. I'd rather have them focussing on getting combat and story right.

 

[ex275w]

Hopes for DA3:
* A better combat system that is basically a quicker version of the one on the first game. DA 2 had awful balance in combat and in general took longer than the one in the first game at the same difficulties.
* Less "snarky" dialogue, every time I accidentally chose a "snarky" dialogue in DA2 (because I thopught it would be the best option) I wanted to punch Hawke.
* Either ends the story definitely or advances it significantly, setting up a final conclusion.
* Choices that matter, frankly the choices in DA2 were basically choosing Pepsi or Coca Cola. Choices in Dragon Age: Origins reflected more who you are.
* Great allies who don't annoy me.
* Having a Dog as a companion.

Reality of DA3:
Either it's gonna end up being a Skyrim rip-off or Dragon Age 2: 2 and the story won't advance one iota and proceed to end up having a sequel hook.

 

[wintercoat]

My hopes for DA3 are that the people who butchered Anders and threw Justice under the bus are kept far, far away from the game. Seriously, fuck whoever decided that Anders needed a personality change. Can you imagine what DA2 would have been like if Anders stayed the way he was in Awakening? They would have needed to restrict party make-up, lest you put Anders and Varric into the party at the same time and cause the universe to collapse from the awesome. Also, whoever wrote Sebastian needs to stay away too.

Oh, also, I want combat to be a mixture of both of the first two games. DA:O's combat felt slow and plodding for anyone but a dual-wielding rogue, whereas DA2's combat felt spastic. I want to feel like everyone's actually doing something, but I don't want them flailing around like a lunatic.

And don't they dare leave out Arcane Warrior again! One of the very few games where you get to play as a warrior mage, and they had to take it away.

I would like the interactions with party members to feel more intimate, especially with the love interest. In Origins and Awakening, they felt rather mechanical since they were just face-to-face talks. I liked that in 2, the talks would play out more naturally, with characters moving around, gesturing, throwing half-empty bottles of wine at the wall. It made them seem more like people, rather than cardboard cutouts. But I also want more intimacy between the PC and the chosen love interest. Have intimate scenes after the cheesy awkward sex scene, for example. Change combat dialog to reflect the change in relationship. Just don't leave it a one and done thing with a mention at the end. If I'm going to throw my PC into a relationship, I want it to mean something other than I got to watch a shitty sex scene.

I liked the branching trees from DA2, but there just wasn't enough places to put points. Origins had the same problem, even after Awakening added new places to put them. I ended up just filling out trees for the hell of it. It should matter where I put my points. Give me more skills, more branches, more customization. And whatever you do, don't take things away to give the player less. The problem isn't too many points, it's that there aren't any good places to put them all.

 

[Arina Love]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

 

[Knight Templar]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

 

[chainguns]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

Depends if you think the only problem with ME3 was the ending. As far as I'm concerned the ending was just so egregiously bad that it stole attention from the remaining serious flaws which are discussed more rarely.

But BioWare already sent itself down by jettisoning its existing customer base without adequately considering how it would get the mainstream audience. In short it lost the customers it had trying to get the customers that it couldn't get without a *much* wider overhaul (than just bigger boobs and more gore). Combine that with EA's greedy monetization and all you need is for the last man out of there to turn out the lights.

 

[Knight Templar]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

Depends if you think the only problem with ME3 was the ending. As far as I'm concerned the ending was just so egregiously bad that it stole attention from the remaining serious flaws which are discussed more rarely.

I make that assumption because most if not all of ME3's other issues don't stem from the game itself, they stem from things introduced back in ME2. Mostly Cerberus.

But even then you are still deciding to punish one group for the actions of another, simply because you are unhappy with the entertainment products they have produced, or the manner in which they have done so. When the wish is so outlandish as a game that will kill Bioware, then to not wish for something actually good and 100% redeeming is nothing but vindictive. Both are just as unlikely as the other, so to hope things get worse isn't something I think can be justified. Edit: "you" in the rhetorical sense.

 

[Arina Love]

i hope it will be so bad it will sink bioware, then i can be at peace knowing than they were punished for ME3.

So you want an entire company to go down because of two people?

Depends if you think the only problem with ME3 was the ending. As far as I'm concerned the ending was just so egregiously bad that it stole attention from the remaining serious flaws which are discussed more rarely.

I make that assumption because most if not all of ME3's other issues don't stem from the game itself, they stem from things introduced back in ME2. Mostly Cerberus.

But even then you are still deciding to punish one group for the actions of another, simply because you are unhappy with the entertainment products they have produced, or the manner in which they have done so. When the wish is so outlandish as a game that will kill Bioware, then to not wish for something actually good and 100% redeeming is nothing but vindictive. Both are just as unlikely as the other, so to hope things get worse isn't something I think can be justified. Edit: "you" in the rhetorical sense.

i don't care about justification or rationality, it's a pure blind rage without logic.

 

[Chris Tian]

Bioware basically said each game will be new individuals significant to the DA universe in that period.

Yeah it seems i am the only one who hadn't heard of this.
My problem with that is not that i liked Hawke so much or anything, its just that DA2 becomes so pointless an futile if Hawke doesn't make a big appearance in DA3. I mean DA2 is all about Hawke derping around Kirkwall doing mostly minor or personal stuff, that has very little influence at anything. The only thing noteworthy happening is the Qunari battle. Everything else just gets hinted at or started, the real story and resolve of those things would have to be in DA3 and thus become the storys of the DA3 protagonist. The only thing tying all the minor quests and plots and whatnot together is Hawke, so DA2 becomes the story of how Hawke became who he/she is, but didnt really do much. And if Hawke doesn't really matter, since he has very little influence at anything, except getting rid of the qunari in Kirkwall, DA2 has zero significance within the trilogy.