Speaking of dwarf fans, the female dwarf looks great. Much improved since DA. Now let's hope Varic is a romanceable character...DragonKhan95 said:
Race selection is back in Dragon Age Inquisition
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually the third act takes place in the same location and is dealing with the same issue but the events of the second act have huge consequences on how it plays out, it also changes what quests are available and how the entire region acts towards you depending on what version of Act II you played through as.evilthecat said:
Geralt is essentially the wrong man at the right place at the right time who ends up unintentionally nudging decisions in ways that have staggering political repercussions. It's established at the end of The Witcher I where Geralt is collecting payment from a king personally for resolving a matter of state involving a monster.
Just so happens this is when an assassination attempt on the King takes place and Geralt is Johnny on the Spot, one of the most skilled swordsmen in the land, who defends the king from the assassin. Had Geralt not been there the king would have been assassinated and the entire region would have fallen into political turmoil as his only heirs (bastards too) were in the hands of a minor countess.
He can't stop major events that are already in progress but he changes how they resolve themselves.
Would be, I 'spose, but I honestly doubt it.hazabaza1 said:
The options, were that the case, are
*spend a lot more on voice acting
**cut down on the protagonist's dialogue
*Unlikely, I would think
**Counter-intuitive to having voiced lines the first place
I expect a male and female voice over only. Though, I could be wrong.
Actually, I think 90% of what you're describing is just animation. DA2 fights took about the same length of time as fights in Origins, what I think made them seem faster was the habit of throwing vast numbers of brittle-bone disease sufferers into each fight who could be killed in one or two hits.Ishal said:
There are lots of things which you can say made DA2 less tactical. The fact that the party was constantly swamped from all sides by wave combat was the big one, also limited friendly fire, the simplification of the armor, weapon and stat system (although differentiating rogues and warriors tactically was probably a good idea) and long cooldowns which put the emphasis on auto-attacks. But the speed of attack animations made very little difference.
Origins also had a lot of impossible animations and unrealistically acrobatic or stylized fighting. It was maybe a bit more subtle and largely confined its true silliness to the prerendered finishing moves, but they were still pretty silly. Personally, I'd like to see two-handed weapons made slower again, but only because it worked so well with Origins armour system, which was a much more interesting mechanic than just a flat percentile damage resistance.
But, frankly, a realistic game would have characters in heavy armour waddling around ineffectually hitting at each other until one of them collapsed from heat exhaustion and got finished off with a knife through the eye. Not particularly heroic or fun. I get that there's an intermediate, but I think there's room for a bit of silly in fantasy.
My first instinct was that they looked too petite, but then I realize that these are Dragon Age dwarfs, who really are just small humans, and that's actually nice because it's a bit original. Dwarfs have got way too bound up in this whole fantasy warrior-race archetype over the years, it's nice to see someone step back and rethink the concept.Tigerlily Warrior said:
Changing what quests are available is cool, but doesn't take all that much work. DA2 also managed that, and I think noone would say that it made your choices particularly meaningful. The rest sounds a lot like dialogue to me.Abomination said:
However, I don't want to sound over-critical, because my point is actually that that kind of dialogue is enough, or should be. That you don't necessarily need to do more than tell the player that what they did mattered to some fictional character. If that's done well enough that the player is invested in the setting, then the choice will seem meaningful to them even if it didn't radically alter the whole arc of the story.
Still, I don't know. Maybe the Witcher 2 would be the game to change my mind. I'll probably get it when it's on sale and I actually have some money saved up.
One major reason I haven't already, though, is that I simply could not get myself to care about Geralt in the Witcher 1. They seem to be constantly trying to establish him as some kind of relucant hero who keeps getting pulled into things against his will, but unlike other such characters (like Han Solo, or Garrett the Master Thief) he's not fundamentally presented as a nice person and no choice on the part of the player seems to make him any more of a nice person.
I recognize that there were choices in that game and that they were sometimes clever and weighty, but ultimately I didn't particularly feel like those choices mattered all that much because they didn't tell me anything about who this guy I was playing actually was and why I should care about what he was doing. Maybe the Witcher 2 was better in that regard, I'll have to find out, but I think maybe this just goes further to show that the actual thing which makes choices meaningful is player investment.
Qunari were supposed to have horns in DAO (it'd make sense considering Ogres), but it had to be cut since it'd mean BioWare would have to make a new model for every helmet to accomodate the horns.wulf3n said:
The Witcher series also offers only an illusion of choice since CDPR decides a canon to go by for the next installment. If hypothetically your Geralt chose Iorverth and CDPR preferred Roche? Well eat shit or write fanfiction 'cause it'll continue off from Roche path in Wild Hunt in case it was.A Weakgeek said:
Dragon Age isn't meant to be (and never was) a trilogy. I hear it said all the time and I really wonder where that idea came from since Bioware never said it.RJ 17 said:
They certainly never said that it wasn't supposed to be a trilogy either. Considering the fact that they went ahead and made a DA2 that ends with a big "To Be Continued" situation, I think it's pretty safe to say that they did in fact intend for it to be a trilogy.Unknown Warrior said:
It doesn't actually. Choice from The Witcher 1 are imported into 2 and respected and characters treat you differently for it.Unknown Warrior said:
1. If it was a trilogy they'd be calling it "Dragon Age 3" and marketing it as "The Final Chapter" etc. instead of building entirely new races, graphics engine, combat system etc. for it.RJ 17 said:
2. I made a post in the Bioware forums late last year and dev confirmed the franchise was not a trilogy.
Then why call the second one Dragon Age II and have the stories of the three games intertwined.endtherapture said:
It would seem to me that this is a trilogy. Sure it isn't like Mass Effect where we follow the story of one person but it is all clearly built up to the events to take place in the third game.
It's not a trilogy, stop being ignorant!votemarvel said:
You can ignore what I say all I want, but the fact Bioware developers have talked of their "5 game plan for Dragon Age" and explicitly said that it is not a trilogy makes it pretty clear that it's NOT a trilogy.
What even indicates it that it's a trilogy? Nothing.
Did people assume because Final Fantasy 2 was called Final Fantasy 2 that Final Fantasy 3 would be the last in the trilogy?
Um, Yeah, they choose a canon path. With the first game for example they chose the neutral path, but thats why you can import your save from W1 to W2, which takes into account your choices. (pretty much every game series with choices does this) Unless you've read an actual statement from CDPR that says this wont be the case for W3, which Id be happy to read.Unknown Warrior said:
I fail to see why my opinion upsets you so much.endtherapture said:
If the story that has been set-up through the three games resolves itself at the end third then it will have been a trilogy. As the story would have ended there.
So if the story does not in fact resolve itself in the third then it will not have been a trilogy.
Plus just because there has been a trilogy does not mean that you can not release other games set in that world.
It doesn't upset me now, but I can see if there's a less than satisfying ending for Inquisition, people will ***** about how it wasn't ended properly, when the intention is that it is not a trilogy!votemarvel said: