So Dragon Age 3.... No Pressure?
- Thread starter Fappy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I sand corrected. There's more than one, it doesn't make it any less of a bad idea. So what all that boils down to is that Dragon Age 3 has exactly ONE non-bad idea going for it.Knight Templar said:
And since all Bioware's good ideas were used up on Dragon Age Origins, this franchise is pretty much gone.
I got half way through Dragon Age 2 and gave up after I had 3 different side-quests that took place on the same patch of grass. Done.
As someone who has owned every Bioware game up until Mass Effect 3(Someone else bought it for me as I refused to pay for it). I can say that Bioware would have to try awfully hard to bring me back into the fold.
As it is, I can't even imagine what Dragon age 3 could bring to the table to make me trust Bioware enough to purchase it at all, let alone at full price.
As it is, I can't even imagine what Dragon age 3 could bring to the table to make me trust Bioware enough to purchase it at all, let alone at full price.
I played Dragon Age II and loved the way the game played but the story was shit. I like Dragon Age Origins for its story but the gameplay was boring.
I didn't play Mass Effect 3 but I have certainly heard of the disaster that was the ending to it.
I hope Dragon Age 3 will have the Dragon Age 2 gameplay style (I liked tapping the A button to attack rather than auto attacking combat style) and a Dragon Age Origins story line
Captcha:
it's over
I didn't play Mass Effect 3 but I have certainly heard of the disaster that was the ending to it.
I hope Dragon Age 3 will have the Dragon Age 2 gameplay style (I liked tapping the A button to attack rather than auto attacking combat style) and a Dragon Age Origins story line
Captcha:
it's over
The farther they get away from the characters of DA II the better. DA II made the mistake of underestimating it's predecessor; All the characters they introduced in the first game are either gone or reduced to cameos, and the story doesn't take advantage of the momentum or dangling plot threads of the first game. It functioned more as a spin-off and was written like a fan fiction.
The first thing DA III needs is to cement itself back into Ferelden and with the characters of the first game.
The next thing it needs to do is to stop trying too hard to be funny. Ever notice that even Mass Effect 3, arguably one of the bleakest games Bioware has ever produced, is still funny? Why? because humor is integral to how humans interact, you don't need to force it.
Lots of conversations in Origins are funny, but almost none of them are there for the sake of humor alone, the humor flows from the characters and conversations naturally, but the game never forgets that the scene is still there to learn about the character.
In DA II, the game went so far as to dedicate an entire third of all your reactions (A whole three choices!) to shits and giggles. It seems that DA II remembered that Origins made people laugh but forgot about everything else. Most of the characters can be summarized in one phrase, and that's all you ever learn of them.
Fenris: Bitter and hateful (And he's actually one of the better ones, at least he has motivation)
Anders: Strong sense of justice... oh wait, that's the character they attached because he's so fucking boring.
Isabella: Fear of commitment
Merril: Naive
Sebastian: Religious
Avaline: Honorable
Varic: "Witty"
Hawkes family is completely nondescript
Dragon Age II kicks off emotionally forced, trying to make you feel bad for people you don't know during an event you've already seen the conclusion of. It completely ignored what Origins had set up for it.
However, DA III should not make the mistake that it's predecessor did, and ignore the things hat DA II got right, or rather tried to get right.
Now while I thought that the person who decided that DA II should look like a Medevil Dragon Ball Z should be drawn and quartered (I just blew someone up with a knife?), I think some of the mechanics for the combat are better. The feature that works best in DA II are the cross class combos, they're great and should be kept around.
I also like the concept of the skill web. In practice, it just allowed different skill trees to be structured differently (Which is good), but the concept of being able to customize a character down to every individual ability is an intriguing one, but I have my doubts that such a radical system will make it into the game.
Not everything has to be about the end of the world. The disjointed plot of DA II made me worry that Bioware have gotten much to used to this plot crutch, especially when (Most of) Biowares characters are good enough to motivate you to action all by themselves. You don't need an all purpose motivator to get us to want to spend time with these guys. DA II's focus on character wasn't a bad thing, the characters in question just sucked. The story of one group of people getting by and dealing with political issues could be great. That's two thirds of the overarching plot of A Song of Ice and Fire, arguably one of the reasons Dragon Age even exists.
I also thought the overarching plot(s) of DA II were pretty good. The Qunari make for great villains, because even though their just people like us, their way of life is incompatible with our own, and it's hard to fault them for being different.
The conflict between Mages and Templars is an inherently intriguing one, because like the Qunari issue, both sides have valid points, and while DA II played heavily in favor of the Mages, the idea is still fresh.
But this also presents a problem; Both of these conflicts could have easily been entire games on their own, but instead they were both half-assed in one game, so that means that one half of each idea is already over and done with, so the ideas can either be artificially stretched to make for two whole stories, or half-assed again. I think the best thing to do would be to just abandon the trilogy model and make two games. I'd rather the ideas be padded at the start and end up well than just debunked or poorly done
Dragon Age could be great again, it's just a matter of learning from it's mistakes.
EDIT: I heard somewhere that, again, the player will be playing a new protagonist in DA III. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as I said, one of the biggest issues with DA II was how little it involved itself with the characters from Origins, and if we're again playing an entirely new character, I'm concerned that will happen again. Even if they do appear, I'm sure I'll regularly find myself wondering what became of their relationship with the Warden. I don't know why Bioware are so resistant to playing as the Warden, silence is a small price to pay for story momentum. I hope they're not disrespectful enough to kill him/her off screen.
The first thing DA III needs is to cement itself back into Ferelden and with the characters of the first game.
The next thing it needs to do is to stop trying too hard to be funny. Ever notice that even Mass Effect 3, arguably one of the bleakest games Bioware has ever produced, is still funny? Why? because humor is integral to how humans interact, you don't need to force it.
Lots of conversations in Origins are funny, but almost none of them are there for the sake of humor alone, the humor flows from the characters and conversations naturally, but the game never forgets that the scene is still there to learn about the character.
In DA II, the game went so far as to dedicate an entire third of all your reactions (A whole three choices!) to shits and giggles. It seems that DA II remembered that Origins made people laugh but forgot about everything else. Most of the characters can be summarized in one phrase, and that's all you ever learn of them.
Fenris: Bitter and hateful (And he's actually one of the better ones, at least he has motivation)
Anders: Strong sense of justice... oh wait, that's the character they attached because he's so fucking boring.
Isabella: Fear of commitment
Merril: Naive
Sebastian: Religious
Avaline: Honorable
Varic: "Witty"
Hawkes family is completely nondescript
Dragon Age II kicks off emotionally forced, trying to make you feel bad for people you don't know during an event you've already seen the conclusion of. It completely ignored what Origins had set up for it.
However, DA III should not make the mistake that it's predecessor did, and ignore the things hat DA II got right, or rather tried to get right.
Now while I thought that the person who decided that DA II should look like a Medevil Dragon Ball Z should be drawn and quartered (I just blew someone up with a knife?), I think some of the mechanics for the combat are better. The feature that works best in DA II are the cross class combos, they're great and should be kept around.
I also like the concept of the skill web. In practice, it just allowed different skill trees to be structured differently (Which is good), but the concept of being able to customize a character down to every individual ability is an intriguing one, but I have my doubts that such a radical system will make it into the game.
Not everything has to be about the end of the world. The disjointed plot of DA II made me worry that Bioware have gotten much to used to this plot crutch, especially when (Most of) Biowares characters are good enough to motivate you to action all by themselves. You don't need an all purpose motivator to get us to want to spend time with these guys. DA II's focus on character wasn't a bad thing, the characters in question just sucked. The story of one group of people getting by and dealing with political issues could be great. That's two thirds of the overarching plot of A Song of Ice and Fire, arguably one of the reasons Dragon Age even exists.
I also thought the overarching plot(s) of DA II were pretty good. The Qunari make for great villains, because even though their just people like us, their way of life is incompatible with our own, and it's hard to fault them for being different.
The conflict between Mages and Templars is an inherently intriguing one, because like the Qunari issue, both sides have valid points, and while DA II played heavily in favor of the Mages, the idea is still fresh.
But this also presents a problem; Both of these conflicts could have easily been entire games on their own, but instead they were both half-assed in one game, so that means that one half of each idea is already over and done with, so the ideas can either be artificially stretched to make for two whole stories, or half-assed again. I think the best thing to do would be to just abandon the trilogy model and make two games. I'd rather the ideas be padded at the start and end up well than just debunked or poorly done
Dragon Age could be great again, it's just a matter of learning from it's mistakes.
EDIT: I heard somewhere that, again, the player will be playing a new protagonist in DA III. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as I said, one of the biggest issues with DA II was how little it involved itself with the characters from Origins, and if we're again playing an entirely new character, I'm concerned that will happen again. Even if they do appear, I'm sure I'll regularly find myself wondering what became of their relationship with the Warden. I don't know why Bioware are so resistant to playing as the Warden, silence is a small price to pay for story momentum. I hope they're not disrespectful enough to kill him/her off screen.
Well, aside from the mediocre dungeon design, I enjoyed the combat. Was it kinda weak? Yes, but it was still fun and depending on the class you played, it wasn't THAT easy. And really, the game DID get pretty tough to just hack and slash your way through later on, especially with certain sidequests.
I'm looking forward to Dragon Age 3, they set up something big at the end of DAII and I think they'd have to work pretty hard to completely and totally fuck the series up.
I'm looking forward to Dragon Age 3, they set up something big at the end of DAII and I think they'd have to work pretty hard to completely and totally fuck the series up.
I LOVED DA:O, but DA2 I could not finish. It was basically side quest after side quest, then all of a sudden, STORY!! After that invasion thingy or whatever in the second part of the game, I truly thought I had beaten it. Then they pull this templar crap out of nowhere, and I put the game down. I couldn't continue. That was the first time it had ever happened to me, and from a Bioware game at that. The combat was much improved from DA:O, but beyond that, meh. I didn't mind the ME3 ending, but I still reserve myself for DA3. I'm afraid that it will be lackluster. But there is the part of me that wants to get it and hopes Bioware redeems themselves with it.
From what I've heard, they're still in the conceptual stages, and actual development hasn't kicked into full gear yet, so at least they seem to no be rushing this one out the door like DA2, which bodes well
i don't see how anyone who played DA:O could even think that DA2 was anything but a pile of complete horse shit. it was worse in every conceivable way. and the original ME3 ending was such an unmitigated disaster Bioware actually went back and "fixed" it after the playerbase rejected (to put it mildly) what was originally offered.
DA3 will indeed be a popcorn worthy release. with SW:TOR already considering a free to play service, Bioware has to deliver the goods. Although ME3 was a commercial success. As long as they continue to ship units, maybe there is no reason for them to alter their formula.
DA3 will indeed be a popcorn worthy release. with SW:TOR already considering a free to play service, Bioware has to deliver the goods. Although ME3 was a commercial success. As long as they continue to ship units, maybe there is no reason for them to alter their formula.
Easy DA1 had crappy combat.Ascarus said:
DA2 had crappy things like the wave combat, and bosses with 1000000 health, but DA2's combat didn't put me to sleep.
My perfect Da3 would be DA1 but with DA2's combat speed.
Watching Sten take 5 seconds to swing a two handed sword isn't fun.
Not to change the topic but I actually liked the slower combat speeds of DAO, it gave the illusion that the weapons had weight and momentum. It complimented the relatively serious storyline. DA2 was too cartoony, the rogues would even flip over while attacking like they weighed nothing at all.SajuukKhar said:
To each his own. I suppose the characters of DA II could be expanded upon in the third one, but not at the expense of the cast of Origins.Fappy said:
I am curios to know, however; How would you describe Varics character?
I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but DA2 ruined my play style and thus ruined my entire experience of the game. What was my play style? Tanking. I love to Tank, I love to get, pull and KEEP aggro. I love using a S/B combo to keep myself alive.
DA2 did anything and everything it could to ruin my experience as a Tank.
-Constant Ambushes, Check
-Every ambush attacking from every direction, check
-Terrible aggro ability distance, check
-Terrible early aggro abilities, check
-Make S/B combo pointless, check
-Terrible Tanking abilities, check
-Main Hero as a tank second only to companion, check
The HERO of the GAME was second in overall Tanking performance compared to Aveline (love her <3). Her abilities were the protagonist's abilities in DA1, but the protagonist of DA2 did not have those abilities. The frustration of being a good MC Tank by using a 2h was and still is unbearable. Thank you DA2 for giving my play style the shaft...
DA2 did anything and everything it could to ruin my experience as a Tank.
-Constant Ambushes, Check
-Every ambush attacking from every direction, check
-Terrible aggro ability distance, check
-Terrible early aggro abilities, check
-Make S/B combo pointless, check
-Terrible Tanking abilities, check
-Main Hero as a tank second only to companion, check
The HERO of the GAME was second in overall Tanking performance compared to Aveline (love her <3). Her abilities were the protagonist's abilities in DA1, but the protagonist of DA2 did not have those abilities. The frustration of being a good MC Tank by using a 2h was and still is unbearable. Thank you DA2 for giving my play style the shaft...
imahobbit4062 said:
You must be the one who will bring balance to the force. Or you're on the EA payroll.
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Dude, Dragon Age 2 already did that!
Bioware can just do whatever, the series can't actually get any worse.ToR, ME3, DA2? Yeah, sure, they might somehow reverse all of the EA influence and actually make a game that doesn't get the entire internet talkingSavo said:
about how bad it is.