So Dragon Age 3.... No Pressure?
- Thread starter Fappy
- Start date
DA2 was bad because it was a rushed sequel. I say that because they obviously had an ambitious vision, but production more likely than not, could not get into full swing untill after Awakenings, meaning they guys had at the most a year to make it, probably less due to production time and they probably had to get content complete at least a month in advance
Really? I did not know that, can I see where you found that. It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of the issues,(ie the recycled zones and lack of customization) could have been fixed had the game had an extra year of polish.MrMan999 said:
Dragon Age 2 was an "unmitigated disaster" with solid sales. That is, by definition, the opposite of unmitigated.
But I do think there's a lot of pressure to deliver the RPG goods with DA3. We know BioWare can still make good games, it's just the endings we have to worry about.
But I do think there's a lot of pressure to deliver the RPG goods with DA3. We know BioWare can still make good games, it's just the endings we have to worry about.
If you kept reading you would see I explained how he could talk to Hackett and why blowing up the citadel is the most dumb idea ever.fi6eka said:
You also seem to be under the assumptions that the SC has the reapers in a hive mind, which it doesn'tm it is never said, or implied that, the only thing that it s aid is that the Sc control the plan, the reapers have individual control over themselves.
Also I meant the Reapers CAN also activate the Citadel, but only do when the keepers fail.
The Keepers are the "activate the citadel because we dont want the SC going rouge and doing it himself to early", and the reapers are "should the keepers fail or go rouge you do it"
the reapers are a redundant system for the Keeper, which given the magnitude of the plan, it would be a good idea to have a backup.
Also if your "piss" was pure death, I would make sure you needed someone to punch you in the kidneys n order to go, that isn't something I would want you to be able to do yourself.
I have never heard this stated anywhere. What I have heard are rumors that the game was a standalone game for a completely different franchise that was kitbashed into the DA universe when EA wanted to rush the game for a March release (first quarter 2011).MrMan999 said:
There's an interview on record with Imon Zur where he flat-out states the score was a rushjob for the game, which itself was rushed out the door to get to shelves quicker. There have also been rumors that the game was released in an "alpha" state, and never had a beta version before being shipped out the door.
At the risk of derailing this thread, I can only conclude you have no idea what a plot hole is.SajuukKhar said:
Take the Hackett issue, for example. We find out that Hackett has had the ability to talk to Shepard (and presumably Anderson) the entire time they're on the Citadel, yet he only bothers to contact Shepard immediately after s/he resolves the TIM confrontation. The Extended Cut makes this notion even more absurd - there's an added scene where Hackett gets "reports" that people made it to the Conduit (which brings up another point - why did no one else rush the beam after Harbinger flew off?), and assumes that Shepard made it even though he doesn't know who is up in the Citadel. Instead of immediately contacting his top units, he waits for several minutes to do this.
Ergo, it goes from Event A to Event B without explaining the process behind it.
The Catalyst states that it "controls the Reapers" - that's a blatant admission that it has oversight and control over all of them, despite Sovereign stating point-blank in the first game that every Reaper is an independent, assimilated species that acts autonomously.
There is no rationale given for why the Reapers wait for TIM to give them access codes before attacking or controlling the Citadel. They don't do it at the beginning of the game when they Zerg Rush the galaxy, not during the Cerberus Coup, or any other time than when they control everything else, even though they could easily shut down the Relay system and win right then and there.
It doesnt matter if its good or not, there will be a vocal group of haters tearing it apart.
Because some of Biowares 'fans' are just people who used to like Bioware and hate it now. I dont know why people keep getting so worked up. Its almost as if they believe that if they scream loud enough Bioware will magically go back in time to when it was at its peak.
Because some of Biowares 'fans' are just people who used to like Bioware and hate it now. I dont know why people keep getting so worked up. Its almost as if they believe that if they scream loud enough Bioware will magically go back in time to when it was at its peak.
Unmitigated disaster? Yeah, DAII wasn't anywhere near as good as Dragon Age Origins, but it was hardly a "disaster".
Having said that, I am not anticipating Dragon Age III, unless they show proof that they are returning to the style of Dragon Age Origins. If they stick with the DAII format, I probably won't pick it up.
Having said that, I am not anticipating Dragon Age III, unless they show proof that they are returning to the style of Dragon Age Origins. If they stick with the DAII format, I probably won't pick it up.
I will buy DA3, but my main worry with DA3 is on how it will continue from DA2(and DA1), and how they will piece the main character together. Perhaps this will be one of the few rpgs where you have "two" main characters and alternate between them, because the fanbase seems very split between wanting to control the warden from DA1 and Hawke from DA2. I still have faith in Bioware despite the shitstorm they've been through lately, but this particular problem is one I cant help but worry about.
I think they're pulling out their hair... at least a bit. The poor player reception of DA2 and the ending of ME3 has left a sizeable chunk of the core base of Bioware in questionable standing in terms of whether or not they will buy/pre-order the game. A very large part of greenlights on future games is based upon both pre-order numbers and pure sale numbers (which is why companies try to push pre-orders so much nowadays).
I think because of DA2 and the debacle over ME3, that the number of pre-orders, if nothing else, is going to be significantly smaller than the pre-orders for DA2 or DA1. Additionally, I think the overall day one sales will likely also be lower for the same reasons. Many people within the core base are shaken in their faith that Bioware is still the monolith of CRPG excellence that they once were, and that's been showing more and more over the past few years, especially after the release of DA2 and even more-so now after the whole ME3 kerfuffle.
Overall, if DA3 doesn't sell well, I can see EA coming in and deciding that enough is enough with Bioware's independence and essentially do to them what they did to Mythic or Origin Systems, and Bioware will only exist in name only (if that), with its past magic and excellence gone. This isn't something that anyone wants to see happen, so if I were working on DA3, I would certainly feel under pressure.
I think because of DA2 and the debacle over ME3, that the number of pre-orders, if nothing else, is going to be significantly smaller than the pre-orders for DA2 or DA1. Additionally, I think the overall day one sales will likely also be lower for the same reasons. Many people within the core base are shaken in their faith that Bioware is still the monolith of CRPG excellence that they once were, and that's been showing more and more over the past few years, especially after the release of DA2 and even more-so now after the whole ME3 kerfuffle.
Overall, if DA3 doesn't sell well, I can see EA coming in and deciding that enough is enough with Bioware's independence and essentially do to them what they did to Mythic or Origin Systems, and Bioware will only exist in name only (if that), with its past magic and excellence gone. This isn't something that anyone wants to see happen, so if I were working on DA3, I would certainly feel under pressure.
Its great to see people's fanboyism/fangirlism being replaced with a sort of fascinated observational attitude. After the Mass Effect 2 plotline thoroughly demonstrated where the franchise was going I taken to this attitude with Bioware games and now its way more fun than actually buying them. Same with with Fable, first game got me interested, second was a complete debacle. And now whenever I see people getting hyped over a new one its grimly enjoyable to watch their optimism collapse inevitably.
Edit: Oh and at a guess I would say Bioware's next step will be to put all their eggs in the dumdum crowd basket turning all their franchises into simplified action packed versions of the previous installment. All the beloved characters will end up swearing and posturing, all the promotional material will show violent flashy action with slick graphics spread thinly over core mechanics so basic a toddler could decipher it in moments. Just wait and see my chums.
Edit: Oh and at a guess I would say Bioware's next step will be to put all their eggs in the dumdum crowd basket turning all their franchises into simplified action packed versions of the previous installment. All the beloved characters will end up swearing and posturing, all the promotional material will show violent flashy action with slick graphics spread thinly over core mechanics so basic a toddler could decipher it in moments. Just wait and see my chums.
Pretty much. This probably goes for any game that Bioware will put out in the near future. Just wait for the first paid DLC for Mass Effect 3, there will be people calling for boycotts and other stupid shit.Fieldy409 said:
well hey guess what, me and a bunch of my friends are already planning on boycotting ME3 DLC..... because we just didnt like the game, my god we must be attention seeking idiotsWonderWillard said:
you know its amazing how just adding the word boycott to it (when your aleready not buying it) can invoke a negative reaction
