What do you guys think about this? I'm cautiously optimistic, given how much emphasis they put on learning from player feedback, but Electronic Arts executives lie like other people breathe. I'll probably wait for some reviews before shelling out money, despite being a big fan of Origins.

 

It's EA. They contaminate, infest, and destroy anything they touch with their grubby, black-clawed paws.

 

Yeah, this game is probably going to suck as much as DAO2. Game makers have been making games easier and more casual for about the past 3 years, but really, by this point, even they are getting bored and disappointed by that methodology.

They need to focus more about bringing back the awesomeness that made the first game, well, awesome. To improve it, they should add truly random loot, truly random dungeons, random encounters, a bigger map with nonlinear elements, and then we may have a sequel that isn't a pisspoor moneygrab.

 

Man, the pope wishes he had your kind of faith. Short of my Posterior Parietal Cortex shitting itself and me achieving EA Enlightenment where I learn of the ultimately Altruistic and Benevolent plan behind their shitty games, though, I'm going to trust them roughly as much as I did leading into ME3.

I hope everyone else does the same, because this game failing would probably send a half-decent message.

 

It's going to suck, but I'll end up buying it anyway. Damn you, EA. Damn you to hell.

I might end up replaying 2 just so I can kill off Merrill. I need to be sure she doesn't reappear in the next game.

 

Meh, I liked DA2. Haven't had a chance to play the first game, unfortunately, but I loved 2, and once I did all the companion quests, I liked all the the characters (with the exception of Anders). The story was pretty good, most of the side stories were interesting, and the final boss fight was awesome. It was far from perfect, though.

I'm optimistic, it might be good, it might fix the flaws that 2 had, maybe it'll be as good as I've heard 1 is. Still, EA is involved, and some of the things I've heard worry me.

 

It's going to be shit. Why? Because the same people responsible for DA2 are making this one too. And they want to add more "engaging storytelling and lovable characters".

That means, the same old plot they have been using since BG1 and a bunch of deviants, retards and people with mental and emotional problems.

 

...Like the people from DLP?

 

I'm looking forward to it. I enjoyed both DAO and DA2 a lot. I hope they manage to fix some of the things I had issues with in DA2 such as reused environment.

 

This thread made me realize that I've left Mass effect 3 untouched for a long time, too much disappointment there. The multi kept me interested for a while but I didn't come back to it after my exams and didn't even bother watching the new endings.
All I can say is that DOA3 will have to be a phenomenal game for making me consider to buy it.

 

Eh, I heard it was alright. Wasn't ever a huge fan of the Dead or Alive series, though.

Back on topic, though... Given some of the promises made about DA3, (no more reusing environments, better armor customization, possibly sandbox, re-focus on tactical aspects) I'm actually kinda excited. Unless they pull a Fable, at the least it'll be interesting.

 

I'll be keeping an eye on this, but I'm not enthused at the moment. Dragon Age 2 had some good ideas, but for the most part it was a whole lot of wasted potential.

I've seen people say they're using the same engine that Battlefield 3 uses for this. What's that going to mean I wonder?

 

No modding at all, if there was any in the previous games.

The engine, Frostbyte 3, is Vista and above only. There are no mod tools.

 

It's almost certain that it'll be a shitty console port of a shitty game ('engaging characters' will probably require you solving their daddy&mommy problems and the like). After DA2 I don't even trust them all that much about making a decent plot and not pull some insanity like the guy from your party (Anders? Not sure) barely able to kill a few mooks on his own suddenly blowing the fuck out of the Kirkwall Chantry which was built like a medieval castle, or the 'possessed templar' last boss at the end.

Oh, and there most likely won't be any mods (for what reason I'm not sure).


DA:O wasn't anything brilliant, but it was a long, fun game with halfway decent plot. DA2 was a fucking abortion in virtually every way.

And somehow I doubt that DA3 will be much better.

 

Oh, look, they're bothering to give this one a motherfucking title, at least. If they also happen to put any fucking effort into making it, maybe it won't be the pus-infected boil on the shit-smeared ass of a diarrhetic broodmother that DA2 was.

 

I'm curious, what's with all the DA2 hate? Admittedly it's the only one I played in the series, but it wasn't a bad game. The loot was generic shit, areas were reused constantly, and it felt a lot shorter then it should have been, but even with it's faults I'd give it 7/10 easy.

You guys make it sound like it barely deserves to spit-shine Superman 64.

 

Succinctly? Shit loot, overused areas, oversimplified combat/crafting, literally color-coded dialogue choices, and a plot with more holes in it than a Texas road-sign. The one redeeming point was the characterization, and even that had flaws. I'm looking at you, Anders, you genocidal fucktard.

 

Fixed.

Anyway, while the chances aren't high, the possibility for mod tools exist.

Edit:

DAO had an average story, below average graphics, and decent play time, but it's saving grace was it's unique gameplay mechanics, which was what attracted most of it's fan base in the first place. DA2 did away with the core of those gameplay mechanics and instead gave us a nice big pile of hack-and-slash shit.

 

The bolded bit is where the problem lies. Dragon Age 2 was more mediocre and forgettable than outright horrid, but then you compare it to Dragon Age:Origins...

It also bears mentioning that the initial release was horrendously buggy, and that was the version played by the biggest fans of DA:O. Having Merril spoil the entire third act for me because her dialogue was broken did not endear the game to me.

 

It was playable, sure, but it didn't have many redeeming features beyond that. The biggest problem it has is being the sequel to a game I would consider to be one of my top 3 favorite rpgs of the past 5 years, and yes, I consider it better than all the Elder Scroll games despite it's lack of open world play, the gameplay was just much more satisfying. I'd put it on par with ME1, whose sequel suffered the same fate as DA's. It's pretty easy to see, I think, that DA3 will meet the same fate as ME3. Anyone can see that.

The problem is that companies like to take good, well received, games, and fuck the sequels They see the money potential, and word of mouth travels that the game was actually good, and different than the other garbage that gets churned out every couple of months. The realize that they got something big, and it's going to sell well, but that's not enough. They dumb down the game to 'appeal' to more gamers and be more 'accessible'.

God fucking forbid that a game is difficult, requires some thinking, some semblance of strategy, and even some puzzle elements. DA1 had some difficult parts to it, but the fun in a game is triumphing after several attempts, and then collecting some non-generic loot. DA1 generated many satisfying satisfying moments, but being a proper game, it had some frustrating moments too. The Fade levels were frustrating, and I was glade to get them past me, but I still liked the game and appreciated that it was good enough to throw some annoying parts at you. Flemeth was a huge pain in the ass to finally kill, but it was oh-so-satisfying. The character banters were memorable, and I grew attached to them as the game progress.

Dragon Age 2 had none of that (at least to me). Perhaps if I played it as a standalone, it may have. But I played it with the knowledge of the first game, and that is what made it worse. It was ultimately unsatisfying to me, and never once did I replicate the many good feelings I had when I played the first one. I don't get the fascination with completely revamping a successful game, and ignoring all the good bits, and focusing on correcting all the bad bits and ultimately losing the charm and focus of the good bits, and failing hard.

Cliffnotes on why DA1 was a lot better than DA2: The loot wasn't generic shit, areas weren't reused constantly, and it had a sufficient length of game play and high replayablity.