I would like the DA team to give more attention to the camera. I must say that the camera locked onto a character in DA2 wasn't the best of their ideas and unfortunately it seemed very similar in the video. Still, this game looks like it's gonna be a blast to play. Fire effects from the spells looked amazing. I was hoping for some rogue action though. Maybe next time.

EDIT: Oh, and we got to see the warrior's chain. I think this feature is only fair for warriors to have. Both rogues and mages always had a multitude of ways to crowd-control the enemies while warriors were left hoping to stun the baddies which doesn't always happen or just dishing out as much pain as possible.

 

You know, I just realized the Morrigan's Old God Child will probably be 10-12 at this point, depending how long after DA2 it takes place. I wonder, if you made the decision to follow Morrigan through the Eluvian in Witch Hunt and your the one who had a kid with her, are you currently looking after the kid while Morrigan does her thing in Inquisition?

...Huh, That would make the Warden a Stay At Home Dad.

 

I lol'd at this.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You expect the community to conform to you, and not the other way around. You're too lazy to try and fit in, so you just don't, and don't care if your elbows knock plates off shelves. It's selfish, childish, and rude, and you have no room to act surprised when people get upset by it.

You don't own the goddamn thread, Scott. Nobody who makes the thread 'owns' it, and I'm not going to be the kind of pissant shitposter that clutters up the forum with duplicate threads, just because one guy can't fucking stop starting arguments.

If you and boar aren't going to let anyone talk about Dragon Age without getting your panties in a twist over people not liking the games you liked or wanting more RPG things in a goddamn RPG game, then you fucking leave, not the other way around. I actually want to talk about Dragon Age in an environment where it's explicitly against the rules for every third word to be 'faggot.'

This post originally went on for much longer. I deleted it three times, because the extra words aren't necessary. I'm going to talk about the game now, because it's what I came for. You can't stop me, and I've accepted that fact that neither of you will stop complaining or trying to start arguments, so I'm just going to ignore your posts in the thread from this point forwards. Good day to you both.



So I've been watching most of the dev videos. Naturally, I don't believe them, because dev videos and all trailers lie horrible lies, and cannot be trusted. However, the general vein they all seem to be running in is "our biggest complaint for Dragon Age 2 is that people felt we lost something in combat by making too straightforward, so we're trying to make it more tactical and interesting, so people require actual tactics to get through a fight, instead of just blindly charging forwards and attacking until everything goes down."

Naturally, I don't really believe them on the "that was the biggest complaint" department, but nonetheless, it is true that they lost something from the original Origins combat, and they seem to be getting it back.

What little pre-alpha and devtest gameplay we see in the videos seems to depict a fairly passable attempt to marry the two styles. It's a much faster paced combat than Dragon Age Origins, and retains some of the flashy and stylized feel of Dragon Age 2 (which was one of the few good parts of the game), but it seems to require actual thought to attack enemies now. Some will be wearing armor that can be torn off with the Harpoon (the chain attack) or knocked off with normal attacks, and while that armor is on some attacks, like poison, will be much less effective, and "basically glance off." Other enemies will teleport, wield tower shields to block all oncoming attacks from the front, and use other such tricks to make approaching or attacking them in a certain way less viable, or even not viable at all. One specific thing that was mentioned is that there are some enemies who can electrify themselves, "which makes it a bad idea to throw something metal at them that's connected back to you by a chain." Their gimmicks will have ways to circumvent them, though, such as using the Harpoon to snag distant dodgy enemies and reel them in, or use magic to slow down and hold in place enemies that teleport or move faster than the characters themselves do, which the devs say they hope will encourage "more party teamwork," so "one party member can set up another for a strong attack against an otherwise frustrating foe."

According to the devs, "individually these enemies are a challenge, but one that can be overcome with relatively little trouble. However, when you start mixing them together, adding in a guy who can teleport, a monster that moves fast, a demon that can cast magic, and guys with these big shields to block attacks all in the same group, it becomes a serious tactical issue" where the player has to look at what they've got in front of them, and try and use the abilities and powers of their team to their fullest advantage to try and take control of the situation, weaken or debilitate key enemies, and generally direct the flow of batting in your favor. They made it clear that "going in and just attacking everything up in its face will only get you a little ways into the game before it no longer works."

I find this interesting, not just because this actually might work out the way they intend it to, but because Bioware seems to have paid attention to the popularity of the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, because a number of these enemies, especially the tower shield warriors, look and behave in an extremely familiar manner, and seem to be thwarted in similar ways.

It's also worth noting that the visible combat that we saw contained another new feature that they haven't really talked about; the warrior can dodge roll. The devtest demo showed him dodging around to avoid a tower shield warrior's attacks, and using the roll to get behind him quickly enough to get a hit in from the side of the shield.

I'm not going to believe their talk of putting power in the hands of the player in regards to their decisions in previous games mattering until I literally see it happen in the released product; they talked a good game last time, and we got, well. You know what we got.

But at least the combat seems objectively solid.

It's a start.

They are saying they're "committed to [retaining contenuity between the data of the prior games in regards to what you did in them]." Since this game has been delayed at least a year and a half (and is hard-confirmed to be next gen), it will basically be impossible for the game to read your save data on console, because it won't be there. They acknowledged this, and also that some people will be jumping console brands or going PC this gen (even Bioware knows Microsoft fucked up, apparently), and they've said that they "have no answers but are dedicated to finding a solution."

I'm actually kind of inclined to believe them on this point, because the solution they had for Mass Effect with the Origin Comic was extremely neat, simple, and solved the problem with minimal fuss and little work on the developer's part. Some sort of interactive intro-comic or visual novel that allows us to basically provide a recap of events (possibly with a voiceover from Varric explaining it to someone else) would be ideal. The whole affair shouldn't take more than five minutes, give or take, and could kick in automatically on the creation of a new game.

 

Ok, Raine. I'm not the nicest person around, but you should really stop heaping blame on me.

I don't expect any community I join to conform to me. I came to DLP looking for exactly what I heard DLP was known for - harsh but fair criticism of writing work and sharing interests with other people. If I want an entire community of Scott_Press's, then I'll start one.

No, I don't own the thread, but I will remind you again who started the rant. My OP said not one thing about DA2. Believe me, I've said my fair share about its flaws. When people already did start ranting about it, I never said you or anyone were wrong about pointing out the game's flaws, for it certainly has many. As for getting one's unders in a twist, out of us two you look like the person who's been getting their genitals crushed for quite some time now.

Where the fuck did I stop anyone, or demand they shut the up? You felt insulted by the notion of someone liking DA2.

So don't fucking tell me to stop starting arguments which you started.

If you find BG to be the Holy Grail of RPGs, then please, go play it again and proceed to feel superior to me. I won't mind.

And now, yes, I also want to talk about DA:I and not DA2. I've played it, I liked it, it's over.

 

Ignore this.

 

No need, I've seen it plenty of times. That Hawke also romanced the smelly pirate hooker from whore island. But that's just the default, unaltered variation of Hawke, same as male soldier Shepard. You can still play an elf Warden and a warrior Hawke, or a female biotic Shepard, and unless they're completely fucking retarded they're not going to go back and retroactively claim you played something different, which is what having a canon is implying to me.

As for the inability to read save data between consoles, that's... very worrying. That shouldn't affect PC gamers, but no one cares about PC anymore, especially not EA.

Maybe. Feels too much like an easy way out to me.

I feel as if Mage Hawke should've played very differently to the other two classes. They should've constantly had to watch their ass for Templars and be very careful about where you would unleash spells so that there won't be any obvious evidence you leave behind in order to maintain plausible deniability should they be accused of magic. The stakes should be even higher once you resurrect the Amell family, up until you beat the Arishok which should've been your public reveal. Then you'd have enough clout to act freely as an Apostate, I think. But this type of game isn't really conducive to that unfortunately.

As for a personal connection to the mage/Templar conflict, your sister's a mage and so was your father. You've been living with mages your entire life. I think that's enough to justify your involvement in the conflict as a non-mage.

 

I don't even...What? Neither of us have said anything about how stupid it is that you dislike the game. At first, I said that i didn't think it was as bad as people made it out to be. Than I conceded the point that it had a ton of flaws, but that I still found it good, because I personally enjoyed it.

I've also actively tried to stop these damn arguments multiple times. it even started to work a couple times. Then you came back and derailed everything again. Apparently, your imagining things.

Sure, i've insulted you, but that's only after you started insulting Scott_Press first.

But w/e. Apparently your finally done.
_____________________________________---

In my opinion, the combat looks good. I didn't have much problem with AoE spells in DA2, that according to chime, others apparently did. The combat itself reminds of me some more Hack'n'slash games. the first that popped into my mind was the DmC reboot, mostly because I played that recently. Which was enjoyable. I like that style of combat.

As far as Races go, it seems interesting. I'm curious as to what an Elf will be like to play as.

 

As far combat goes, what they showed does it for me.

Now, I'll be very happy once they show the fans that they're also trying to deliver on the 'no reused environments' front. I guess proving that story choices will matter could lead to major spoilers, so I'm willing to wait for release to see what they do with that.

 

This. I hate Isabela. Way to many characters "knew" Isabela intimately. No thanks, I'd rather not get STDs or several hundred other people's sloppy leftovers.

Varric was a poor man's court jester. Anders may be a

Spoiler

terrorist

and not as cool as he was in DAO but at least he had some balls. Fenris was really one note but he was a good warrior to have and had some great animations. Merrill was "cute but with a desire to go evil" and was an okay female companion. They didn't really have a good female companion in this game. Where is the Miranda Lawson of DA2?

Also, Raine shut the fuck up. No is going to care when you start each post like a psychotic dumbass as an introduction and then write some halfway decent thoughts. You attacked the OP first for having an opinion that didn't coincide with your own and then went on an anti-COD rant. Stop with the personal attacks and maybe you won't be seen as the troll of this thread.

 

I wouldn't get 'friendly' with Isabela, but she sure was funny. Varric as well. They both made the game funny and enjoyable for me.

I actually think Anders did a very good job being the 'unlikable' character. He made for a good unrepentant hardass. Fenris was remorseless and brutal. His answer to problems was putting his shiny fist through things - but once you got to know him, he turned out to be a decent guy. Merrill was kinda like Liara from the first ME - more than a bit naive in the beginning.

Then there was of course Man-Jaw Aveline. A woman with balls.

 

You're forgetting the part where Miranda was a horrid bitch that no one liked.

But they do have the Seeker, which should be interesting. And that means you're probably looking for the Warden. At least as a subplot?

 

I actually preferred Isabela romance, over Merrill. No real reason, I just didn't like Merrill's personality. Or, well, her personality isn't one I'd ever see myself actually being romantically interested in, anyway. Still liked her.

Well, there's no way to say any of this with out sounding like a creep, is there?

TL;DR, I perfer Isabela over Merrill, but I don't dislike Merrill.

Couldn't stand Fenris and Anders was only slightly better. My usual Party was Varric, Isabela and Merrill.

EDIT: Also, wasn't it Leliana looking for the warden? Cassandra was looking for the Champion, which would explain why she's with Varric.

 

Either way, Cassandra is stated as a companion in the gameinformer article and Leliana was suggested to be. So maybe both?

 

Isabela was fun, but she was a shit companion in terms of combat effectiveness. I don't know, maybe I just couldn't incorporate her into the party. I always went with Varric, Anders, Merrill/warrior companion, depending on what class I was playing as.

That said, I romanced Isabela because I never took her along and so there was no other way for me to make sure she had high enough Friendship/Rivalry with Hawke to return at the end of Act 2 other than romance. And I wouldn't call it 'romance' anyway. Isabela was just always horny.

 

Eh, the romance was just plain bad in DA2, at least as far as the Female options. Don't know about the male ones, as neither of them were someone I could stand.

Now Zevran, he was fun. Still, in the games, Morrigan is the romance option I usually prefer.

 

I dunno, I liked Merrill. Alongside Bethany she was probably my favorite of the party. I do wish they could've incorporated a bit more of her DAO personality though, as little as there was. She was somewhat more serious there. I don't mind her having some culture shock (at least when she first moves into Kirkwall -- years later that should've faded) and naivete, but I'd have liked her to be a bit sharper. I don't think her obsession with the mirror was properly conveyed.

Also, one thing I do want to be touched up a bit is the character designs in DA:I. I do like the idea of making the races more visually distinct, but it seemed like every elf besides Merrill, Fenris and Marethari looked like some Down's baby. For example.

 

http://www.vg247.com/2013/04/04/thief-dev-wants-the-challenge-to-be-in-game-not-in-the-controls/

Just to back up Raine on this - here is an example of a developer cutting, slashing, stripping away - tearing down what works, what has worked and what is certifiably fun for me, and others, to make a game more "approachable". This is what gets us upset. You have to be sensitive about what other consumers are going through.

BioWare? BioWare has openly addmited, just like the Square developer above, to dumb down gameplay. The reason why Hepler got so much hate was because she openly said she doesn't like games, she doesn't like playing games, she skips right to the story. That's what blew that whole thing out of proportion - she admitted what we knew all along.

It's really frustrating. You may not like RPG combat or RPG mechanics, but many people do. I make it a habit of searching out older, more esoteric RPGs, because they really do pull off crazy stuff sometimes, especially the text-based ones. Yes, purely text-based. Would you believe you have a dozen times more freedom in your average MUD than you do in World of Warcraft? Well, you do.

Dragon Age 3's gameplay looks almost nothing like a strategy/tactical RPG right now. It's basically a pure ARPG, where very, very little is actually abstracted in terms of combat mechanics. You might wonder why abstraction can be fun, but I don't want to get into that. I just want to say, that the combat we've been shown so far looks good - for an action game. It looks better than fucking Ryse at least, so if BioWare can pull off a party-based Dark Souls or something, I might like it. But it's not the game I really want. It's a shame they don't make those any more. You shouldn't disrespect old games, because they are what made this industry, not Call of Duty or Skyrim. Without the old games, there would be nothing for the new ones to tear down; the people who made those games wouldn't have any experience, they certainly wouldn't be working in the video game industry. Probably movies or some other computer science.

The original TES? The original Call of Duty? Unsurprisingly, those games are significantly more complex and fun than their latest iterations.

 

Yes, I got tired of Raine'd ranting, but I never said anything in terms of bashing old games. Perhaps I came off as somewhat of an asshole - if so, I apologize. I'm just saying that not all of the younger gamers are braindead zombies. Some of us simply don't like having things rammed down our throats - 'be a hardcore gamer, appreciate old RPGs'. If complex controls work for you then I don't have a problem with that. Thing is, majority of people don't wanna have to cover 20 keybinds anymore and corporate-controlled game developers like Bioware make the majority their target.

But I agree that oversimplifying things is bad too. Notable example being ME3, where the spacebar was responsible for healing squadmates, sprinting and going in/out of cover, which often caused bouts of hilarity or misery.

 

Yes, too bad Bethany was Hawke's sister. She was the best female in the game. With Merrill there was potential but she acted like a pet at times and then was also into blood magic. I kind of wanted to see her go into crazy dominatrix mode.

Loled so hard at the idea of elves as down babies. In a lot of books\etc. elves are super hot (LoTR elves come to mind) so its kind of interesting that DA gives them an odd look, sometimes attractive and sometimes downright horse face-y. I like that actually since I strongly believe in homo sapiens superiority

As for DAI, at this point I'm adopting a wait and see policy. In my head there is a perfect game and I know I"m not getting it.

Just seeing some of the videos I realized that they can never make the perfect game for me because it would require too many iterations to pull of such a complex, in-depth game where a character had, let's say, has one hundred choices and for each choice the game opened into a different direction and then affected later choices, etc. Or had companions with their own quests where the player had to be a companion and complete their quest with the protag tagging along or not and companions had their own choices including whether to stay with the main character, betray them, etc. I'd like more betrayal and surprises and freshness.

For that, I have to read novel and then beyond that go into "fan fiction" mode and invent. So no game could fulfill my hunger for role play and maybe long after I'm dead they'll have immersion VRs that allow players to build worlds and play in them. Not in this decade, sadly.

I think what we're reacting to is this mentality that often our parents have which is "everything was better in our time or we know what was good and all you have is shit."

No. NO. You like the first things you experience and set them as a standard by which you then judge others. For us what we first experienced with games may include nice graphics and different expectations of what is "better."

Tomorrow gamers will say what we like is old or whack but I won't be like, "Nope you are fucktard who knows nothing" because that's the reaction of someone who is so deep into their own navel they don't realize that times, tastes, and perceptions change and that black and white movies or that guy who dances in the rain won't be the coolest shit of all time just because they came first.

I'm not saying things get better with time although in some ways they certainly can especially with visuals or that there weren't great concepts executed in the past. However, what we are reacting to is "You don't know what an RP is and therefore aren't qualified to comment."

My idea of RPs come from Bioware and Obisidian and a two JRPGs (which I like on story and visual levels but not on the Pokemon style turn based fighting against a group of vibrating radishes or whatever).

Anything before that is not really interesting to me unless they do a reboot. No one says, "You can't enjoy television until you realize how good radio was" or some crap like that and if they did I would think they needed to graduate to the after life.

The main point here is don't condescend like you're some fine connoisseur. Attack a game with reasons why you don't like it but not a person for liking it or not liking it. Damn.