SHP Forums

Maiandra wrote:Although I'm not a fan of BioWare being owned by EA, I don't think that DA3 being rushed is a given. ME3 had way fewer issues than DA2 and did not feel rushed to me and it came after DA2.

But it seems, since being taken over by EA, that the games have declined in awesomeness. Since EA stepped in, it has become pretty normal that your choices don't matter in the end (DA2, and presumably ME3, from what it sounds like - not beat it yet myself). And in a sense it feels like it's because they're rushing it. They have all these choices in the beginning and middle - but don't want to do different potential endings - so they clump it into one.

Tawmis wrote:

Maiandra wrote:Although I'm not a fan of BioWare being owned by EA, I don't think that DA3 being rushed is a given. ME3 had way fewer issues than DA2 and did not feel rushed to me and it came after DA2.

But it seems, since being taken over by EA, that the games have declined in awesomeness. Since EA stepped in, it has become pretty normal that your choices don't matter in the end (DA2, and presumably ME3, from what it sounds like - not beat it yet myself). And in a sense it feels like it's because they're rushing it. They have all these choices in the beginning and middle - but don't want to do different potential endings - so they clump it into one.

The problem with offering multiple ways to end the game is that it makes creating a coherent sequel much more difficult.

A good example is the ending to the original Deus Ex. In that game you had three very different paths to take and the game ended differently depending on your choice. By the time a sequel was made, the developers were left with a very difficult problem to tackle: how do we incorporate three very different endings? Their solution was to combine all three, which didn't really work too well.

Look, I'm all for choices. I love it when a game can present a successful illusion of choice and make me think my decisions really matter. However, if the developer wants a sequel -- and plans to connect the two games in any shape or form -- then there really needs to be a definitive ending.

None of the endings in the ME series really give you a neat summary of all your choices for that game, so I see the ME3 ending as par for the series.

During the game itself, it very carefully acknowledged the choices I made and their effect on the world. In fact, if you listen to people's conversations and the news announcements as you run around the citadel, as well as read your emails, you very clearly see the results of virtually all your choices continuously throughout the game. So I don't feel they skimped on acknowledging my choices at at all.

Personally, unless they're never returning to the game world again, I prefer that they don't give me a summary of the next 20 years of everyone's life at the end of the game. It leads to too many issues later on with sequels and I feel it's unnecessary.

I do agree that DA2 felt rushed, but I see ME3 as evidence that BioWare learned from their mistake and that gives me more confidence about DA3.

Hmm.... didn't anyone have a problem with the way that Anders's character was handled in DA2? I thought, and still think, that what he ended up doing (which I won't spoil) was really coming out of left field. In DA1, he was endearing; a bit kooky, perhaps, and certainly trigger-happy, but endearing. I particularly liked his attachment to his little kitty (Ser Pounce-a-lot), which I thought was very cute.

In DA2, Anders (thanks to being possessed by Justice), had become as much a religious fanatic as the Templars that he was fighting. This was a very gradual change, so it was certainly not sudden, but I still thought that this was a radical departure - which you (as the protagonist) was powerless to prevent. Anders' final act (i.e. blowing up the Chantry) is one that I am very much opposed to; it basically ruined the ending for me. I kept on thinking that perhaps Anders would shrink away from the abyss - that perhaps something could be done to prevent this ultimate cataclysm - but the fact that it came to pass was very disappointing.

What's your view?

I liked that moment. A lot. It felt coherent with the character and the setting. It was emotional. The best moment of the game, at least for me.

That was kind of a WTF?! moment for me as well and I wasn't really sure how to react.I think this is one area where they needed to show what was actually going in Kirkwall a little better. They needed to more clearly convey the amount of time that had passed and how long the situation had been festering. Once I stewed on it some and thought about how desperate Anders (and the situation for mages) probably was at that point, I could understand why he did it, even if I didn't agree.

Unfortunately, I do feel there were a few times in the game where you were given no good decision or response for certain situations. They forced you into either one extreme or another, instead of a more logical, moderate approach. One example that springs to mind is dealing with Isabela and the book she steals. You can either throw her friendship out the window and give the book to the Qunari (potentially risking her life) or you can make a politically bad move and let her keep it (possibly endangering other people). What kind of ridiculous choice is that? What makes the most sense is to convince her to give the book to help the city, then help her get Castillon off her back yourself. Really, if you were a good friend, you would have helped her deal with him earlier on anyway.

Dealing with Anders playing the "don't you trust me?" card was a similar situation. There were far smarter ways to deal with that conversation and my Hawke was not an idiot. I like to think she was a perceptive, persuasive rogue. I would have preferred an option to get him to confide in you and have the chance to convince him to do it at a time when innocent bystanders wouldn't be harmed. Even if it wouldn't change the overall outcome, at least it could have saved some lives.

Maiandra wrote:That was kind of a WTF?! moment for me as well and I wasn't really sure how to react.I think this is one area where they needed to show what was actually going in Kirkwall a little better. They needed to more clearly convey the amount of time that had passed and how long the situation had been festering. Once I stewed on it some and thought about how desperate Anders (and the situation for mages) probably was at that point, I could understand why he did it, even if I didn't agree.

Unfortunately, I do feel there were a few times in the game where you were given no good decision or response for certain situations. They forced you into either one extreme or another, instead of a more logical, moderate approach. One example that springs to mind is dealing with Isabela and the book she steals. You can either throw her friendship out the window and give the book to the Qunari (potentially risking her life) or you can make a politically bad move and let her keep it (possibly endangering other people). What kind of ridiculous choice is that? What makes the most sense is to convince her to give the book to help the city, then help her get Castillon off her back yourself. Really, if you were a good friend, you would have helped her deal with him earlier on anyway.

Dealing with Anders playing the "don't you trust me?" card was a similar situation. There were far smarter ways to deal with that conversation and my Hawke was not an idiot. I like to think she was a perceptive, persuasive rogue. I would have preferred an option to get him to confide in you and have the chance to convince him to do it at a time when innocent bystanders wouldn't be harmed. Even if it wouldn't change the overall outcome, at least it could have saved some lives.

Exactly. I think Maia put her finger exactly on what bothered me about the choices you were given - the fact that, quite often, you were not given a good response for some situations. Isabella's book situation was pretty extreme, and you were never given the chance to deal with it sensibly. Same with Anders - he was constantly being secretive, and whenever I tried to find out what he was up to, he whipped out his hangdog expression and said "Don't you trust me?" etc. I'd have trusted him far more had I known what he was up to. When he blew up the Chantry, it felt like a betrayal. I trusted the bastard, I backed him up every time he got in sodding trouble, and this is what he does. After that, there was nothing left for me to do - I had to keep on backing him, or I'd have seriously felt like a hypocrite - but after what he did, backing a mass murderer like him made me feel much worse.

DPX's reply in the LSLR thread reminded me about this - so I searched, and found we already had a DA3 thread going... However, I am sure if you have read the Bioware forums or heard from E3, they're not calling it "DA3" (or Dragon Age 3), because it does not follow behind Dragon Age 2's timeline. It actually happens at another time (which, last I heard, they have not specified), so they're debating whether to call it "Dragon Age 3: Inquisition" or just "Dragon Age: Inquisition"... Any thoughts?

I'll be wary of buying DA3. I thought DA1 was excellent but DA2 was a huge step back.

Maxor127 wrote:I'll be wary of buying DA3. I thought DA1 was excellent but DA2 was a huge step back.

I actually thought DA2 was a big step forward in many ways, such as combat being far more fluid. DA2 wasn't anywhere close to perfect and suffered from a lot of bugs when released (some of them quite severe), but many of the game mechanics were sound and improved on DAO.

I can see people disliking DA2 for those bugs, especially if they played them on the consoles. It was relatively easy to temporarily fix the bugs on the PC version by editing the files.

Bugs aside, I think the major reason for the divide between people who liked and disliked DA2 is the story had a different focus.

It seems many RPG players like the epic "save the world from the great evil" storyline, whereas DA2 took on a smaller, more local feel. Your participation affected one city, as opposed to the entire world.

I think some people really felt DA2 lacked something for not being the generic epic fantasy tale we've all seen a million times before.

Me, on the other hand, I'm sick and tired of being the one person who can save the world. It's been used so many times it's not only a trope, but a very worn cliche.

Hopefully DAI (or DA3, whichever you want to call it) will strike a happy medium between the two.

I thought combat was like a cartoon in DA2. DA1's combat was much more satisfying. Moves felt like they had power and brutality behind them. Vicious finishing moves randomly happened. In DA2, enemies explode likes packets of tomato sauce, they drop from the sky like a 80s/90s brawler game, the moves were all flash and no substance. The only positive I'd say about combat was that mage attacks looked cool.

I didn't mind the story having a different focus, although I think that aspect was inferior to DA1's too. But I was fine with having a new story. If I were to complain about something from the story, it would be that I didn't like that I was forced to play a certain race with a certain voice. If DA1 was like an updated Baldur's Gate, then DA2 was like a fantasy version of Mass Effect, except it took place on a single planet in a single city and still managed to reuse half of its assets in the laziest way I've ever seen in a game.

In the end, my expectations for DA1 were low, but it surprised me, and my expectations for DA2 were high, and it disappointed me.

My bowl of Cocoa Krispies is soggy now from all of this typing.

Maxor127 wrote:I thought combat was like a cartoon in DA2. DA1's combat was much more satisfying. Moves felt like they had power and brutality behind them. Vicious finishing moves randomly happened.

DA1's combat seemed more like a game of chess rather than medieval combat. You basically told your characters what to do and they did it, which to me was very boring. Don't get me wrong, I like chess, but if I want to play that, I can do it for free with Chess Titans.

When I play an RPG, I want to be actively involved in the combat, which was what DA2 did for me. Granted, some of the moves in DA2 were over the top, but the combat in that game felt alive.

Maxor127 wrote:In DA2, enemies explode likes packets of tomato sauce, they drop from the sky like a 80s/90s brawler game, the moves were all flash and no substance.

DA2 was definitely very flashy, but I think this was an extreme response to the overall lackluster combat shown in DA1. Again, the combat in DA1 was slow, plodding and made me feel like an observer, rather than a participant.

I do agree that the bloody explosions were a bit much, especially since you couldn't turn those off without making some edits to the files themselves.

I never really noticed enemies dropping down from the ceiling. I guess I just considered it as if the enemies were hidden or cloaked and attempted to surprise me by launching a sneak attack.

Maxor127 wrote:I didn't mind the story having a different focus, although I think that aspect was inferior to DA1's too.

Well, I was just happy to take part in a more local, less epic-sized story, where I wasn't the "savior of everything" or some other nonsense. This made the characters and setting, to me, feel more important.

Maxor127 wrote:If I were to complain about something from the story, it would be that I didn't like that I was forced to play a certain race with a certain voice.

Didn't bother me at all. I like having a voiced character, as opposed to a mute mannequin who stands there and stares at everyone, every so often showing a smile or a frown. That's kind of creepy.

I see it this way: everyone else has a voice, so why shouldn't I? I want my character do more than a mime would.

Maia played the human noble and she told me that in her origin story, when her parents were killed, her character frowned. Frowned! What the hell? That's all the emotion she gets? Her family was slaughtered and she frowns?

Now look at Hawke in DA2. When his/her mother is mutilated, murdered and turned into some sadistic asshole's puppet, what does Hawke do in the end? He/she cries and nearly has a breakdown. Seeing that, who wouldn't?

Between those two scenarios, I'll take DA2's concept every single time.

As for the single race, that didn't bother me either. DA1 had extremely minor differences throughout the story based on race. The biggest difference was the origin story itself, but after that every character and class was considered a warden and treated as such.

For instance, I played as a human Mage and I can recall maybe one or two times anyone reacting to me with fear or suspicion. Instead, I usually was greeted as a warden, the same as if I'd have been a human noble or any other combination.

Maxor127 wrote:If DA1 was like an updated Baldur's Gate, then DA2 was like a fantasy version of Mass Effect, except it took place on a single planet in a single city and still managed to reuse half of its assets in the laziest way I've ever seen in a game.

Oh God... not Baldur's Gate. If there was ever a series of games more overrated, I can't think of them. BG1 and BG2 were good/okay games, but nothing particularly impressive.

Probably the thing that pisses me off the most is how so many people go on and on about how deep a villain Irenicus was in BG2. Sure, if you consider Skeletor-like motives deep. He wanted power. Now there's a novel inspiration.

Maybe it's because I prefer the ME series to the DA series (I've always preferred science fiction over fantasy) that I liked DA2. It was more along the lines of the sort of RPG I like to play.

Maxor127 wrote:In the end, my expectations for DA1 were low, but it surprised me, and my expectations for DA2 were high, and it disappointed me.

Well, that could be part of it. The higher your expectations, the greater the letdown you set yourself up to have.

I always assume the worst. If I'm wrong, I'm pleasantly surprised; however, if I'm right, it's not a shock, so I can deal with it.

Baldur's Gate was excellent, probably the first more than the second. I don't think Irenicus was anything special. But I thought the games themselves were immersive for their time. I like RPGs where I can explore the countryside and cities and talk to tons of NPCs over dungeon crawling. It was little touches like the short spoken lines from NPCs that were just enough to get a sense of their personality. Or the different sounds for footsteps depending on the kind of ground or floor I was walking on. Or how my characters would talk to me or interact with each other on their own instead of me having to go out of my way to talk to them to gain influence with them and progress whatever personal storyline they have. Or how day and night cycled, and shops opened and closed appropriately. And a lot more of the cities and buildings seemed explorable than games today. Plus, it was probably the most satisfying D&D and Forgotten Realms experience of its time. I'd played all of the SSI Gold Box games too, so I felt right at home with it. So basically, I prefer Baldur's Gate-style RPGs over Diablo-esque ones. I'd say Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of that era.

I don't see how DA1's combat could be considered bland when you're doing vicious moves like impaling an enemy with your dual-wielded swords and throwing him down onto the ground, and slicing his head off to finish him off, and the finishing animations for killing dragons and ogres never got old. I felt like I was in a living world in Dragon Age Origins.

I felt like I was in an empty box in Dragon Age 2. I prefer the silent protagonists for these kinds of games, as I'm sure I've said elsewhere because when I make a character, I try to make him look like me, and when I roleplay the character, I pretty much do what I'd do if I were in that situation. And when Hawke speaks, that's not my voice. And when he's having a conversation, I feel like an observer instead of an active participant. Even dialogue wheel choices for Hawke usually didn't fit my intention because they were so vague. I could try being a friend to Anders, and it would come off as a flirty exchange, and suddenly I'm headed down a romantic path with Anders, and then he eventually makes a move, and I have to shoot him down and get a big influence hit. In the case of the noble family parents getting killed, that probably felt more real to me than DA2's big tear jerker moment. I don't know why, but I think the origin story made me feel more like a Cousland than DA2's whole game made me feel like a Hawke. I appreciate what they tried, but it probably felt too melodramatic to me. I don't even really remember because the game wasn't very memorable to me.

Maxor127 wrote:Baldur's Gate was excellent, probably the first more than the second. I don't think Irenicus was anything special. But I thought the games themselves were immersive for their time.

I've often heard that BG2 was better in all ways than BG1. Of course, I'm sure some of that is nostalgia, but my comments about the BG series was directed at those who feel BG was the "end all, be all" of RPG gaming.

You're right, they were good for their time, but holding them up today as showcases for the RPG genre fall flat. That doesn't mean the BG games aren't good in their own right, just that for 2013, they don't have nearly the same impact, despite their importance at the time and to the genre as a whole.

Maxor127 wrote:I like RPGs where I can explore the countryside and cities and talk to tons of NPCs over dungeon crawling. It was little touches like the short spoken lines from NPCs that were just enough to get a sense of their personality.

I like this too. In fact, the relative lack of dungeon crawling is one of the reasons Maia and I like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 so much. That game is vibrant, active, busy and always seems alive. You're not stuck in some dark, damp dungeon unless you purposefully want to be, and those dungeons are always optional.

In fact, if Kirkwall had been half as alive as Divinity's Reach or Lion's Arch (both from GW2), I don't think anyone would've complained. Those cities -- and others like it in GW2 -- are bustling metropolises.

Maxor127 wrote:Or how my characters would talk to me or interact with each other on their own instead of me having to go out of my way to talk to them to gain influence with them and progress whatever personal storyline they have.

To be fair, all of BioWare's RPGs have had NPC teammates who've done that. I recall it happening in KoTOR, DA1, DA2, ME1, ME2 and ME3. The BG series did it as well and came before those games I listed, but at the same time, the games I listed improved upon it.

Maxor127 wrote:Or how day and night cycled, and shops opened and closed appropriately. And a lot more of the cities and buildings seemed explorable than games today.

That is a nice feature and although manually choosing if it's day or night in DA2 was convenient, it did lose something in the process. That said, it was nice to not have to race home or to a shop just to make it in before nightfall.

Maxor127 wrote:So basically, I prefer Baldur's Gate-style RPGs over Diablo-esque ones. I'd say Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of that era.

I also prefer BG-style to Diablo-style, unless the game is co-op, in which case a more action-oriented game is usually better. Titan Quest, for instance, is very much like the Diablo games (only improved on every feature in almost every single way), but contains a minor story -- one that won't win any awards, but that's still better than any of the Diablo titles -- and draws from Greek, Egyptian and Asian mythologies.

Maxor127 wrote:I don't see how DA1's combat could be considered bland when you're doing vicious moves like impaling an enemy with your dual-wielded swords and throwing him down onto the ground, and slicing his head off to finish him off, and the finishing animations for killing dragons and ogres never got old. I felt like I was in a living world in Dragon Age Origins.

DA1 didn't lack for finishing moves or blood and gore. That's not what I'm talking about when I called DA1's combat bland or slow and plodding.

I never felt like an active participant during combat in DA1. I basically gave my characters instructions and they carried my orders out. That's fine for a strategy game, but I felt disengaged during combat by doing this in an RPG.

Compare this with DA2, where you're actively in combat, swinging away, dodging, and everything is more up-close and personal. It reminded me more of the combat in the ME series, which I enjoy a lot.

Maxor127 wrote:I felt like I was in an empty box in Dragon Age 2.

How so? DA2 certainly had fewer people, overall, to interact with, but those that you did had more meaningful dialogue and characterization.

I liked my companions a lot more in DA2. They seemed more alive than those in DA1, especially since they had their own specific places to meet, whereas everyone was always grouped together in a camp in DA1. That may have worked for DA1, being a band of traveling heroes, but not in DA2, where you and your companions lived in the same city. It'd be weird if they hung out together all the time.

Maxor127 wrote:I prefer the silent protagonists for these kinds of games, as I'm sure I've said elsewhere because when I make a character, I try to make him look like me, and when I roleplay the character, I pretty much do what I'd do if I were in that situation.

That's a difference in playing style and I've had this argument with people on the BioWare boards before. Basically it comes down to the player "being the character" or "controlling the character." I'm in the latter camp, whereas it;s obvious you're in the former. Neither one is right or wrong, it's just different.

I've never seen myself as the character. Why? Because that's not me and the character has an entirely different background and set of circumstances growing up than I had. So I'm content to control the character and guide him, but I never try to be him.

Maxor127 wrote:And when Hawke speaks, that's not my voice. And when he's having a conversation, I feel like an observer instead of an active participant.

I can understand this.

Maia initially disliked the female Hawke's voice, but I think she grew accustomed to it. I know she really liked female Commander Shepard's voice, as did most people.

Maxor127 wrote:Even dialogue wheel choices for Hawke usually didn't fit my intention because they were so vague. I could try being a friend to Anders, and it would come off as a flirty exchange, and suddenly I'm headed down a romantic path with Anders, and then he eventually makes a move, and I have to shoot him down and get a big influence hit.

I think DA2's major problem with the dialogue wheel (and it's the same for the ME series) is that it doesn't give people enough of an idea of what the character will say or in some cases, actually do.

A better compromise would be to do what they did in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, where you could several choices to say something and it shows a brief blurb of what you'll say. If you hover your mouse over a selection, it'll expand it and show you everything you'll say, word-for-word, if you choose that option.

Oh and yeah, I disliked the fact that I couldn't turn down Anders' affections without taking an influence penalty. That, however, is more a case of poor design/writing than problems with the dialogue wheel itself.

Maxor127 wrote:In the case of the noble family parents getting killed, that probably felt more real to me than DA2's big tear jerker moment.

Considering you don't spend much time with the Cousland family and that your character barely shows any emotion (due to being a silent protagonist), I'm not sure why you feel this way.

I don't think Hawke's response was overly melodramatic considering what happened to his/her mother. It was sick and demented, and certainly worse than if she'd just been killed outright, such as what happened with the Couslands.

Differences of opinion are what keep a forum going. For me, DAO is miles better than DA2. I thought DAO graphics were better, story was better, characters were better, the random dialogue was better, the combat was better, and the ending was better. DA2 had the same "outside dungeons" repeatedly, over and over, the characters were interesting but didn't feel as unique as they did in DAO, I disliked the combat system (though this may be due to the exploding bodies and how the bad guys in the city were like ninjas, just appearing out of thin air wave after wave), the choices did not matter in the end of the story - it was the same exact result, no matter what side you took. Over all, DA2 seemed a step back for me. It could be because I do prefer the exploring the world feel. This reminds me why I love Realms of Arkania: STAR TRAIL over Realms of Arkania: Shadows Over Riva, which did the same thing; explore the world in STAR TRAIL vs bound to a city pretty much like SHADOWS OVER RIVA.

I feel like exploring the world allows me to run into more NPCS, more personalities, more things to do.