SHP Forums

Tawmis wrote: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.

You can debate the story, characters, random dialogue and even combat, but graphics? Really? DA2 was miles ahead in that department.

Granted, both games had some awfully low resolution textures in them at times, but by and large, DA2 simply looked better. The graphical interface may not have been as nice looking (I definitely agree on that), but in terms of setting, characters, clothing, armor and so on, DA2's graphics were simply better, especially if you have DX11.

Tawmis wrote:DA2 had the same "outside dungeons" repeatedly

It did indeed and this was one of the many problems DA2 launched with due to time constraints (and most likely, meddling from EA). Overall, I didn't really mind that the dungeons did repeat, but it would've been nice to see something new.

Tawmis wrote: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)

Some facets of DA2's combat system were definitely over the top, no question about that.

However, DAO seemed too much like an RTS, where you view everything from above, issue orders and watch your troops carry them out.

In DA2, you were in the trenches, fighting the enemy in a more up close and personal manner.

Tawmis wrote:the choices did not matter in the end of the story - it was the same exact result, no matter what side you took.

People have this same complaint about ME3, but what I think they're missing is that your decisions were never meant to have a world-wide effect. Your actions affected your companions and immediate situation, which is really all anyone can do.

I think that DA2 would have been a much better game, if it hadn't been so rushed. I appreciated the more intimate story level and the way the companions actually responded to what was going on in your character's life (instead of just inappropriately ignoring it).

Plus, I still liked Kirkwall, even though it could have been more alive (yes, like GW2's Divinity's Reach, which is probably my favourite RPG city ever). It was nice to feel like there was a bit of "home" there. I think they really got the "city" feel right with the Citadel in ME3, so I think that any cities will feel even more alive in DA:I.

However, I thought a few things were over-the-top in DA2 as well, like the combat gore (thank goodness for the anti-gibbing mod!) and the ridiculous appearance of some weapons. Plus, the game was in many ways more restricting and linear (again, I think maybe it would have been more fleshed-out with more development time).

From my understanding of what I've read about DA:I so far, the devs are planning to find a happy medium between the two previous games in terms of pretty much everything. I think that they actually have enough time to do the game will help immensely in-and-of itself.

Apparently, the combat will be a bit more tactical, but still retain the fluid animations (not animation of fluids, hopefully ).

Regarding family, I found the part with the Couslands and the part with Hawke's mother equally moving (except for the jarring frowny face response), but the latter was more horrific. Frankly, I'm tired of having no family or them always dying in RPGs. It's lazy story-writing.

It would be more emotionally involving if you could actually designate some things about your family ahead of time for the story (ex. pick between being an orphan or having parents (or a parent) and having a good relationship with them or having a bad relationship with them).

Regarding voice vs. silent protagonist, I tend to create a specific character and role-play that character, not myself, so I don't really have a problem if they're not like me. However, if they voice (or whatever) doesn't match my mental idea of my character, then it can be annoying.

Overall, I prefer voiced for immersiveness, since they rarely do the silent protagonist well in modern game cinematics. However, it can make the character feel less like my character, if the voice they choose doesn't match. I prefer not having to match my character ideas to fit the game, but a certain amount of that is necessary regardless, so I can live with it.

I do think a more clear indication of your responses would be better, like they used in DX: HR. There were times when I was going for charming/witty and Hawke said something completely innappropriate and I had no idea. That was embarassing.

New Information:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -revealed/

I've just seen some news about Dragon Age III: Inquisition, and I have to say, I am quite impressed. Here, check it out:

Two articles from Digital Times
Article from Kotaku

Of course, I'm sure you realise that I'm not an "EA-never-does-anything-wrong" fanboy who believes that that DA2 was flawless - far from it. All the same, this news looks interesting - and promising. Hopefully the final game - coming in the fall of 2014 - will live up to that promise (fingers crossed!)

What do you think, hmm?

No replies, eh?

I wasn't checking the forums much in early October, so I missed those articles.

Interesting choices they've made. It certainly sounds like they're trying to make it more of a strategic-combat RPG. They're definitely going a bit more "old school" with some of their decisions, like removing the health regeneration and allowing the more strategic combat pausing. I think those are good choices.

The PAX gameplay demo was amazing! I couldn't get over how good it looked (the vegetation!). It looks like they are truly trying for an immersive world.

I was glad to see Varric back, since originally, they said they weren't bringing party characters back.

I am cautiously curious. I loved the first Dragon Age immensely. The second one, I strongly disliked. They seem to have learned. But... I don't know. Not getting my hopes up. I'd settle for being entertained. If it's more than that, bonus.

Some more news about Dragon Age: Inquisitor.

Well, I'm glad to see that race choice and tactical combat/overview are back. I like the fact that Bioware are going to put more emphasis on followers' personalities and dialogue, as well as make the relationship system more in-depth than DA2's "nice guy/sarcasm/jerk" system. The idea of the Inquisition also seems interesting.

That said, the basic idea - uniting these factions that have other things on their mind (or are even hostile to each other) in order to fight a common evil - is obviously not new (just think of DA:O, or Skyrim). But that's just the basic idea; it's interesting to see how it will be implemented in practice.

We'll see what happens, but this has definitely got me interested!

I am hopeful. But we've discussed it before in other threads - DA:O was (to me) the best of it so far. DA:2 was a disappointment. I enjoyed DA:2, make no mistake, but it didn't come close to DA:O. It's kind of like comparing the original SWTrilogy to the "Prequels." I still managed to enjoy the Prequels, but they just didn't come close to the original.

I didn't like the friendship system in either DA game, although DA2's was more tolerable.

The reason for this is I felt like I had to cater to my party's personality in DAO or I'd miss out on whatever perks they (or I) got from them liking me.

DA2's system was a little better because you didn't necessarily have to make them like you and even when you did, at some point their approval rating was locked. At that point I could choose whatever I wanted and it didn't matter since it wouldn't affect their opinion of me and in turn, whatever benefits their friendship or romance conferred.

This is one of the reasons why I liked the Mass Effect series better. There were no approval issues. Your teammates and friends remained that way, even if you did stuff they wouldn't normally like.

Anyway... back to Inquisition. I like that we can switch back and forth between the tactical and combat modes this time. I really enjoyed getting into the middle of battle and feeling like I was fighting in DA2 (as opposed to the awkwardly slow-paced combat in DAO), but assigning tasks to teammates was more difficult without the tactical overhead view.

I don't really care about the different races since I'm almost certainly going to play a male human, and I've never played a BioWare game more than once. I've tried, but their games are just too long and don't differ enough no matter what choices or races I choose.

That was one of DAO's worst issues, I think. Sure, the intros were interesting and depended on the race and background you chose, but after that, it was almost entirely meaningless.

Very few people reacted to my human mage with fear or uncertainty, and even fewer seemed to notice my city elf (when I tried playing one briefly). For all intents and purposes, I was a Grey Warden, regardless of race or class. That's what they noticed and that's how they responded to me. Everything else seemed like a distant second in importance, which was disappointing.

Something that's interesting in Inquisition is that wounds don't heal unless you heal them with potions or magic. So if you get seriously injured and you're out of healing items or don't have a mage with healing spells, you're SOL if you get into a fight.

Also, I like that events happen in the game with or without you. Apparently quests and situations will occur in the game but only at certain locations, so if you're there or nearby, you might notice and take part; otherwise, you'd have no idea. It's nice to see a game where the world doesn't revolve around your character. This also gives the game replayability, something I felt the previous BioWare games sorely lacked.

DeadPoolX wrote:That (race selection -Ed.) was one of DAO's worst issues, I think. Sure, the intros were interesting and depended on the race and background you chose, but after that, it was almost entirely meaningless.

Very few people reacted to my human mage with fear or uncertainty, and even fewer seemed to notice my city elf (when I tried playing one briefly). For all intents and purposes, I was a Grey Warden, regardless of race or class. That's what they noticed and that's how they responded to me. Everything else seemed like a distant second in importance, which was disappointing.

Your mage in DAO will get a lot of attention if/when you return to the Tower of Magi, and also when you meet other mages from your past at the Tower (especially Jowan). Your conversations with other party mages (Morrigan and Wynne) are also interesting.

It's not surprising that few people noticed your city elf if you only played it briefly. Your city elf will get a lot more attention if you draw attention to yourself in Denerim, especially if you try to get into the Alienage (and even more so once you do get into the Alienage). He/she will also get some attention from the Dalish encampment in the Brecelian Forest.

DeadPoolX wrote:Something that's interesting in Inquisition is that wounds don't heal unless you heal them with potions or magic. So if you get seriously injured and you're out of healing items or don't have a mage with healing spells, you're SOL if you get into a fight.

I find this both interesting and a little strange. I guess it's more realistic than simply expecting resting or eating food (if available) to heal wounds, but it seems that this will generally limit your party choices, in the sense that you have only two options: you'll have to either find an apothecary and stock up on a truckload of potions, or find a mage with healing spells ASAP and then stick him/her in your party forever. *shrug*

This...

DeadPoolX wrote: The reason for this is I felt like I had to cater to my party's personality in DAO or I'd miss out on whatever perks they (or I) got from them liking me.

Almost seems to contradict this:

DeadPoolX wrote: Also, I like that events happen in the game with or without you. Apparently quests and situations will occur in the game but only at certain locations, so if you're there or nearby, you might notice and take part; otherwise, you'd have no idea. It's nice to see a game where the world doesn't revolve around your character. This also gives the game replayability, something I felt the previous BioWare games sorely lacked.

Because, you seemed to "sway" to whatever friendship to ensure you get all the perks from your party members; and yet, you're okay with events happening (that you would miss out on?) without your character ever knowing it happened?

I guess in some regards, the above (with the events happening, even if you're not there) might "fix" this issue you have:

Deadpool wrote: I don't really care about the different races since I'm almost certainly going to play a male human, and I've never played a BioWare game more than once.

It might make you more inclined to give the game another swing if someone says, "The war at the Greyfields was epic!" and perhaps you missed that event - so you'd play through again, to ensure you see said event?

To me, that's a bit of an annoyance. While I have played both DA:O and all the ME games, several times. I hate the idea that I might go one path, and miss an entire series of events, because of that. Or just because I am not in the right spot. It's going to make "checking online strategy" tips way more common, for me, just so I get the most out of the game - fearful I might miss something pretty nice.

Deadpool wrote: Something that's interesting in Inquisition is that wounds don't heal unless you heal them with potions or magic. So if you get seriously injured and you're out of healing items or don't have a mage with healing spells, you're SOL if you get into a fight.

This also annoys me, for the very same reasons Rath stated.
You're either going to buy a stack of 99 Healing potions and carry them around. Or whoever your healer is, they will ALWAYS be a member of your party, for that sole reason - to heal you, because resting won't cut it anymore.

There's no contradiction.

I like the idea that quests and events happen with or without you, but I hate missing out on perks because I did something a party member dislikes.

Of course, I don't really "roleplay" either. Never understood it.

I tend to be more of a power gamer, so to me getting every ability or perk is more important than playing a character. That's why the events not revolving around me is fine, but having to placate my idiotic party members is extremely annoying.

DeadPoolX wrote: Of course, I don't really "roleplay" either. Never understood it.

Well, roleplaying in crpg is often problematic, because - despite the appearances to the contrary - the player has no real freedom, so you have to carefully navigate between what the character you have in mind would do in pen-and-paper roleplay and what the games actually allows you to do.

Still, BioWare games are the ones that come closer to a real pen-and-paper experience, in my opinion.