I don't think its going to appeal to origins players they said it would but they are trying to do it by changing game completely. It seems to me like the pieces of crap that screwed up 2 were whispering in there bosses ear trying to cover for their mistakes. So they are switching from over using maps in a rich landscape to over using objects in a desert and "fixing" combat. I think it will be most impressive to those that play only console and have never seen what can be done in "next gen".
It had both a desert and a more typical landscape, the "fixing" combat included putting back in a tactical camera like all the DA:O fans wanted, and I question whether you actually read the article.
Also, it might not hurt if you could dislike a game without calling the people who made it "pieces of crap". It's a video game. It is not a government service, or a war, or a visit to the hospital. Producing something you do not like is not even in the slightest bit a moral failing.
It is not the game that bothers me it's the ethics of those that made it if your an artist you have an obligation to your fans that is pale in comparison to the one you have to yourself both were blatantly compromised in the creation of DA2 (Moral failing). I am not sure who's money you spend but I am quite upset with my 50$ coaster.
Perhaps, just perhaps, they didn't deliberately make a terrible game just to piss you off, but made a game as best they could within the time constraints they had with love and care and effort, that in the end just didn't happen to appeal to you?
Bioware does not have any obligation to make a game all their fans like. First, that's impossible to do. Second, no artist has an "obligation" to their fans at all - they make art, and fans either like it or they don't. They don't owe fans anything. Third, Bioware is a business. Their obligation is to make money; if they screw up and something isn't as popular as it could have been, that is a problem for them, but it is still not a moral failing. Do you honestly think they deliberately tried to annoy their fanbase? Do you honestly think they deliberately made a "bad" game? To what end? It's an absurd assertion.
Also, your insinuation about "whose money I spent" is silly. I not only spent my own money on buying all the DLC, I've bought the game for other people.
The animations of DA:I so far are fine. The only thing that needs a bit work is "the roll". If you like animations that make you believe your character weighs something, you're gonna like it. If not, well...
The compromises they made were for financial reasons so obviously deliberately. Speaking of absurd assertions, do you think they didn't test the game?, do you think for some reason they didn't know exactly what they were putting on the market?, and do you really believe there is no immoral actions in all of this? What ever the case I personally think producing crap because you believe the name will carry the title is immoral.
Edit: Even if the only obligation they had was to themselves... If they met it.. I would be even more disgusted.
Perhaps, just perhaps, they didn't deliberately make a terrible game just to piss you off, but made a game as best they could within the time constraints they had with love and care and effort, that in the end just didn't happen to appeal to you?
Bioware does not have any obligation to make a game all their fans like. First, that's impossible to do. Second, no artist has an "obligation" to their fans at all - they make art, and fans either like it or they don't. They don't owe fans anything. Third, Bioware is a business. Their obligation is to make money; if they screw up and something isn't as popular as it could have been, that is a problem for them, but it is still not a moral failing. Do you honestly think they deliberately tried to annoy their fanbase? Do you honestly think they deliberately made a "bad" game? To what end? It's an absurd assertion.
Also, your insinuation about "whose money I spent" is silly. I not only spent my own money on buying all the DLC, I've bought the game for other people.
Replace Bioware for EA.
Yes, I do believe Bioware attempted to make the best game that they could, however they were rushed for monetary reasons (EA). EA attempts to make money on a short term bases. Churn out repetitive titles (think EVERY sports franchise that it has) and capitalize on pre-branded titles to drive sales. Think of the downward spiral of franchises like C&C, Sim City, Ultima and Dungeon Keeper had after EA got involved. Now take a look at where all those dedicated studios are now. That is my fear for Bioware.
The compromises they made were for financial reasons so obviously deliberately. Speaking of absurd assertions, do you think they didn't test the game?,
I think they did, and the game worked on launch without any serious bugs (unless I'm forgetting something).
do you think for some reason they didn't know exactly what they were putting on the market?, and do you really believe there is no immoral actions in all of this? What ever the case I personally think producing crap because you believe the name will carry the title is immoral.
Yes, I really believe there is no immoral action in this, and I think you're rather absurd to be suggesting there is.
First, I don't think the game is crap. In fact I love the game, far more than I did DA:O, so there's that.
Second, even if I did think it was crap, there is no morality involved in the release of a normal video game. If it's crap, then the market punishes them. Or perhaps more to the point, if "it is too buggy to provide a satisfying game experience or doesn't fit the tastes of the potential audience, the market punishes them". Morality doesn't enter into it.
If I'm going to throw around a word like "immoral" for a video game, it'll be something like Bioware making it so that there are no homosexual relationships in the SW:TOR universe, and then later adding them all on one planet you have to pay to access. It will not be in any context of "they released this game I didn't like".
Yes, I do believe Bioware attempted to make the best game that they could, however they were rushed for monetary reasons (EA). EA attempts to make money on a short term bases. Churn out repetitive titles (think EVERY sports franchise that it has) and capitalize on pre-branded titles to drive sales. Think of the downward spiral of franchises like C&C, Sim City, Ultima and Dungeon Keeper had after EA got involved. Now take a look at where all those dedicated studios are now. That is my fear for Bioware.
To be blunt, the only thing that applies there for DA:II is the fact it was rushed to completion, and Bioware's put out plenty of games before they were polished long before EA ever got involved with them.
If EA had been pushing Bioware to make a repetitive title selling on its name value, Dragon Age II would have been just like Dragon Age: Origins, rather than a completely different sort of game that was very unlike Origins or any other RPG Bioware has ever created. It's painfully obvious that, with the possible exception of a faster and more visually exciting combat system, DA:II's innovations and changes were never designed or focus-tested to appeal to the "mass audience".
I'm not even going to bother with discussing DA2 any more, guys. Now it was some kind conspiracy, a money-making pyramid scheme of some kind, if Chaotic_Good is to be believed. This has become a ridiculous waste of time, so I'll only be talking about DA:I and will not respond to a post that even mentions DA2 unless it does so to the effect of "DA:I is doing this differently from DA2" or something.
The animations of DA:I so far are fine. The only thing that needs a bit work is "the roll". If you like animations that make you believe your character weighs something, you're gonna like it. If not, well...
It reminds me of Dark Souls, which is virtually never a bad thing.
Yes, I do believe Bioware attempted to make the best game that they could, however they were rushed for monetary reasons (EA). EA attempts to make money on a short term bases. Churn out repetitive titles (think EVERY sports franchise that it has) and capitalize on pre-branded titles to drive sales. Think of the downward spiral of franchises like C&C, Sim City, Ultima and Dungeon Keeper had after EA got involved. Now take a look at where all those dedicated studios are now. That is my fear for Bioware.
To be blunt, the only thing that applies there for DA:II is the fact it was rushed to completion, and Bioware's put out plenty of games before they were polished long before EA ever got involved with them.
If EA had been pushing Bioware to make a repetitive title selling on its name value, Dragon Age II would have been just like Dragon Age: Origins, rather than a completely different sort of game that was very unlike Origins or any other RPG Bioware has ever created. It's painfully obvious that, with the possible exception of a faster and more visually exciting combat system, DA:II's innovations and changes were never designed or focus-tested to appeal to the "mass audience".
No DA2 would not have been like Origins because Origins had a extremely longer development time. And there is a difference between an unpolished game and a game that takes unfixable short cuts (reusing of maps - HUGE) to save time and money. Unpolished games can be fixed and improved over time (just think of all the patches NWN had) if a company is dedicated to improving the game.
DA2 NOT being like Origins is one of the points. They capitalized on both the Dragon Age brand and Bioware's track record to sell games. If this game was titled "The Templar's War" or whatever, it would not have sold as many copies as it.
And I'd really like to know what innovations you think DA2 had.
No DA2 would not have been like Origins because Origins had a extremely longer development time.
Yes, but it would have been a game that didn't change the design of Qunari and elves, that would have had the usual country/world-spanning quest to save the world by stabbing a dragon or something in the face, and many other typical RPG tropes that DAII eschewed.
And I'd really like to know what innovations you think DA2 had.
Here's five. Please note you asked me to say what innovations I think DA2 had, so I'd rather you not just follow up by arguing with me about them. You're not going to argue me into thinking a game I enjoyed more than any other RPG is bad, and I'm similarly unlikely to argue you into thinking it is good. I'm just answering your question, not looking for a fight.
1) The rivalry system, removing the incentive to break character to suck up to Party Member X so they don't leave/betray you/don't give you their quest. Also increases the range of party interaction considerably (both with the NPC directly, and in their interactions with other party members).
2) The framing device of Varric telling your narrative, and subsequent usage of narrative unreliability in both subtle and obvious ways.
3) The lack of any obvious save the world plot, or singular bad guy who is the source of all of your/the world's problems and that you can therefore neatly wrap things up by stabbing them in the face.
4) Setting of a story in (and the immediate environs of) a single large city rather than a country-or-world-spanning epic. This isn't unique, but it's pretty rare.
5) The three-toned dialogue system and numerous relationship and dialogue flags, allowing the game to smoothly integrate a lot of "flavour" of your character in the world (for instance, people react differently to Hawke before they've ever met her/him based on your choices in the game; party members banter differently about different Hawke personalities, and so forth).
No DA2 would not have been like Origins because Origins had a extremely longer development time.
Yes, but it would have been a game that didn't change the design of Qunari and elves, that would have had the usual country/world-spanning quest to save the world by stabbing a dragon or something in the face, and many other typical RPG tropes that DAII eschewed.
And I'd really like to know what innovations you think DA2 had.
Here's five. Please note you asked me to say what innovations I think DA2 had, so I'd rather you not just follow up by arguing with me about them. You're not going to argue me into thinking a game I enjoyed more than any other RPG is bad, and I'm similarly unlikely to argue you into thinking it is good. I'm just answering your question, not looking for a fight.
1) The rivalry system, removing the incentive to break character to suck up to Party Member X so they don't leave/betray you/don't give you their quest. Also increases the range of party interaction considerably (both with the NPC directly, and in their interactions with other party members).
2) The framing device of Varric telling your narrative, and subsequent usage of narrative unreliability in both subtle and obvious ways.
3) The lack of any obvious save the world plot, or singular bad guy who is the source of all of your/the world's problems and that you can therefore neatly wrap things up by stabbing them in the face.
4) Setting of a story in (and the immediate environs of) a single large city rather than a country-or-world-spanning epic. This isn't unique, but it's pretty rare.
5) The three-toned dialogue system and numerous relationship and dialogue flags, allowing the game to smoothly integrate a lot of "flavour" of your character in the world (for instance, people react differently to Hawke before they've ever met her/him based on your choices in the game; party members banter differently about different Hawke personalities, and so forth).
Thanks. Not arguing/fighting at all. And as I said earlier in this thread, I enjoyed DA2, despite its, IMO, shortcomings. I only played DA2 one and a half times, so I wasn't aware of #5. I am probably going to replay it after I complete Origins again (leading up to DA:I release) so I am definitely going to keep my eye out for this.
I also enjoyed #4, however, it was a turn off for other players.
My point is that EA (not Bioware) has a habit of destroying money making franchises, and as much as I loved Origins, I only liked DA2. I am hoping for a reversal come DA:I, but I am in a wait and see mode, and I started this poll to see where other Bioware faithful sit and discuss and read about DA:I.
Well, Bioware's falling all over itself to say they've got everything back from DA:O that people wanted, and other crowd-pleasing things like open-world-gameplay, so I imagine there will be a reversal of most things.
At the very least, of the five things I mentioned, the only one that's certain to be in DAIII is the first, and mayyyybe the fifth (but the sheer amount of dialogue it requires makes me dubious they could integrate in a much bigger game like III). 2, 3, and 4 are definitely out, which I certainly understand (Origins was, after all, more popular) but obviously doesn't enthuse me.
I expect III will get good reviews and be generally popular, though some people won't like it, be it due to lingering bitterness, genuine dislike, or the fact it simply won't ever be as grognardy as Origins was. It'll be closer to Origins than II and likely do much better commercially; it's the obvious route to go and Bioware isn't stupid.
I wouldn't honestly say EA has a habit of destroying franchises, though, Sim City debacle nonwithstanding. Sims itself is doing great, to name an obvious example. And they do come out with interesting new titles now and then like Mirror's Edge.
I hear bioware even started looking for a multiplayer guy for the next mass effect. they say they are listening but it seems they are not. yes I have enjoyed ME3 multiplayer for a bit, but the problem is that they could have instead focused on making the single player good. even when they were both being done by two different teams they would both be taking the game's budget that could have all went into the campaign.
I hear bioware even started looking for a multiplayer guy for the next mass effect. they say they are listening but it seems they are not. yes I have enjoyed ME3 multiplayer for a bit, but the problem is that they could have instead focused on making the single player good. even when they were both being done by two different teams they would both be taking the game's budget that could have all went into the campaign.
Actually I really enjoyed the ME3 multiplayer. I certainly wasn't expecting to, but I'm glad they included it in the game.
And I don't really think there was much wrong with ME3 other than the ending. Otherwise I thought the game was excellent. Throwing more people at the game to polish it wouldn't have made much difference since it was already well polished.
Bioware's age has come and gone, with new companies like Inxile and obsidian trying to fill the gap. Dragon age 3 will be a commercial success, I am sure, but it will not be remembered as fondly as other titles the company has developed.
I hear bioware even started looking for a multiplayer guy for the next mass effect. they say they are listening but it seems they are not. yes I have enjoyed ME3 multiplayer for a bit, but the problem is that they could have instead focused on making the single player good. even when they were both being done by two different teams they would both be taking the game's budget that could have all went into the campaign.
There is no leeching of singleplayer resources by multiplayer. That is not how game development works. Multiplayer had its own separate team and budget.
Besides that, the issue with ME3's singleplayer was merely a disappointing ending. The remaining 95% of the game was incredible. It's a writing issue, and has nothing to do with multiplayer.
I hear bioware even started looking for a multiplayer guy for the next mass effect. they say they are listening but it seems they are not. yes I have enjoyed ME3 multiplayer for a bit, but the problem is that they could have instead focused on making the single player good. even when they were both being done by two different teams they would both be taking the game's budget that could have all went into the campaign.
There is no leeching of singleplayer resources by multiplayer. That is not how game development works. Multiplayer had its own separate team and budget.
Besides that, the issue with ME3's singleplayer was merely a disappointing ending. The remaining 95% of the game was incredible. It's a writing issue, and has nothing to do with multiplayer.
I am just imagining that without multiplayer what they gave as a budget for that would have rather been used on the single player. Of course they were given seperate budgets, but I think it could have all been one budget.
Yeah the ending is the big deal, but I still felt some other things lacking. Some things really felt rushed, like the Quarians section had one big missions, a really short mission, an average mission, and then an optional mission where you don't even fight. It felt really short and rushed and I was hoping more would be done with it after the wait since the first game.
Other than that I can also say that the final mission was extremely lame. It was just an average mission with none of our army fighting by our side.
Slightly off topic, but it has been mentioned several times, so...
I think the biggest thing that bothered me about Mass Effect 3 (apart from some of the cornier than normal dialog) was that, after that very odd and confusing ending, I had a day or so to pause and try to really consider/reflect on what I had just experienced, trying to put all of the pieces together, if you will.
Then a thought struck me: I was experiencing indoctrination through Shepard, the whole thing was a total mind #*$@ and the only plausible explanation was that indoctrination was taking place in Shepard, and also thus, in ME as well. I was only experiencing a semi-fictitious ending. It was all a ruse to make me (and Shepard) feel complacent with the end result and not knowing the much darker and sadder truth of what really took place...
Then I discovered other people online had the same thoughts and there were large videos made explaining it all. I thought I (and they) were onto something. It also made me think Bioware had done something no other video game company or story teller had accomplished in such a manner, and I was blown away by it.
I thought: "Even if Bioware didn't intend for this, with all of the controversy they should just say, "Yep, this is what we had meant to happen, you have just experienced playing the role of a character like no one else has done before in any game before this one.", and if they had just said that, everything would have been fine. Everyone would have realized how awesome of an ending it really was and hailed Bioware as a master story teller."
Then when Bioware denied the Indoctrination Theory, it all fell through the cracks and I was very upset and disappointed to the point of feeling betrayed by a company I've come to love over the years.
Will I shun DA:I? Depends on what I see after it comes out and how cheap I can get it for.
Will I shun the next ME? It likely depends on the same.
Bottom line: They could have lied and no one would have known, and they would have come out smelling like a dozen roses.
I am just imagining that without multiplayer what they gave as a budget for that would have rather been used on the single player. Of course they were given seperate budgets, but I think it could have all been one budget.
Not how it works. If they didn't plan on multiplayer, that money would not have gone to ME3 at all. They decide in advance how much a project will cost, and allocate money accordingly. If a project doesn't include a multiplayer project, they don't allocate those resources at all.
Yeah the ending is the big deal, but I still felt some other things lacking. Some things really felt rushed, like the Quarians section had one big missions, a really short mission, an average mission, and then an optional mission where you don't even fight. It felt really short and rushed and I was hoping more would be done with it after the wait since the first game.
Other than that I can also say that the final mission was extremely lame. It was just an average mission with none of our army fighting by our side.
Yeah, an optional mission where you don't fight, you learn important aspects of Legion's character and gain a platoon of Geth Prime allies. Rannoch was fine. It was climactic, dramatic, had plenty of action, and some really tough choices for the player.
There was a huge army fighting by your side in the final battle. Why do you think you were protecting those missile batteries, and what do you think all those tanks, troops and aerial support were there for?
@Varwulf Except a lot of people hate the indoctrination theory for a myriad of reasons. Bioware couldn't win either way. Entitled fans would have hated virtually anything they did. I knew that from the start, with conflicting threads about what fans wanted from the climax popping up everywhere after ME3 was announced. Some were convinced the only way it could reasonably end was with Shepard's death, while others demanded he live, etc.
I am just imagining that without multiplayer what they gave as a budget for that would have rather been used on the single player. Of course they were given seperate budgets, but I think it could have all been one budget.
Not how it works. If they didn't plan on multiplayer, that money would not have gone to ME3 at all. They decide in advance how much a project will cost, and allocate money accordingly. If a project doesn't include a multiplayer project, they don't allocate those resources at all.
Yeah the ending is the big deal, but I still felt some other things lacking. Some things really felt rushed, like the Quarians section had one big missions, a really short mission, an average mission, and then an optional mission where you don't even fight. It felt really short and rushed and I was hoping more would be done with it after the wait since the first game.
Other than that I can also say that the final mission was extremely lame. It was just an average mission with none of our army fighting by our side.
Yeah, an optional mission where you don't fight, you learn important aspects of Legion's character and gain a platoon of Geth Prime allies. Rannoch was fine. It was climactic, dramatic, had plenty of action, and some really tough choices for the player.
There was a huge army fighting by your side in the final battle. Why do you think you were protecting those missile batteries, and what do you think all those tanks, troops and aerial support were there for?
@Varwulf Except a lot of people hate the indoctrination theory for a myriad of reasons. Bioware couldn't win either way. Entitled fans would have hated virtually anything they did. I knew that from the start, with conflicting threads about what fans wanted from the climax popping up everywhere after ME3 was announced. Some were convinced the only way it could reasonably end was with Shepard's death, while others demanded he live, etc.
I did enjoy learning about Legion, but there sure wasn't a lot of content in the Rannoch section. I did love the last mission of it and it was very climactic, but it was too short for me. I was hoping for more there I guess. I can also say Rannoch is the best example of choice from previous games actually mattering in ME3, as many of those prerequisites are from ME2 and could definitely be something the player didn't do right. I felt like I did something right when I achieved the peace in the war, especially after looking at a guide and realizing how involved it was compared to anything else in the game. You even automatically fail if you take the crew over the captain in the second mission!
in the last mission what I saw were a bunch of races sitting there at camp. We had an army of races across the galaxy. When I start heading to the beam, all I see is a bunch of humans. I wanted to fighter by Krogans, Turians, Quarians and Geth fighting side by side! It was lame when I just got a bunch of human soldiers and even they were barely around! The mako gets blown up right away and then you are left alone with a few poorly detailed soldiers in the background at one part and some cutscenes every now and again. I was expecting something like Dragon Age Origins where we actually fought with the races and factions we recruited. It just felt like any other mission as I go in with my squad of 2 and kill and bunch of bad guys with that. I could ignore that there was an army and the mission is still the same, only Shep and crew do the killing. It would have even been better if they just gave me my entire crew. At least it would feel more like an epic final battle with my whole team at my side. The final battle needs some serious work I think, but that is an opinion, even if it is a widely shared opinion with anyone else I have seen.
Yeah I was also going to say indoc theory wouldn't work for me. The way I see it with the ending is that the problem is in the pre release statement that "all questions will be answered" but then in the end they left so much to be filled in. I would be behind headcanon in any situation that is NOT a game about choice and consequence. It isn't right that I should choose my consequences! I made choices and I want to know what happened as a result of them. If I went out and robbed a bank then got caught it is not up to me to decide my consequences! In that case In that case I would say that I spent the day in jail, and got released with the money I took because it was in my possession so it is mine. The world doesn't work like that. If they were to give me that ending but make sure that every little detail was explained, then I can feel like the world kept on spinning, like the game didn't end. It didn't end there, these characters have a life to live now! Good or bad, I would have been happy weather I saw Shep building Tali a house on the homeworld or Tali crying over her loss. If she then jumped like her death scene I would be happy just to know what just happened! I am saying that about my favorite game character ever! I feel happy about even all of those Baldur's Gate characters who met their demise in their epilogue, because in the end I know that the story did not end and they continued on. I don't get that out of a cliffhanger. Only acceptable cliffhanger for me is when there is an expected sequal.
edit: terribly sorry about the long post. my emotions on Mass Effect are still strong after all this time. Don't think I hate this series, I just disagree with the third game.
The other races were there. There were several scenes featuring asari, turian, and krogan ground troops. Also, I believe the Extended Cut added more such scenes.
yes some cutscenes did, but that isn't what i'd call fighting by them. i am actually surprised that if they were going cutscenes or not that i didn't get to see geth and quarians together. would have been a nice scene to see still
extended cut just added some scenes of the colored explosion reaching other worlds and the people there celebrating as the reapers left/died.
Combat looks like DA2, as do the icons, which I consider a minus. Not that the speed of the combat getting upped a bit from Origins is back but I do mind the lack of 'tactical view', I see only over the shoulder camera here. They said it'd be in, however, so maybe it's just because it's now played on a console that they're not showing it (PC version of Origins could also zoom out further than the Console version).
Comments
Also, it might not hurt if you could dislike a game without calling the people who made it "pieces of crap". It's a video game. It is not a government service, or a war, or a visit to the hospital. Producing something you do not like is not even in the slightest bit a moral failing.
Bioware does not have any obligation to make a game all their fans like. First, that's impossible to do. Second, no artist has an "obligation" to their fans at all - they make art, and fans either like it or they don't. They don't owe fans anything. Third, Bioware is a business. Their obligation is to make money; if they screw up and something isn't as popular as it could have been, that is a problem for them, but it is still not a moral failing. Do you honestly think they deliberately tried to annoy their fanbase? Do you honestly think they deliberately made a "bad" game? To what end? It's an absurd assertion.
Also, your insinuation about "whose money I spent" is silly. I not only spent my own money on buying all the DLC, I've bought the game for other people.
Edit: Even if the only obligation they had was to themselves... If they met it.. I would be even more disgusted.
Yes, I do believe Bioware attempted to make the best game that they could, however they were rushed for monetary reasons (EA).
EA attempts to make money on a short term bases. Churn out repetitive titles (think EVERY sports franchise that it has) and capitalize on pre-branded titles to drive sales. Think of the downward spiral of franchises like C&C, Sim City, Ultima and Dungeon Keeper had after EA got involved. Now take a look at where all those dedicated studios are now. That is my fear for Bioware.
First, I don't think the game is crap. In fact I love the game, far more than I did DA:O, so there's that.
Second, even if I did think it was crap, there is no morality involved in the release of a normal video game. If it's crap, then the market punishes them. Or perhaps more to the point, if "it is too buggy to provide a satisfying game experience or doesn't fit the tastes of the potential audience, the market punishes them". Morality doesn't enter into it.
If I'm going to throw around a word like "immoral" for a video game, it'll be something like Bioware making it so that there are no homosexual relationships in the SW:TOR universe, and then later adding them all on one planet you have to pay to access. It will not be in any context of "they released this game I didn't like".
If EA had been pushing Bioware to make a repetitive title selling on its name value, Dragon Age II would have been just like Dragon Age: Origins, rather than a completely different sort of game that was very unlike Origins or any other RPG Bioware has ever created. It's painfully obvious that, with the possible exception of a faster and more visually exciting combat system, DA:II's innovations and changes were never designed or focus-tested to appeal to the "mass audience".
DA2 NOT being like Origins is one of the points. They capitalized on both the Dragon Age brand and Bioware's track record to sell games. If this game was titled "The Templar's War" or whatever, it would not have sold as many copies as it.
And I'd really like to know what innovations you think DA2 had.
1) The rivalry system, removing the incentive to break character to suck up to Party Member X so they don't leave/betray you/don't give you their quest. Also increases the range of party interaction considerably (both with the NPC directly, and in their interactions with other party members).
2) The framing device of Varric telling your narrative, and subsequent usage of narrative unreliability in both subtle and obvious ways.
3) The lack of any obvious save the world plot, or singular bad guy who is the source of all of your/the world's problems and that you can therefore neatly wrap things up by stabbing them in the face.
4) Setting of a story in (and the immediate environs of) a single large city rather than a country-or-world-spanning epic. This isn't unique, but it's pretty rare.
5) The three-toned dialogue system and numerous relationship and dialogue flags, allowing the game to smoothly integrate a lot of "flavour" of your character in the world (for instance, people react differently to Hawke before they've ever met her/him based on your choices in the game; party members banter differently about different Hawke personalities, and so forth).
I also enjoyed #4, however, it was a turn off for other players.
My point is that EA (not Bioware) has a habit of destroying money making franchises, and as much as I loved Origins, I only liked DA2. I am hoping for a reversal come DA:I, but I am in a wait and see mode, and I started this poll to see where other Bioware faithful sit and discuss and read about DA:I.
At the very least, of the five things I mentioned, the only one that's certain to be in DAIII is the first, and mayyyybe the fifth (but the sheer amount of dialogue it requires makes me dubious they could integrate in a much bigger game like III). 2, 3, and 4 are definitely out, which I certainly understand (Origins was, after all, more popular) but obviously doesn't enthuse me.
I expect III will get good reviews and be generally popular, though some people won't like it, be it due to lingering bitterness, genuine dislike, or the fact it simply won't ever be as grognardy as Origins was. It'll be closer to Origins than II and likely do much better commercially; it's the obvious route to go and Bioware isn't stupid.
I wouldn't honestly say EA has a habit of destroying franchises, though, Sim City debacle nonwithstanding. Sims itself is doing great, to name an obvious example. And they do come out with interesting new titles now and then like Mirror's Edge.
And I don't really think there was much wrong with ME3 other than the ending. Otherwise I thought the game was excellent. Throwing more people at the game to polish it wouldn't have made much difference since it was already well polished.
Besides that, the issue with ME3's singleplayer was merely a disappointing ending. The remaining 95% of the game was incredible. It's a writing issue, and has nothing to do with multiplayer.
Yeah the ending is the big deal, but I still felt some other things lacking. Some things really felt rushed, like the Quarians section had one big missions, a really short mission, an average mission, and then an optional mission where you don't even fight. It felt really short and rushed and I was hoping more would be done with it after the wait since the first game.
Other than that I can also say that the final mission was extremely lame. It was just an average mission with none of our army fighting by our side.
I think the biggest thing that bothered me about Mass Effect 3 (apart from some of the cornier than normal dialog) was that, after that very odd and confusing ending, I had a day or so to pause and try to really consider/reflect on what I had just experienced, trying to put all of the pieces together, if you will.
Then a thought struck me: I was experiencing indoctrination through Shepard, the whole thing was a total mind #*$@ and the only plausible explanation was that indoctrination was taking place in Shepard, and also thus, in ME as well. I was only experiencing a semi-fictitious ending. It was all a ruse to make me (and Shepard) feel complacent with the end result and not knowing the much darker and sadder truth of what really took place...
Then I discovered other people online had the same thoughts and there were large videos made explaining it all. I thought I (and they) were onto something. It also made me think Bioware had done something no other video game company or story teller had accomplished in such a manner, and I was blown away by it.
I thought: "Even if Bioware didn't intend for this, with all of the controversy they should just say, "Yep, this is what we had meant to happen, you have just experienced playing the role of a character like no one else has done before in any game before this one.", and if they had just said that, everything would have been fine. Everyone would have realized how awesome of an ending it really was and hailed Bioware as a master story teller."
Then when Bioware denied the Indoctrination Theory, it all fell through the cracks and I was very upset and disappointed to the point of feeling betrayed by a company I've come to love over the years.
Will I shun DA:I? Depends on what I see after it comes out and how cheap I can get it for.
Will I shun the next ME? It likely depends on the same.
Bottom line: They could have lied and no one would have known, and they would have come out smelling like a dozen roses.
There was a huge army fighting by your side in the final battle. Why do you think you were protecting those missile batteries, and what do you think all those tanks, troops and aerial support were there for?
@Varwulf
Except a lot of people hate the indoctrination theory for a myriad of reasons. Bioware couldn't win either way. Entitled fans would have hated virtually anything they did. I knew that from the start, with conflicting threads about what fans wanted from the climax popping up everywhere after ME3 was announced. Some were convinced the only way it could reasonably end was with Shepard's death, while others demanded he live, etc.
There was a huge army fighting by your side in the final battle. Why do you think you were protecting those missile batteries, and what do you think all those tanks, troops and aerial support were there for?
@Varwulf
Except a lot of people hate the indoctrination theory for a myriad of reasons. Bioware couldn't win either way. Entitled fans would have hated virtually anything they did. I knew that from the start, with conflicting threads about what fans wanted from the climax popping up everywhere after ME3 was announced. Some were convinced the only way it could reasonably end was with Shepard's death, while others demanded he live, etc.
I did enjoy learning about Legion, but there sure wasn't a lot of content in the Rannoch section. I did love the last mission of it and it was very climactic, but it was too short for me. I was hoping for more there I guess. I can also say Rannoch is the best example of choice from previous games actually mattering in ME3, as many of those prerequisites are from ME2 and could definitely be something the player didn't do right. I felt like I did something right when I achieved the peace in the war, especially after looking at a guide and realizing how involved it was compared to anything else in the game. You even automatically fail if you take the crew over the captain in the second mission!
in the last mission what I saw were a bunch of races sitting there at camp. We had an army of races across the galaxy. When I start heading to the beam, all I see is a bunch of humans. I wanted to fighter by Krogans, Turians, Quarians and Geth fighting side by side! It was lame when I just got a bunch of human soldiers and even they were barely around! The mako gets blown up right away and then you are left alone with a few poorly detailed soldiers in the background at one part and some cutscenes every now and again. I was expecting something like Dragon Age Origins where we actually fought with the races and factions we recruited. It just felt like any other mission as I go in with my squad of 2 and kill and bunch of bad guys with that. I could ignore that there was an army and the mission is still the same, only Shep and crew do the killing. It would have even been better if they just gave me my entire crew. At least it would feel more like an epic final battle with my whole team at my side. The final battle needs some serious work I think, but that is an opinion, even if it is a widely shared opinion with anyone else I have seen.
Yeah I was also going to say indoc theory wouldn't work for me. The way I see it with the ending is that the problem is in the pre release statement that "all questions will be answered" but then in the end they left so much to be filled in. I would be behind headcanon in any situation that is NOT a game about choice and consequence. It isn't right that I should choose my consequences! I made choices and I want to know what happened as a result of them. If I went out and robbed a bank then got caught it is not up to me to decide my consequences! In that case In that case I would say that I spent the day in jail, and got released with the money I took because it was in my possession so it is mine. The world doesn't work like that. If they were to give me that ending but make sure that every little detail was explained, then I can feel like the world kept on spinning, like the game didn't end. It didn't end there, these characters have a life to live now! Good or bad, I would have been happy weather I saw Shep building Tali a house on the homeworld or Tali crying over her loss. If she then jumped like her death scene I would be happy just to know what just happened! I am saying that about my favorite game character ever! I feel happy about even all of those Baldur's Gate characters who met their demise in their epilogue, because in the end I know that the story did not end and they continued on. I don't get that out of a cliffhanger. Only acceptable cliffhanger for me is when there is an expected sequal.
edit: terribly sorry about the long post. my emotions on Mass Effect are still strong after all this time. Don't think I hate this series, I just disagree with the third game.
extended cut just added some scenes of the colored explosion reaching other worlds and the people there celebrating as the reapers left/died.
Combat looks like DA2, as do the icons, which I consider a minus. Not that the speed of the combat getting upped a bit from Origins is back but I do mind the lack of 'tactical view', I see only over the shoulder camera here. They said it'd be in, however, so maybe it's just because it's now played on a console that they're not showing it (PC version of Origins could also zoom out further than the Console version).
Other than that, liked what I saw.