@Arabus13 I'd say that it was more of a way to avoid writing long dialogues and still pleasing the virgins who enjoyed the aweful sex scenes.
If you think about BG, some romances were somewhat complex and confusing - in DA it's pretty straightforward - agree to everyting and give them gifts.
In any case, DA3 is going to suck, only DA:O was decent enough to give me a glimpse of hope (if you dismiss the fact that the lazy-ass writers just copied big chunks of history books to create the so-called "original backround").
@Arabus13 I'd say that it was more of a way to avoid writing long dialogues and still pleasing the virgins who enjoyed the aweful sex scenes.
If you think about BG, some romances were somewhat complex and confusing - in DA it's pretty straightforward - agree to everyting and give them gifts.
In any case, DA3 is going to suck, only DA:O was decent enough to give me a glimpse of hope (if you dismiss the fact that the lazy-ass writers just copied big chunks of history books to create the so-called "original backround").
LOL...Unfortunately, I've seen many, many relationships that operate on the "agree with everything and buy them gifts principle"!
I will probably buy on launch DA3 as I am a big fan of the first game, not so much of the second. I would love to see Grey Warden and Hawke once again on scene. I hope they will not fk this up by making them just a cameo appearance. It must be something big as it was building up for two games.
I see a lot of hate for DA2, which is in my opinion very right so. The dialog wheel was just horrible(good response, funny response, evil response comparing to rich DA:O dialog choices - what the hell happened?! ME happened I guess...). Aside from Varric, Anders and Fenris characters were boring and predictable. Many people hate Hawke, but I didn't find him that annoying and over time he grew on me.
The new more action oriented battle system - I personally liked it, but what didn't let you enjoy it was the whole design of maps. Very little variety both in enemies and environment. Repeating same dungeon occurred way, way too often.
The most annoying thing about DA2: Romances. Oh my dear - the romances! I'm not sure what happened here either. Completely destroyed my favorite aspect of the first game: interacting with your party members. Absolutely disgusting. Big note: I'm not calling homosexuals disgusting, but development of this aspect of the game. I'm pretty much bi when it comes to games and enjoy some of the same gender romances(like Hawke x Fenris). You can't be friends with your favorite companions! Anders - I absolutely adore that guy and even if he is a bit broken in DA2 and I can't stay close friends with him without implying I want to make love to him. And you can't say 'no' in polite way like in ME3 with Normandy mechanic and still talk to guy like a friend. Before each talk I was afraid of the outcome... some people laugh that they removed all same gender relationships from ME2 and put it in DA2. BW were way too lazy in developing this. Same gender relationships need a lot more thought and understanding than what was given in this game, which they did in ME3. Some really messed up, lazy(or both) people were involved in developing project of DA2.
In conclusion DA:O was amazing game. DA2 was rushed piece of crap. I hope BioWare learnt from their mistakes and will make DA3 a great game and story. I'm a bit afraid of EA tho. Some months ago they said that they refuse to release a game without multiplayer. We all saw how forcing multiplayer into a singleplayer games works out in Mass Effect 3. Don't get me wrong. I think multiplayer can have it's place in games, but not when it interfere singleplayer experience! Look at all missions of the ME3. It's just multiplayer missions in singleplayer where you fight waves of enemies. They made multiplayer missions core of the whole game and this broke immersion for me and many other people.
I was originally going to write a big long drawn out response to this but honestly after 12 pages most of what I would have said has been said already so I'll sum it up by game and culminate by going back on topic and talking about DA3.
Dragon Age: Origins
Was a fun game, although the fade and the deep roads really make it hard to replay. Even awakening was interesting, more for the supporting characters (Oghren, Anders, Justice) than the plot itself but sometimes that happens.
Mass Effect 1 & 2:
I hate fps games and loved the franchise. I prefer the story in mass effect 1 to that of mass effect 2 but I enjoy ME2's gameplay more. 20 shots to the head with my characters sniper rifle to kill something just makes me sigh. Plus ME2 didn't have the Mako. That said, the story for 2 was still rather enjoyable so that overall I feel it was an improvement over 1.
Dragon Age 2:
*sigh* Where do I start. First of all, I actually ENJOYED Isabella's character. I have plenty of friends who aren't ashamed that they enjoy sex, and who crack plenty of sex jokes. Honestly, she might be my favorite character of the sequal, although I looked forward to her from the start because I enjoyed when you visited her in the Pearl the first time.
The combat was a little more engaging, perhaps they sped it u too much compared to the original. Unlike the more minor improvements from ME1 -> ME2, the combat felt like it was turned on its head. Furthermore, the story felt like it SHOULD have ended at the end of chapter 2. I will also join the crowd that hates what they did to Anders and the massive stereotyping of Chapter 3 after working so hard to present the moderates and extremists of both the Chantry and Mages in DA: O.
Overall, I felt that the problem with DA2 was that it was a Bioware title but didn't live up to the Bioware quality. If it's a game released in the dark by another publisher then the game actually doesn't seem that bad.
Disclaimer: I've barely played any of the non-opening day DLC which I had gotten for free due to my pre-order. I have to take a warden through DA: O and DA: A in order to bring that specific warden into DA2. Its just how I am.
ME3:
This was perhaps the perfect game for Bioware, it had me emotionally invested and always anxious to push on and see more of what happened to my best friends that I had gotten in the game.
The death of Mordin is still THE highlight of the series for me and brought me to tears.
That said, what had been a perfect game took a gutpunch right when you hit the ending. Even more than the false advertisement etc, what really happened was that the game hit a figurative brick wall. They had momentum and emotion, and then threw it all out the window right at the end. It didn't even hit me how let down I was afterwards until I was voicing it to friends and realized that ya it was a perfect game until the end.
The extended ending helped some, I tried 3 out of the 4 endings, but only one of them had any degree of emotional impact as the rest of the game and still felt like something was missing.
TOR:
Tried it, enjoyed it at the start but it didn't have enough to keep me going. The game was released at least 6 months to early and felt like it the entire way through. The only enjoyable part was levelling, but the end game, especially PvE was buggy to the point of unplayable for months. A large chunk of my 10m raid from WoW had tried the PvE and we got rather far (Cleared everything on the hardest mode at least once), but the continual bugs and being unable to replicate results due to them caused us all to quit.
Needless to say I was looking forward to playing it again when it went FTP, I hadn't finished levelling my sorcerer and there were still 6 other classes to see their story. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscious go back to the game due to their archaic and severe Free to Play model. I've played plenty of free to play games and other games that use a large amount of micro-transactions in order to make their income now but TOR is over the top. Thus with their current model, as much as I want to experience the stories, I cannot in good consumer conscious go back even without paying anything.
Dragon Age 3 and the future:
While Dragon Age 2 was a good game, alas not a good bioware game, and Mass Effect 3 was amazing, sans ending, I will not be pre-ordering Dragon Age 3 like I have done with their previous titles. I had been a die-hard, possibly rabid bioware fan, but the previous games have squashed that. Thus I will wait for reviews before buying a new bioware title, rather than buying it just cause its made by Bioware. They've done severe damage to their brand (Bioware as a name), and its their job to fix it. I hope they do, otherwise as others have mentioned their are plenty of new RPGs to look forward to.
Edit/PS: This still ended up MUCH longer than I intended it to. I wonder what kind of novel I would have written if I had gone into detail like I had considered originally.
@Arabus13 I'd say that it was more of a way to avoid writing long dialogues and still pleasing the virgins who enjoyed the aweful sex scenes.
If you think about BG, some romances were somewhat complex and confusing - in DA it's pretty straightforward - agree to everyting and give them gifts.
In any case, DA3 is going to suck, only DA:O was decent enough to give me a glimpse of hope (if you dismiss the fact that the lazy-ass writers just copied big chunks of history books to create the so-called "original backround").
LOL...Unfortunately, I've seen many, many relationships that operate on the "agree with everything and buy them gifts principle"!
I'll tell you, a relationship that 'operates' on a capitalist-inspired ideology won't hold out for long as the years go by, lol.
Regarding my former comment, I was more ridiculizing the aspect of giving your party members gifts such as meat bones originally intended for Dog and you'd still get one point of approval. That really made me LOL. Also, Baldur's Gate didn't rely on gifts and still got some interesting relatinships going. The thing is, with giving gifts you might learn a bit more about your love interest's preference for gifts, but it doesn't necessarily make you KNOW them better. I mean, which girl doesn't appreciate flowers or diamonds? But does that mean you, as the male party, get to know them better through just buying them gifts? No. A girl might also become TIRED of just receiving gifts without any other input. At least, I know I don't need gifts to show my appreciation towards my boyfriend. Gifts are temporary points of approval, they don't last. They might eventually also be forgotten as life moves onward. They might keep on holding some emotional value, but in the end, they're just material objects. They're nothing like true gifts of appreciation, such as sharing stories about your past, sharing experiences, making jokes together, going someplace special... It's THESE things that create a bond between people, not just a random diamond on a ring.
I'm sorry, @Arabus13, but I think your view on relationships, at least, TRUE relationships, is a bit warped.
@Arabus13, if you've gotten love or laid from buying flowers, candy, dinner, etc., I would do some serious soul-searching about the type of people with whom you are involved. Either way, it still doesn't change the fact that the relationships were poorly done and in sometimes a very insulting/demeaning way.
Wow...touchy!
Sorry, but I've been happily married for well over 25 years. Yet, even now the wife appreciates candy, dinner, flowers, and jewelry.
If anything, Bioware's "gifts" are nothing more than an analogy to establish character relationships in the game. If you can't see the difference, maybe it's you that needs to do the soul searching.
I just thought your defense on how Bioware handled relationships was a bit weak. Gifts shouldn't be used to establish character relationships and they shouldn't have been used as such an influence to up the love meter. Why even have a meter? This is not the Sims for crying out loud. Anyway, those gifts that had some significance (the Golden Mirror, Leliana's flower, etc.) I can see being in the game. That said, those gifts still should not have held so much sway on the relationship. It made the love interests too easy in both the literal and figurative senses.
Why I was a bit touchy is because of your mention of brownie points in regards to real life. To give something in order to get something is immature, not to mention a tad manipulative.
@Google_Calasade: So first he says most relationships supposedly 'operate' on gifts, and now he's saying the opposite? I'm afraid I can't follow anymore.
It will likely be a smart move, while I'm kinder to DA2 than most people here, the game was clearly rushed and it suffered for it. I'm looking forward to the game as well, but I am willing to wait if it means some extra polish and a new engine.
It's quite important to remember that relationships in these games are quite unlike real human relationships and it's damn near impossible to compare them. Hence, things like meters and approval and reputation and influence. These are just digitized analogues representing the feedback people receive in real human relationships (because they can't receive such feedback from a computer-generated character in the game.) I don't think we can expect a realistic simulation of a human relationship from a game that lasts a few hours and so we need guides to indicate success or failure in the context of the game. Ergo, the aforementioned mechanisms by which we measure our performance. It isn't meant to be a realistic reflection of human behavior per se, but it's designed to enhance our suspension of disbelief.
I'd even go far as to say that if we set aside the blatantly ridiculous and allow a substantial investment and immersion in a role-playing game, it would be appropriate to put these things in context if we wish to enjoy ourselves. In other words, if one wants to enjoy a game like this, I don't see how one can allow one's self to get hung up on this. If that happens, obviously, the game isn't going to be as enjoyable. Placing the emphasis on gift-giving is merely one tool to enhance a virtual relationship (with an obviously pre-written character). While the relationships one forms in these games enhances the story considerably and is a hallmark of a Bioware work in many respects, it is in the end only one aspect of the whole. Perhaps some would prefer yet more emphasis on character relationships. That is totally understandable. However, that likely means sacrificing in other areas. I don't think any Dragon Age title was significantly weaker in terms of character development and relationships than any other in this perspective but I can totally appreciate a perspective of how that character development and relationships are done.
Since Dragon Age: Inquisition is a new property with its own story, mechanics, plot, and gameplay, I imagine that this same issue will be handled differently. No reason to assume that it will be in any way similar to the previous games. Gaider's blog post was interesting in that regard as it commented more on content, not mechanics. However, we'd really need more info to judge that particular situation ourselves. Plot elements have purposes, even if they are negative or dark, and if treated properly, even the most horrific event can enhance a story. Obviously, his team found something about this event that was not serving their narrative well. That I can appreciate. Perspective is important in speaking to one's audience. I'd hope that Bioware would not shy away from bold themes, treat them properly, and trust their customers to judge their final work.
The way that I looked at Dragon Age 2 (I don't care if it's not the way it was intended...art is made to be interpreted) is that it was to show how insignificant we all are to the bigger events in the world. The entire game has you trying to stop two factions from killing each other. I suppose technically you could join one side at a very early point, but my character tried to use his wealth and influence to kind of keep neutral and hide upon it.
Eventually you had to choose a side and it was painful. It was painful because a lot of your friends would be impacted by that decision. And depending on how good of a friend you were to them would impact whether or not they decided you were an enemy.
Ultimately though...I enjoyed that. I enjoyed being powerless when it came to the situation with my character's mother. I enjoyed being powerless when it came to the head mage succumbing to his prejudice after trying to keep it together throughout the entire game. It was rather aggravating and heartbreaking that he ended up using blood magic in the end.
The game had its faults. But ultimately I enjoyed the fact that decisions I made didn't necessarily go the way I would have liked them. I felt very raw after the ending. My emotions told me that the storyline in the game was outstanding. It was that desire to see how the game was resolved that got me through the redundant area locations and quests.
I thought the story was pretty strong though.
I also agree with Dragonspear (Is that Dragon Spear or Dragon's Pear?). Mass Effect 3 might have been the greatest game I have ever played from Bioware (ever?) but then the ending just sucked out all the life I had. I just stared at the screen after listening to that famous astronaut's voice and thought to myself...why? Why did you guys do this?
Did I want my Shepard to ride off into the sunset with Talia or something? Probably. But I would have been okay with not getting my desired ending. I would have been happy if Shepard died...on his terms. I can't buy that there wasn't a better way to do anything in that respect. And it isn't for the same reason that I was okay with the fact that I couldn't do anything to change the results in Dragon Age 2.
The problem with Mass Effect 3 is that you spend the entire game preparing for an epic conclusion where you just might have a chance to win. You scour the entire galaxy. You make peace with aliens that have been warring for thousands of years. You might even be responsible to restoring the reproduction cycle of an entire alien race. And for what? The fact that you have no way of winning in the end...as a people. Your only hope is to sacrifice yourself in some way.
The newer addition (read: explanation) to what the different choices represent did kind of make things a bit better. At least I can kind of be curious about them. But I still think Shepard would have found his own way. And he would have succeeded. Cause that's what Shepard has done throughout all three games at this point. To suddenly strip him of that dignity just seems like poor storytelling. The hero's journey typically has the hero reach a low point...and then he suddenly climbs back up, takes his sword from the mantle, and then kicks butt. He might sacrifice himself. Sure. But he does things on HIS terms...he doesn't let some alien computer make a fool out of him. Meh.
Now I'm just sounding like an angry fan boy I guess. Oh well. It's still a good game. I'm man enough to accept that. Haha.
@darthchair: When it comes to Dragon Age 2, wow, I wish I could be as masochistic as you and enjoy being powerless and getting walked upon as a character. Also, if you were so intruiged by powerlessness in DA 2, why not in Mass Effect 3? Afterall, Shepard's just as powerless to stop the Reapers just because of an idiotic starbrat. In the end, both Hawke's and Shepard's decisions amount to next to nothing. Neither of them succeed into leaving a true mark upon the world. Quite a nihilistic approach, if you ask me.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud That is one thing I was trying to explore in my post as to why Mass Effect 3's ending bothered me and Dragon Age 2 did not. I suspect because Mass Effect's trilogy as a whole did allow you to make a difference in the world. Dragon Age 2 felt more like a story within a bigger story so to speak and I just felt like Hawke was never meant to succeed. He tried, but couldn't make a dent.
Shepard always seems to make a difference somehow. He's kind of the traditional pulp hero that always prevails. To suddenly change that in the end felt very jarring.
Maybe with Hawke I was just conditioned already for the failure that was to come. It is interesting though. Haha.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud That is one thing I was trying to explore in my post as to why Mass Effect 3's ending bothered me and Dragon Age 2 did not.
I actually liked DA2 ending. As for ME3... well I didn't hate it. I was devastated that such epic journey of Commander Shepards ends like this. If only BW confirmed indoctrination theory it would be an awesome ending. When I first heard of that I really thought it's retarded, but when I heard more it blew my mind. Amazing and deep at the same time. Indoctrination theory ending made me think a lot about the whole game... in current form it's just weak and to some degree stupid(starchild and space magic? What happened BioWare? What happened? It felt like somebody else was writing hte ending.).
@PhoenixDown I was hoping that the indoctrination theory would have been used as well. Releasing DLC that kind of showed this would have made me the happiest guy in the universe. It made so much sense. o.O;;
The fact that Bioware kind of added that ending where Shepard could choose to control fate himself...and then suffered probably the worst ending because of it (humanity lost?) I felt that was a bit of nasty haughtiness on their part. I guess if you create something you are entitled to do what you want with it. But gosh, guys, couldn't you have at least pretended you felt bad for the Commander Shepard Bleeding Hearts Club?
As for ME3... well I didn't hate it. I was devastated that such epic journey of Commander Shepards ends like this. If only BW confirmed indoctrination theory it would be an awesome ending. When I first heard of that I really thought it's retarded, but when I heard more it blew my mind. Amazing and deep at the same time. Indoctrination theory ending made me think a lot about the whole game... in current form it's just weak and to some degree stupid(starchild and space magic? What happened BioWare? What happened? It felt like somebody else was writing hte ending.).
You don't need BW to confirm a theory you like, that is half the fun. For goodness sake the people who put together the indoctrination theory covered all of their angles, if you needed closure that badly, that theory wraps it up and gives it to you like a present. :P
Also whether you liked the original ending or not, there is plenty of reference to the trilogy as a whole, if the indoctrination theory made you think about the whole series, the original should too if you take the time to do so.
Shepard always seems to make a difference somehow. He's kind of the traditional pulp hero that always prevails. To suddenly change that in the end felt very jarring.
Yeah Shepard always sort of reminded me of age old stories, something akin to Beowulf, that was definitely reinforced with scene of Buzz Aldrin telling the saga of the "The Shepard(Shepherd?)" to his grandchild or whoever. What would you have preferred to the original, Shep still determines the future of the entire galaxy, I'd say that is quite an achievement.
@State_Lemming That's true, he does. I just don't flat out like it. Haha. I mean the guy already died at the beginning of ME2. They brought him back. The guy just needed a break. It never seemed like he got it. And I guess in the end...the fact that he had to sacrifice his life to save the majority of beings in the universe that were fairly unappreciative of him was kind of...well I just kind of shook my head. I never realized Shepard was a Nazarene.
Course I also cannot see how Bioware plans to make a direct sequel to the universe. I don't think they can legitimately have it take place before the events in ME since they told everyone to keep their saves. But how do you move on?
One ending has all life some sort of hybrid. Another one kills all AI. And another has Shepard being God basically. Well a machine god with Shepard's personality traits. They're pretty different and so I'm wondering how you go about a sequel without choosing one of those as the canon ending. Which sort of deviates from how your choices affect the universe doesn't it?
Unless they somehow do manage to tell a story with people being either a hybrid, people benefiting from a benevolent machine god, or people without a great deal of technology, or I suppose a game without humans at all. But meh. I seriously doubt that will happen.
I don't know...it just seems bizarre. I don't fathom it. I don't fathom how everything you basically did in the third game was for nothing. Maybe it wasn't for nothing. You basically kept a lot of races alive. You saved the galaxy, yes yes I know. But I guess my choices won't really see any real impact until the next game. And maybe that's what left me unfulfilled. Or maybe I'll just never be satisfied because of an unjustifiable sense of fanboyism. I don't know. It just seems like a major let down the way they ended it. I'd rather have had Ewoks.
@darthchair I've repeated this constantly in this thread, but the "choices don't matter" argument continues to confuse me. The choices have never mattered to the games themselves, they've only mattered to the player, and it is up to you to decide if they matter or not (sorry for repeating "matter" four times).
Commander Shepard: Convinces antagonists to commit suicide, possesses and extra life.
I do think Mass Effect 4, for lack of a better title, does have it's work cut out for it. If it were up to me, I would have the game take place many hundreds of years later. Then Bioware can do what it always does with it's games, just make passing references to previous game's events without it affecting the story that much.
I think one of the big issues with the ending is that the pacing is pretty screwy. While I like the ending for the most part, the ascending platform felt out of place after a bunch of time dedicated to a generic underdog story. I think the sudden change threw everyone for a loop and they spent the duration of the ending confused instead of pondering the significance of it.
Also you are a damn liar, no one prefers Ewoks, unless the alternative is Gungans.
Yeah...it's really hard to be logical about why I feel the choices didn't matter when my mind tells me to be upset about the whole ordeal. Kind of like a cloud or veil over my brain. Some people excuse this dislike because of the whole "space magic thing" that they coined it. To me...I think I agree with you. It's rather jarring. The entire game sets you up for one of those underdog victories like you said.
Like you also said, you are victorious...and you get to pick how to be victorious.
I can't say that Bioware didn't end it the way you should end it. But it still was a buzz kill for me. Maybe all it would have taken was Shepard to have survived.
I will say this...in the beginning, Bioware didn't bother giving any kind of closure to the story. What happened to everyone? They didn't necessarily have to. I just think that a lot of times we're used to getting some idea what happened at the end. Like in Fallout 1 and 2 where it kinda summarized everything. And even in KoToR and Jade Empire and Dragon Age you kind of got to talk to people at the end and kind of get an idea what they did afterwards.
Bioware fixed that with the DLC they released. That was good. I really did feel a lot better about the ending because 1.) I understood what the endings actually represented and what the result of them was. 2.) It gave the choices a bit more weight and made me think about them.
I never would have chosen the blue ending to become a part of the Reapers originally. I picked the red option to blow them all the flip up. The fact that this one shows Shepard breathing at the end kind of reinforced this idea. And also gave weight to the indoctrination theory.
However in the end...with the DLC...I chose the blue option. I guess I figured ultimately maybe Shepard isn't really dead. If his memories and personality are locked inside the Reapers maybe that is the best reward a man can ask for. Immortality.
The red option seems to not be as effective now.
The green option seemed very fascinating, but ultimately I do not see it as a viable option for my Shepard.
And the option where Shepard tells them to go flip themselves and that he will find his own way while he just kinda sits and doesn't do anything is uh...well...kind of silly. But I understand where they are coming from. I just wonder why Shepard can't talk the Reapers down. Why does he have to do all this crap...why can't there be some paragon option to sort of convince the Reapers that death isn't the only option other than joining them?
I dunno. There goes my irrational mind again. The endings don't bother me as much now after the ending DLC. I would have preferred an ending where Shepard got to live and was hailed as a human hero. But whatever. God Shepard is interesting too I guess. Although he won't really be in the games anymore. They might choose to skip a ton of time.
To be honest with you...it's going to be really difficult to come up with a new enemy that can compete with the Reapers.
I personally have never been a fan of the Fallout style of endings, didn't like in DA:O either. They feel weird to me, especially since they rarely have anything to do with story, do I really need to know that Shianni got stabbed to death trying to help the city elves in a game about Grey Wardens and the darkspawn?
With Mass Effect, I really don't need to know what Garrus or Jack or Tali or whoever did afterwards, I spent enough time with them to make a pretty safe guess, either way the saga is over, what they are doing doesn't mean much to me, what they did leaves a far stronger impression.
You are right about the reapers being a hard enemy to outdo in terms of sheer scale. I'm hoping ME4, in most of it's aspects, is about a smaller fish, a story in the Mass Effect universe, not one that alters it's entire course. I would really like Bioware to introduce a villain in the style of Irenicus, but they haven't don that in over a decade so I'm not holding my breath.
That's true...there really aren't many decent villains in their games anymore. Jade Empire's villain kind of became a joke if you ask me. Darth Malak was interesting. But I don't know...he wasn't exactly memorable to me. Who was the villain in NwN again? I remember Aribeth joining the darkside and then you had the option to help her because of the power of love or something, but that is about all I can remember.
Would be nice to have a really great villain, yeah. Smaller scale as you said. Someone that fascinates you and that you love to hate.
I wouldn't actually mind playing an RPG where you are the villain. It would be an interesting change, you know? You can determine what sort of villain you are...in terms of being a less-evil villain just trying to get by or a diabolical mastermind which plots things out and takes a system down to its knees...to a plain old psychopathic villain that just wants to destroy everything.
The NPCs could be your henchmen. The minions that take over the world. Like in KoToR Online how you can send out your npcs to do missions without you and stuff. You can take the ones you don't really care about on other missions and then get info on what happens.
I doubt that will happen, but I would love a full-fledged RPG where it dedicates itself with being a bad guy. And with all the mercenaries out there...along with all the other villainous groups we have learned about in Mass Effect...it would be easy to do so. Not sure if it would sell though.
@darthchair The Bioware villains have been decent...bad guys like Malak and Saren work well in their stories (it really baffles me the ME3 ending didn't mention that Synthesis was Saren's goal), but in a purely standalone comparison they just don't compare to how effective a villain Irenicus was.
A game where you are the villain would be tricky, when portraying an immoral or deeply flawed character it is much better to go with an anti-hero, the audience has to like the protagonist to some extent after all. Actually now that I think about it Saren would be a decent example. :P
@darthchair You know that must've been done in a videogame before, let me think. A lot of strategy games do that, offering a campaign of the evil side of the conflict. I remember in Command and Conquer: Red Alert there would be missions where'd you attack villages full of civilians.
@State_Lemming Yeah, but that's a strategy game. Not really an rpg. Although yeah I mean you could be the bad guy in Command and Conquer with the Brotherhood of Nod. Some RPGs allow you to be a villain, but ultimately you still kind of need to meet the victory conditions that the hero would have to do as well. Meaning beat the other bad guy. Haha.
Comments
If you think about BG, some romances were somewhat complex and confusing - in DA it's pretty straightforward - agree to everyting and give them gifts.
In any case, DA3 is going to suck, only DA:O was decent enough to give me a glimpse of hope (if you dismiss the fact that the lazy-ass writers just copied big chunks of history books to create the so-called "original backround").
I see a lot of hate for DA2, which is in my opinion very right so. The dialog wheel was just horrible(good response, funny response, evil response comparing to rich DA:O dialog choices - what the hell happened?! ME happened I guess...). Aside from Varric, Anders and Fenris characters were boring and predictable. Many people hate Hawke, but I didn't find him that annoying and over time he grew on me.
The new more action oriented battle system - I personally liked it, but what didn't let you enjoy it was the whole design of maps. Very little variety both in enemies and environment. Repeating same dungeon occurred way, way too often.
The most annoying thing about DA2: Romances. Oh my dear - the romances! I'm not sure what happened here either. Completely destroyed my favorite aspect of the first game: interacting with your party members. Absolutely disgusting. Big note: I'm not calling homosexuals disgusting, but development of this aspect of the game. I'm pretty much bi when it comes to games and enjoy some of the same gender romances(like Hawke x Fenris). You can't be friends with your favorite companions! Anders - I absolutely adore that guy and even if he is a bit broken in DA2 and I can't stay close friends with him without implying I want to make love to him. And you can't say 'no' in polite way like in ME3 with Normandy mechanic and still talk to guy like a friend. Before each talk I was afraid of the outcome... some people laugh that they removed all same gender relationships from ME2 and put it in DA2. BW were way too lazy in developing this. Same gender relationships need a lot more thought and understanding than what was given in this game, which they did in ME3. Some really messed up, lazy(or both) people were involved in developing project of DA2.
In conclusion DA:O was amazing game. DA2 was rushed piece of crap. I hope BioWare learnt from their mistakes and will make DA3 a great game and story. I'm a bit afraid of EA tho. Some months ago they said that they refuse to release a game without multiplayer. We all saw how forcing multiplayer into a singleplayer games works out in Mass Effect 3. Don't get me wrong. I think multiplayer can have it's place in games, but not when it interfere singleplayer experience! Look at all missions of the ME3. It's just multiplayer missions in singleplayer where you fight waves of enemies. They made multiplayer missions core of the whole game and this broke immersion for me and many other people.
Dragon Age: Origins
Was a fun game, although the fade and the deep roads really make it hard to replay. Even awakening was interesting, more for the supporting characters (Oghren, Anders, Justice) than the plot itself but sometimes that happens.
Mass Effect 1 & 2:
I hate fps games and loved the franchise. I prefer the story in mass effect 1 to that of mass effect 2 but I enjoy ME2's gameplay more. 20 shots to the head with my characters sniper rifle to kill something just makes me sigh. Plus ME2 didn't have the Mako. That said, the story for 2 was still rather enjoyable so that overall I feel it was an improvement over 1.
Dragon Age 2:
*sigh* Where do I start. First of all, I actually ENJOYED Isabella's character. I have plenty of friends who aren't ashamed that they enjoy sex, and who crack plenty of sex jokes. Honestly, she might be my favorite character of the sequal, although I looked forward to her from the start because I enjoyed when you visited her in the Pearl the first time.
The combat was a little more engaging, perhaps they sped it u too much compared to the original. Unlike the more minor improvements from ME1 -> ME2, the combat felt like it was turned on its head. Furthermore, the story felt like it SHOULD have ended at the end of chapter 2. I will also join the crowd that hates what they did to Anders and the massive stereotyping of Chapter 3 after working so hard to present the moderates and extremists of both the Chantry and Mages in DA: O.
Overall, I felt that the problem with DA2 was that it was a Bioware title but didn't live up to the Bioware quality. If it's a game released in the dark by another publisher then the game actually doesn't seem that bad.
Disclaimer: I've barely played any of the non-opening day DLC which I had gotten for free due to my pre-order. I have to take a warden through DA: O and DA: A in order to bring that specific warden into DA2. Its just how I am.
ME3:
This was perhaps the perfect game for Bioware, it had me emotionally invested and always anxious to push on and see more of what happened to my best friends that I had gotten in the game.
That said, what had been a perfect game took a gutpunch right when you hit the ending. Even more than the false advertisement etc, what really happened was that the game hit a figurative brick wall. They had momentum and emotion, and then threw it all out the window right at the end. It didn't even hit me how let down I was afterwards until I was voicing it to friends and realized that ya it was a perfect game until the end.
The extended ending helped some, I tried 3 out of the 4 endings, but only one of them had any degree of emotional impact as the rest of the game and still felt like something was missing.
TOR:
Tried it, enjoyed it at the start but it didn't have enough to keep me going. The game was released at least 6 months to early and felt like it the entire way through. The only enjoyable part was levelling, but the end game, especially PvE was buggy to the point of unplayable for months. A large chunk of my 10m raid from WoW had tried the PvE and we got rather far (Cleared everything on the hardest mode at least once), but the continual bugs and being unable to replicate results due to them caused us all to quit.
Needless to say I was looking forward to playing it again when it went FTP, I hadn't finished levelling my sorcerer and there were still 6 other classes to see their story. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscious go back to the game due to their archaic and severe Free to Play model. I've played plenty of free to play games and other games that use a large amount of micro-transactions in order to make their income now but TOR is over the top. Thus with their current model, as much as I want to experience the stories, I cannot in good consumer conscious go back even without paying anything.
Dragon Age 3 and the future:
While Dragon Age 2 was a good game, alas not a good bioware game, and Mass Effect 3 was amazing, sans ending, I will not be pre-ordering Dragon Age 3 like I have done with their previous titles. I had been a die-hard, possibly rabid bioware fan, but the previous games have squashed that. Thus I will wait for reviews before buying a new bioware title, rather than buying it just cause its made by Bioware. They've done severe damage to their brand (Bioware as a name), and its their job to fix it. I hope they do, otherwise as others have mentioned their are plenty of new RPGs to look forward to.
Edit/PS: This still ended up MUCH longer than I intended it to. I wonder what kind of novel I would have written if I had gone into detail like I had considered originally.
Regarding my former comment, I was more ridiculizing the aspect of giving your party members gifts such as meat bones originally intended for Dog and you'd still get one point of approval. That really made me LOL. Also, Baldur's Gate didn't rely on gifts and still got some interesting relatinships going. The thing is, with giving gifts you might learn a bit more about your love interest's preference for gifts, but it doesn't necessarily make you KNOW them better. I mean, which girl doesn't appreciate flowers or diamonds? But does that mean you, as the male party, get to know them better through just buying them gifts? No. A girl might also become TIRED of just receiving gifts without any other input. At least, I know I don't need gifts to show my appreciation towards my boyfriend. Gifts are temporary points of approval, they don't last. They might eventually also be forgotten as life moves onward. They might keep on holding some emotional value, but in the end, they're just material objects. They're nothing like true gifts of appreciation, such as sharing stories about your past, sharing experiences, making jokes together, going someplace special... It's THESE things that create a bond between people, not just a random diamond on a ring.
I'm sorry, @Arabus13, but I think your view on relationships, at least, TRUE relationships, is a bit warped.
It will likely be a smart move, while I'm kinder to DA2 than most people here, the game was clearly rushed and it suffered for it. I'm looking forward to the game as well, but I am willing to wait if it means some extra polish and a new engine.
I'd even go far as to say that if we set aside the blatantly ridiculous and allow a substantial investment and immersion in a role-playing game, it would be appropriate to put these things in context if we wish to enjoy ourselves. In other words, if one wants to enjoy a game like this, I don't see how one can allow one's self to get hung up on this. If that happens, obviously, the game isn't going to be as enjoyable. Placing the emphasis on gift-giving is merely one tool to enhance a virtual relationship (with an obviously pre-written character). While the relationships one forms in these games enhances the story considerably and is a hallmark of a Bioware work in many respects, it is in the end only one aspect of the whole. Perhaps some would prefer yet more emphasis on character relationships. That is totally understandable. However, that likely means sacrificing in other areas. I don't think any Dragon Age title was significantly weaker in terms of character development and relationships than any other in this perspective but I can totally appreciate a perspective of how that character development and relationships are done.
Since Dragon Age: Inquisition is a new property with its own story, mechanics, plot, and gameplay, I imagine that this same issue will be handled differently. No reason to assume that it will be in any way similar to the previous games. Gaider's blog post was interesting in that regard as it commented more on content, not mechanics. However, we'd really need more info to judge that particular situation ourselves. Plot elements have purposes, even if they are negative or dark, and if treated properly, even the most horrific event can enhance a story. Obviously, his team found something about this event that was not serving their narrative well. That I can appreciate. Perspective is important in speaking to one's audience. I'd hope that Bioware would not shy away from bold themes, treat them properly, and trust their customers to judge their final work.
Eventually you had to choose a side and it was painful. It was painful because a lot of your friends would be impacted by that decision. And depending on how good of a friend you were to them would impact whether or not they decided you were an enemy.
Ultimately though...I enjoyed that. I enjoyed being powerless when it came to the situation with my character's mother. I enjoyed being powerless when it came to the head mage succumbing to his prejudice after trying to keep it together throughout the entire game. It was rather aggravating and heartbreaking that he ended up using blood magic in the end.
The game had its faults. But ultimately I enjoyed the fact that decisions I made didn't necessarily go the way I would have liked them. I felt very raw after the ending. My emotions told me that the storyline in the game was outstanding. It was that desire to see how the game was resolved that got me through the redundant area locations and quests.
I thought the story was pretty strong though.
I also agree with Dragonspear (Is that Dragon Spear or Dragon's Pear?). Mass Effect 3 might have been the greatest game I have ever played from Bioware (ever?) but then the ending just sucked out all the life I had. I just stared at the screen after listening to that famous astronaut's voice and thought to myself...why? Why did you guys do this?
Did I want my Shepard to ride off into the sunset with Talia or something? Probably. But I would have been okay with not getting my desired ending. I would have been happy if Shepard died...on his terms. I can't buy that there wasn't a better way to do anything in that respect. And it isn't for the same reason that I was okay with the fact that I couldn't do anything to change the results in Dragon Age 2.
The problem with Mass Effect 3 is that you spend the entire game preparing for an epic conclusion where you just might have a chance to win. You scour the entire galaxy. You make peace with aliens that have been warring for thousands of years. You might even be responsible to restoring the reproduction cycle of an entire alien race. And for what? The fact that you have no way of winning in the end...as a people. Your only hope is to sacrifice yourself in some way.
The newer addition (read: explanation) to what the different choices represent did kind of make things a bit better. At least I can kind of be curious about them. But I still think Shepard would have found his own way. And he would have succeeded. Cause that's what Shepard has done throughout all three games at this point. To suddenly strip him of that dignity just seems like poor storytelling. The hero's journey typically has the hero reach a low point...and then he suddenly climbs back up, takes his sword from the mantle, and then kicks butt. He might sacrifice himself. Sure. But he does things on HIS terms...he doesn't let some alien computer make a fool out of him. Meh.
Now I'm just sounding like an angry fan boy I guess. Oh well. It's still a good game. I'm man enough to accept that. Haha.
Shepard always seems to make a difference somehow. He's kind of the traditional pulp hero that always prevails. To suddenly change that in the end felt very jarring.
Maybe with Hawke I was just conditioned already for the failure that was to come. It is interesting though. Haha.
The fact that Bioware kind of added that ending where Shepard could choose to control fate himself...and then suffered probably the worst ending because of it (humanity lost?) I felt that was a bit of nasty haughtiness on their part. I guess if you create something you are entitled to do what you want with it. But gosh, guys, couldn't you have at least pretended you felt bad for the Commander Shepard Bleeding Hearts Club?
Also whether you liked the original ending or not, there is plenty of reference to the trilogy as a whole, if the indoctrination theory made you think about the whole series, the original should too if you take the time to do so. Yeah Shepard always sort of reminded me of age old stories, something akin to Beowulf, that was definitely reinforced with scene of Buzz Aldrin telling the saga of the "The Shepard(Shepherd?)" to his grandchild or whoever. What would you have preferred to the original, Shep still determines the future of the entire galaxy, I'd say that is quite an achievement.
Course I also cannot see how Bioware plans to make a direct sequel to the universe. I don't think they can legitimately have it take place before the events in ME since they told everyone to keep their saves. But how do you move on?
One ending has all life some sort of hybrid. Another one kills all AI. And another has Shepard being God basically. Well a machine god with Shepard's personality traits. They're pretty different and so I'm wondering how you go about a sequel without choosing one of those as the canon ending. Which sort of deviates from how your choices affect the universe doesn't it?
Unless they somehow do manage to tell a story with people being either a hybrid, people benefiting from a benevolent machine god, or people without a great deal of technology, or I suppose a game without humans at all. But meh. I seriously doubt that will happen.
I don't know...it just seems bizarre. I don't fathom it. I don't fathom how everything you basically did in the third game was for nothing. Maybe it wasn't for nothing. You basically kept a lot of races alive. You saved the galaxy, yes yes I know. But I guess my choices won't really see any real impact until the next game. And maybe that's what left me unfulfilled. Or maybe I'll just never be satisfied because of an unjustifiable sense of fanboyism. I don't know. It just seems like a major let down the way they ended it. I'd rather have had Ewoks.
Commander Shepard: Convinces antagonists to commit suicide, possesses and extra life.
I do think Mass Effect 4, for lack of a better title, does have it's work cut out for it. If it were up to me, I would have the game take place many hundreds of years later. Then Bioware can do what it always does with it's games, just make passing references to previous game's events without it affecting the story that much.
I think one of the big issues with the ending is that the pacing is pretty screwy. While I like the ending for the most part, the ascending platform felt out of place after a bunch of time dedicated to a generic underdog story. I think the sudden change threw everyone for a loop and they spent the duration of the ending confused instead of pondering the significance of it.
Also you are a damn liar, no one prefers Ewoks, unless the alternative is Gungans.
Yeah...it's really hard to be logical about why I feel the choices didn't matter when my mind tells me to be upset about the whole ordeal. Kind of like a cloud or veil over my brain. Some people excuse this dislike because of the whole "space magic thing" that they coined it. To me...I think I agree with you. It's rather jarring. The entire game sets you up for one of those underdog victories like you said.
Like you also said, you are victorious...and you get to pick how to be victorious.
I can't say that Bioware didn't end it the way you should end it. But it still was a buzz kill for me. Maybe all it would have taken was Shepard to have survived.
I will say this...in the beginning, Bioware didn't bother giving any kind of closure to the story. What happened to everyone? They didn't necessarily have to. I just think that a lot of times we're used to getting some idea what happened at the end. Like in Fallout 1 and 2 where it kinda summarized everything. And even in KoToR and Jade Empire and Dragon Age you kind of got to talk to people at the end and kind of get an idea what they did afterwards.
Bioware fixed that with the DLC they released. That was good. I really did feel a lot better about the ending because 1.) I understood what the endings actually represented and what the result of them was. 2.) It gave the choices a bit more weight and made me think about them.
I never would have chosen the blue ending to become a part of the Reapers originally. I picked the red option to blow them all the flip up. The fact that this one shows Shepard breathing at the end kind of reinforced this idea. And also gave weight to the indoctrination theory.
However in the end...with the DLC...I chose the blue option. I guess I figured ultimately maybe Shepard isn't really dead. If his memories and personality are locked inside the Reapers maybe that is the best reward a man can ask for. Immortality.
The red option seems to not be as effective now.
The green option seemed very fascinating, but ultimately I do not see it as a viable option for my Shepard.
And the option where Shepard tells them to go flip themselves and that he will find his own way while he just kinda sits and doesn't do anything is uh...well...kind of silly. But I understand where they are coming from. I just wonder why Shepard can't talk the Reapers down. Why does he have to do all this crap...why can't there be some paragon option to sort of convince the Reapers that death isn't the only option other than joining them?
I dunno. There goes my irrational mind again.
To be honest with you...it's going to be really difficult to come up with a new enemy that can compete with the Reapers.
I personally have never been a fan of the Fallout style of endings, didn't like in DA:O either. They feel weird to me, especially since they rarely have anything to do with story, do I really need to know that Shianni got stabbed to death trying to help the city elves in a game about Grey Wardens and the darkspawn?
With Mass Effect, I really don't need to know what Garrus or Jack or Tali or whoever did afterwards, I spent enough time with them to make a pretty safe guess, either way the saga is over, what they are doing doesn't mean much to me, what they did leaves a far stronger impression.
You are right about the reapers being a hard enemy to outdo in terms of sheer scale. I'm hoping ME4, in most of it's aspects, is about a smaller fish, a story in the Mass Effect universe, not one that alters it's entire course. I would really like Bioware to introduce a villain in the style of Irenicus, but they haven't don that in over a decade so I'm not holding my breath.
That's true...there really aren't many decent villains in their games anymore. Jade Empire's villain kind of became a joke if you ask me. Darth Malak was interesting. But I don't know...he wasn't exactly memorable to me. Who was the villain in NwN again? I remember Aribeth joining the darkside and then you had the option to help her because of the power of love or something, but that is about all I can remember.
Would be nice to have a really great villain, yeah. Smaller scale as you said. Someone that fascinates you and that you love to hate.
I wouldn't actually mind playing an RPG where you are the villain. It would be an interesting change, you know? You can determine what sort of villain you are...in terms of being a less-evil villain just trying to get by or a diabolical mastermind which plots things out and takes a system down to its knees...to a plain old psychopathic villain that just wants to destroy everything.
The NPCs could be your henchmen. The minions that take over the world. Like in KoToR Online how you can send out your npcs to do missions without you and stuff. You can take the ones you don't really care about on other missions and then get info on what happens.
I doubt that will happen, but I would love a full-fledged RPG where it dedicates itself with being a bad guy.
A game where you are the villain would be tricky, when portraying an immoral or deeply flawed character it is much better to go with an anti-hero, the audience has to like the protagonist to some extent after all. Actually now that I think about it Saren would be a decent example. :P
I see your point...but if you ARE the villain and choosing how deeply flawed or immoral you are...what isn't to like?