Where they trying to show us how just one dungeon map can be repeated tenfold?
You're getting it wrong mate - it's not the same dungeon map 10 times... it's the SAME BLOODY DUNGEON to begin with! XD
Dragon Cub : "Omm nom nom, I love me some miner meat!" *3 years later* Spider Queen : "Ohh, what a nice place, I think I'll make it my cozy little house" *3 years later* Super Demon : "Quaint, very hot from all the lava, seems an appropriate place to spend my afteryears" *3 years later* Cyber Dragon : "Just about enough space to fit me. PERFECT!"
If one place attracts a super criminal... then that place will *always* attract super criminals. That's what DA2 taught me. *sniff* :')
(NOTE : these quotes may or may not spoil the game depending on how bored you got and how wild your imagination turned while playing it)
Not touching it with a ten foot pole until two years after release. Then if it looks good, .. which I don't even want to finish this sentence because I don't believe it.
Not getting this either. The fact they claim to have been working on it for 2 years already sends up red flags for me. Radial menus and generic icons with no thought put into absorbing artwork or writing. DA:Origins was pretty good (but not great), and like someone else here posted... Bioware lost me with Awakenings --> DA2.
If one place attracts a super criminal... then that place will *always* attract super criminals. That's what DA2 taught me. *sniff* :')
@Cheesebelly ROFL! You didnt spoil anything for me.. the demo for DA2 was enough to tell me what was going to happen, it was that bad. When I clicked on the start game icon for DA2... my comp asked me --> Are you sure you want to play this game? I replied, "good call, you are so right... I do NOT!".
I bought DA:O on release because it looked good. I pre-ordered DA2 out of goodwill leftover from the previous game, despite the bad signs and the high price. Won't make the same mistake this time.
The first line of that article is already probably a lie; “The Dragon Age team has been working on Dragon Age 3: Inquisition for almost two years now."
Seems weird, considering DA2 was released less than 1,5 years ago. Unless they count half a year as 'almost a year' or they were working on DA3 while quickly getting DA2 out of the door.
"Less than 1,5" rounded upwards equals "almosttwo years"?
I'm very skeptical. I want to like it, but EA/Bioware's idea of listening to fans has so far been 'We listen to you and then tell you why you're wrong'. When DA2 was released and got massive negative backlash, an interview with the lead designer had the quote "I was very dissappointed in the fans. A lot of them didn't understand what we were trying to do."
I don't think they understood what the criticism was about to begin with. They seem to think it was because people wanted a "traditional, epic, against a Ancient Evil threatening the whole world" instead of what they were trying to do (which was basically a "smaller scale conflict, focusing on one region over a long period of time and with morally ambiguous characters"). So they chalked it up to people not "understanding" the game, completely ignoring that many people, me included, was looking forward to that very concept and was disappointed because they completely failed in the realisation of it, and the story sucked as a consequence. And that's not even going into how they failed with the game mechanics.
I completely agree about looking for better RPGs elsewhere too. If I do end up buying the game, it will probably be because it turns out to be a decent action game, not because of any roleplaying aspects.
Heh, so that survey that leaked last month was correct after all? That's kinda funny. I'm sure all games are focus tested to some degree, but it isn't exactly faith inspiring that a game is being decided on by a survey at any level.
I doubt I'll pick up DA3. With each release, it seems like they strip more and more RP out of the game to appeal to the broadest consumer base possible. I want to play RPGs, not pick from three personalities (or two, ala Mass Effect) and Auto Dialog, limited customization and be railroaded into decisions that don't even matter in the end.
While I'm skeptical about the game, I'm not going to "never buy anything from BioWare again" on some so-called principle. Ford Motor Company made the Pinto, but that doesn't mean that I can never buy a Ford again. They've made some bad cars, but they also made this: It's not mine, but there is one like it in my driveway!
Anyway, I'll definitely do more homework about DA3 than I did on DA2. Probably will wait a while to buy, too (still haven't gotten ME3, even though I'm a ME fan - because of DA2... Somebody at EA should do a study on how much money DA2 lost them in the long run, but I digress)...
Bottom line, DA3 is a new product. If it pulls me in, I'll buy it. If not, I won't. The won't side is biased by 1) DA2, 2) TOR (ugh) and 3) reputation of ME3 (haven't played it, so I'm going by 'rep' here).
Dragon Age : Origins is Windows XP - old, a bit rusty, but trustworthy as an operating system. Microbio Software made then the sequel : Dragon Age 2, also known as Windows Vista. Looked good overall, was crap inside outside though.
What BioWare, unlike Microsoft, is attempting to do now is not Windows 7 which is good overall... but rather Windows Vista 2.
That's what I am afraid of. Should I get Windows Vista 2, or should I wait for Windows 7?
(still haven't gotten ME3, even though I'm a ME fan - because of DA2... Somebody at EA should do a study on how much money DA2 lost them in the long run, but I digress)
They only need to look at how much they lost in the short run, even. DA2, while perhaps not a complete flop, failed pretty hard to deliver what they expected. The expansion they had planned was canceled and no "complete pack" released (as far as I know at least) exactly because there was no interest from stores - nobody wanted to touch another DA2-related game that's how little the people who actually peddle the games to customers believed in it. I'm not EA, of course, but is consider that a pretty big failure. And they can't blame that on piracy, either.
Also, nice car. I hope you treat her well, or I'd feel obliged to help her find a better home, if you know what I mean :P
I really enjoyed DAO for the most part and still fire it up every now and then. Not sure if that was because of it having an overlap of dev time before the buyout. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. But they will have to forgive me if I take the "wait for release and see" approach before buying.
Lately, there really isn't much that is an automatic buy for me anymore. The games industry seems too hellbent on driving their reputations into the ground.
Talking about DAO, didnt you have problems with EA authenticating the content and all, for example everytime I start the game EA throw a dice and sometimes say "you got all the dlcs" other times they say "You have no dlcs" Irritating checks for a SP game.
Dragon Age: Origins ruled. Dragon Age 2 was different but still ruled. DLC all was good. Preordering the most Digital Deluxe Edition (or whatever) of Dragon Age 3 available as soon as I possibly can.
I'll enjoy playing it while everyone else is reliving their disappointment.
This: "I'll enjoy playing it while everyone else is reliving their disappointment." is stupid. Because those who are criticizing wouldnt enjoy it. That is why they are criticizing in the first place. If you enjoy it then I guess they have you as their target audience, DA2 ruled? it was -decent- when it should have been so much more. Still, no one will be crying while you have the time of your life lol theres plenty better games out there.
Anyway, supposing DA3 will be closer to DA2, as vortican supposed too.
The 'Story as told by Varris' framework was very interesting, I liked how the NPC's had their own home and lives beyond travelling with the Main Character, some of the NPC's were pretty good (I liked Varris despite the sacriledge of not having a beard and Aveline was pretty good). The longer-term story was also a refreshing breather, spanning years and only highlights in a long adventuring carreer, allowing for actual evolution of the characters, rather than dramatic personality shifts in three weeks of questing. The graphic style was also not too bad and some quests were good (the Qunari Saarebaas one was very interesting).
The bad however, outweighed the good. Nonsensical quests, a dull city as the only location, a conflict that is not that interesting as the main quest (Mages vs Templars, we get the drill), complete abandonment of any consequence to your choices (Bethany dies or Bethany gets taken away and locked up if you save her life), some horrible NPC's (Isabelle is just a walking sexist cliche and Anders was completely changed from Awakenings, nullifying the point of having him in DA2).
I doubt this is what they picked up on though. "Moar combat and more visceral body explosions is probably what is needed!"
I just finished DAII today on my PS3. I had recently bought it for $20 and have been playing it off and on for a few weeks. Overall it wasn't the worst game I've ever played and still better than most console RPG's. The story was okay and the character development was decent. The boring game world and constant travel do get annoying after a while though (although this is just how Bioware builds their games now).
I will likely buy DAIII a long time after release, just like I did this past one. Probably my biggest reason is to see what happened with the lead characters from I and II and how they wrap the whole story up.
Definitely not as big a fan of Bioware games as I used to be. They still have excellent writing and their stories can be at times very immersive but they need to find a new direction on building their RPG models. The actual gameplay has not been as fun or engrossing as in the past.
@scriver - It's my money pit! Yeah, we treat it ok. Sometimes, she has to wait for repairs because of fundage limitations, but starts on the first turn of the key. Unless it's cold outside. Then, she's balky for a bit.
@Razor, I honestly did not understand all the hate for DA2. I used to view it as dissatisfaction because DA2 was so unlike DAO in terms of the style and mechanics. Perhaps that is all it is, but then it occurred to me that where it probably originates is the perspective after playing DAO that the PC was everything and the world was just a setting. However, if DA2 presented anything, it was that the world was alive as well, and it offered players the ability to jump into a completely different experience and take part in that world and affect it in a completely different way.
So, it just occurred to me now (based on something David Gaider wrote on the DA3 forums) that if you view the games in this way, that your PC is the center of the game, then it's easier to understand those who were unhappy with DA2. Bioware may not have communicated their vision for the property in a way that gamers understood; they were buying a universe, not just a character to play. When taken in this perspective, that Dragon Age really is not about a single PC, but it's about an entire universe, I think it's easier to see how DAO and DA2 fit together. What Bioware is selling with these games isn't a chance to take a character and progress them through a life and get skills, hoard loot, etc. It's the chance to experience ways in which to alter an entire world through your actions in unexpected and unknown ways.
Taking such a vision for their games is, I think, a risk to be sure because customers expect sequels to deliver more of what players enjoyed about the first game, but merely expanding on the same theme or platform is not what Bioware is attempting with DA2 and DA:Inquisition. In retrospect, they shouldn't have even named it Dragon Age 2 and should have done what they've done with Inquisition. It's a game set in the Dragon Age universe, but not an expansion of Dragon Age: Origins. I think that applying the common idea of a sequel to Dragon Age is a mistake, and that's what let people down. Bioware could have done a better job of leading customer's expectation by explaining this better, and I think if people consider this theory, perhaps they will not look so angrily upon what Dragon Age 2 is, and what Inquisition is destined to be. I have to commend Bioware again for taking a rather ambitious and rather novel approach, but I just don't think people got it and that's not a failing of the game itself.
I hope this makes sense, but I could be talking out of my ass.
btw - I thought DA2 was an insufferably bad game which destroyed any interest I had in the series, turned me off all subsequent bioware games and highlighted tired and recycled storytelling that retroactively made me enjoy DA:O much less, but whatever - if you enjoyed then that's obviously a perfectly valid opinion.
But how they chose and continue to choose to treat the community and what remaining fans they do have is nothing short of disgusting.
wow.. you can choose a warrior, mage or a rogue? so much for character creation... its probably gonna be "The spiritual successor of the spiritual successor of the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate"
@vortican I understand your and david gaider take on this but personaly I didnt mind that the story was elsewhere and with another character. The graphic style, the npcs, the text (that they spoke) and the lack of variety (and LORE) that's what let me down. I actualy liked that the PC was not the center of the game. The rest of my opinion is probably the same as Angry Joe review The fighting itself was arguably better though, at least for mages (but iam not sure yet lol).
btw - I thought DA2 was an insufferably bad game which destroyed any interest I had in the series, turned me off all subsequent bioware games and highlighted tired and recycled storytelling that retroactively made me enjoy DA:O much less, but whatever - if you enjoyed then that's obviously a perfectly valid opinion.
But how they chose and continue to choose to treat the community and what remaining fans they do have is nothing short of disgusting.
What? What have they done which is so terrible? This, I truly don't understand. I have always viewed Bioware as one of the most engaged and user-responsive companies I have ever seen. I can understand not liking the game, but what is it about how they treat the community which has prompted this reaction?
btw - I thought DA2 was an insufferably bad game which destroyed any interest I had in the series, turned me off all subsequent bioware games and highlighted tired and recycled storytelling that retroactively made me enjoy DA:O much less, but whatever - if you enjoyed then that's obviously a perfectly valid opinion.
But how they chose and continue to choose to treat the community and what remaining fans they do have is nothing short of disgusting.
What? What have they done which is so terrible? This, I truly don't understand. I have always viewed Bioware as one of the most engaged and user-responsive companies I have ever seen. I can understand not liking the game, but what is it about how they treat the community which has prompted this reaction?
Well ... they started banning people from the forums who bad-mouthed DA2 soon after its launch ... and I don't mean trolling, just honest (possibly too honest) reviews and opinions of the game, all in a very civilised manner. Obviously there were cases where people were a bit ruthless, verging on trolling, but the majority were fine and what you'd expected from any forum. I have a feeling said people were banned (along with their comments and topics) was because they could potentially have an affect on the sales of DA2, which, let's admit, was a cash cow. I think it was at that point I left the Bioware forums.
I also think people were very bitter with the launch day DLC that came with ME3. I think DLC as a concept is fine, if you really enjoy the game, you'll download the DLC, I did exactly this with Borderlands and loved it. What was great with the Borderlands DLC was that it extended a game I couldn't get enough of and with it they addressed the complaints made about the original campaign. But back to Bioware, what irked most people was how the DLC was actually developed alongside the development of the game, so it wasn't something they started working on after ME3's initial release. Also the content of the DLC was kind of integral to achieving full immersion in the story and getting most out of the ME trilogy so many people had already invested a lot of time and money into, I guess people felt that if they didn't buy the DLC they'd be missing out on a lot, in a way that's blackmail.
What? What have they done which is so terrible? This, I truly don't understand. I have always viewed Bioware as one of the most engaged and user-responsive companies I have ever seen. I can understand not liking the game, but what is it about how they treat the community which has prompted this reaction?
In my case, the problem is that they were not honest with the direction that they were taking the game prior to release, and they still refuse to admit that they did this. It is clear from the progression between DA:O and DA:2 that Bioware is moving towards the "Call of Duty" / 3rd person shooter model for the core gameplay. This isn't particularly surprising -- Mass Effect went through the same evolution, it is clear that the 3rd person shooter market is much larger than the hardcore RPG market, and the 3rd person shooter interface is better optimized for consoles (which, in and of itself, is a larger market than the PC market).
Now, if they were just willing to publicly admit this, then I might consider purchasing DA3. But they haven't to date, and I doubt very much they will in the future. This indicates that they are flat-out lying (unlikely), or have somehow deluded themselves into believing that there is no conflict between the 3rd person shooter gameplay model and the hardcore RPG model. In the first case, I'm not going to buy games from a company that considers "lying" to be a critical part of their business model, and in the second case there defination of RPG and my defination of RPG are so divergent that I can't trust anything that they say.
Comments
Dragon Cub : "Omm nom nom, I love me some miner meat!"
*3 years later*
Spider Queen : "Ohh, what a nice place, I think I'll make it my cozy little house"
*3 years later*
Super Demon : "Quaint, very hot from all the lava, seems an appropriate place to spend my afteryears"
*3 years later*
Cyber Dragon : "Just about enough space to fit me. PERFECT!"
If one place attracts a super criminal... then that place will *always* attract super criminals. That's what DA2 taught me. *sniff* :')
(NOTE : these quotes may or may not spoil the game depending on how bored you got and how wild your imagination turned while playing it)
I completely agree about looking for better RPGs elsewhere too. If I do end up buying the game, it will probably be because it turns out to be a decent action game, not because of any roleplaying aspects.
I doubt I'll pick up DA3. With each release, it seems like they strip more and more RP out of the game to appeal to the broadest consumer base possible. I want to play RPGs, not pick from three personalities (or two, ala Mass Effect) and Auto Dialog, limited customization and be railroaded into decisions that don't even matter in the end.
It's not mine, but there is one like it in my driveway!
Anyway, I'll definitely do more homework about DA3 than I did on DA2. Probably will wait a while to buy, too (still haven't gotten ME3, even though I'm a ME fan - because of DA2... Somebody at EA should do a study on how much money DA2 lost them in the long run, but I digress)...
Bottom line, DA3 is a new product. If it pulls me in, I'll buy it. If not, I won't. The won't side is biased by 1) DA2, 2) TOR (ugh) and 3) reputation of ME3 (haven't played it, so I'm going by 'rep' here).
Dragon Age : Origins is Windows XP - old, a bit rusty, but trustworthy as an operating system.
Microbio Software made then the sequel :
Dragon Age 2, also known as Windows Vista. Looked good overall, was crap inside outside though.
What BioWare, unlike Microsoft, is attempting to do now is not Windows 7 which is good overall... but rather Windows Vista 2.
That's what I am afraid of. Should I get Windows Vista 2, or should I wait for Windows 7?
Hope you get what I'm saying :P
Also, nice car. I hope you treat her well, or I'd feel obliged to help her find a better home, if you know what I mean :P
Lately, there really isn't much that is an automatic buy for me anymore. The games industry seems too hellbent on driving their reputations into the ground.
Dragon Age: Origins ruled.
Dragon Age 2 was different but still ruled.
DLC all was good.
Preordering the most Digital Deluxe Edition (or whatever) of Dragon Age 3 available as soon as I possibly can.
I'll enjoy playing it while everyone else is reliving their disappointment.
Because those who are criticizing wouldnt enjoy it. That is why they are criticizing in the first place.
If you enjoy it then I guess they have you as their target audience, DA2 ruled? it was -decent- when it should have been so much more. Still, no one will be crying while you have the time of your life lol theres plenty better games out there.
Anyway, supposing DA3 will be closer to DA2, as vortican supposed too.
The 'Story as told by Varris' framework was very interesting, I liked how the NPC's had their own home and lives beyond travelling with the Main Character, some of the NPC's were pretty good (I liked Varris despite the sacriledge of not having a beard and Aveline was pretty good). The longer-term story was also a refreshing breather, spanning years and only highlights in a long adventuring carreer, allowing for actual evolution of the characters, rather than dramatic personality shifts in three weeks of questing.
The graphic style was also not too bad and some quests were good (the Qunari Saarebaas one was very interesting).
The bad however, outweighed the good. Nonsensical quests, a dull city as the only location, a conflict that is not that interesting as the main quest (Mages vs Templars, we get the drill), complete abandonment of any consequence to your choices (Bethany dies or Bethany gets taken away and locked up if you save her life), some horrible NPC's (Isabelle is just a walking sexist cliche and Anders was completely changed from Awakenings, nullifying the point of having him in DA2).
I doubt this is what they picked up on though. "Moar combat and more visceral body explosions is probably what is needed!"
I will likely buy DAIII a long time after release, just like I did this past one. Probably my biggest reason is to see what happened with the lead characters from I and II and how they wrap the whole story up.
Definitely not as big a fan of Bioware games as I used to be. They still have excellent writing and their stories can be at times very immersive but they need to find a new direction on building their RPG models. The actual gameplay has not been as fun or engrossing as in the past.
So, it just occurred to me now (based on something David Gaider wrote on the DA3 forums) that if you view the games in this way, that your PC is the center of the game, then it's easier to understand those who were unhappy with DA2. Bioware may not have communicated their vision for the property in a way that gamers understood; they were buying a universe, not just a character to play. When taken in this perspective, that Dragon Age really is not about a single PC, but it's about an entire universe, I think it's easier to see how DAO and DA2 fit together. What Bioware is selling with these games isn't a chance to take a character and progress them through a life and get skills, hoard loot, etc. It's the chance to experience ways in which to alter an entire world through your actions in unexpected and unknown ways.
Taking such a vision for their games is, I think, a risk to be sure because customers expect sequels to deliver more of what players enjoyed about the first game, but merely expanding on the same theme or platform is not what Bioware is attempting with DA2 and DA:Inquisition. In retrospect, they shouldn't have even named it Dragon Age 2 and should have done what they've done with Inquisition. It's a game set in the Dragon Age universe, but not an expansion of Dragon Age: Origins. I think that applying the common idea of a sequel to Dragon Age is a mistake, and that's what let people down. Bioware could have done a better job of leading customer's expectation by explaining this better, and I think if people consider this theory, perhaps they will not look so angrily upon what Dragon Age 2 is, and what Inquisition is destined to be. I have to commend Bioware again for taking a rather ambitious and rather novel approach, but I just don't think people got it and that's not a failing of the game itself.
I hope this makes sense, but I could be talking out of my ass.
But how they chose and continue to choose to treat the community and what remaining fans they do have is nothing short of disgusting.
I actualy liked that the PC was not the center of the game. The rest of my opinion is probably the same as Angry Joe review
The fighting itself was arguably better though, at least for mages (but iam not sure yet lol).
I also think people were very bitter with the launch day DLC that came with ME3. I think DLC as a concept is fine, if you really enjoy the game, you'll download the DLC, I did exactly this with Borderlands and loved it. What was great with the Borderlands DLC was that it extended a game I couldn't get enough of and with it they addressed the complaints made about the original campaign.
But back to Bioware, what irked most people was how the DLC was actually developed alongside the development of the game, so it wasn't something they started working on after ME3's initial release. Also the content of the DLC was kind of integral to achieving full immersion in the story and getting most out of the ME trilogy so many people had already invested a lot of time and money into, I guess people felt that if they didn't buy the DLC they'd be missing out on a lot, in a way that's blackmail.
Now, if they were just willing to publicly admit this, then I might consider purchasing DA3. But they haven't to date, and I doubt very much they will in the future. This indicates that they are flat-out lying (unlikely), or have somehow deluded themselves into believing that there is no conflict between the 3rd person shooter gameplay model and the hardcore RPG model. In the first case, I'm not going to buy games from a company that considers "lying" to be a critical part of their business model, and in the second case there defination of RPG and my defination of RPG are so divergent that I can't trust anything that they say.