Support NeoGAF

[lastplayed]

This sounds terrible. How would this make you feel unique at all when the only thing that would change is the character model? Having the same voice actor for Human/Dwarf/Elf just chaging up a few lines to suit that race would be worse then just having only one.

That's all I want. Just give me a little bit of freedom to change how my character looks and behaves in an RPG. DA2 was similar, a few lines changed depending on your class and the imported save file from DA:O. I realise the age of voice acting is limiting, but something is better than nothing.

 

[EllisD]

They continue to dig themselves into a hole. On the bright side, Obsidian Entertainment is making the game Bioware should have been making all along.

 

[GillianSeed79]

I'd trade a voiced main character for a non-voiced one if it gave players the option of multiple races even if was just a purely cosmetic thing. Full disclosure, I played as a human in DA:O, but like was said earlier I somehow found myself connecting better to my mute character in DA:O than the voiced Hawke in DA:2. If they would just get rid of the wheel it would be fucking great because, by its design, it's too binary. I'd actually love to see a Bioware game without a Paragon/Renegade mechanic. Just give me a list of dialogue options and let me role play. It's much more fun and personal that way compared to the wheel. The wheel basically boils down to boy scout, neutral or dick. The problem with the mechanic, as is the case with TOR, too much influence is placed on the bonuses. You can't really feel like you can play as a nuanced character because you need to fill up your light side/paragon or darkside/renegade bar. DA:O had more of like a KOTOR-style influence system. The dialogue options were more organic.

I'm willing to give DA3 a shot since I loved DA:O, but honestly I'm more worried about the corner they painted themselves into with the mage/templar conflict they established with DA2. With DA:O, the characters seemed more three dimensional. In DA2 they were like cardboard cutouts. It didn't help that every mage in DA2 whined about being persecuted because people were afraid of blood mages, yet every mage turned out to be a blood mage. The templars were just as dumb. If DA2 story logic applied to DA:O my party camp wouldn't have survived a night, Alistair would have been a facist and Morrigan would have been slitting her wrists every three seconds to summon a demon to kill everyone.

 

[hateradio]

I'd trade a voiced main character for a non-voiced one if it gave players the option of multiple races even if was just a purely cosmetic thing.

I would, too. I know they want to personalize their main character, but when it's someone as uninteresting as Hawke, why bother?

I'm willing to give DA3 a shot since I loved DA:O, but honestly I'm more worried about the corner they painted themselves into with the mage/templar conflict they established with DA2.

I'm actually curious how the plot presented in DA2's planned DLCs would have gone. I mean, I'm sure it would have revealed a few new things, but since they pretty much sent out crap as a game, everything got shut down once fans rejected it.

I know that they were gearing towards the Qune (?) with the DLC, but I never was really interested in it to begin with.

If DA2 story logic applied to DA:O my party camp wouldn't have survived a night, Alistair would have been a facist and Morrigan would have been slitting her wrists every three seconds to summon a demon to kill everyone.

I had never thought about it like that. There was animosity between the characters in DA1, but at least they gave valid reason why they didn't like a particular person.

 

[Mad_Ban]

I actually liked 2 in terms of the plot and I'm hopeful for this. I just hope Bioware hasn't stuck to their whole "BLOOD MAGES EVERYWHERE!!!" attitude from DA2.

 

[EVOL 100%]

Just make this one like Origins, not Shit Mountain and everything will be forgiven, Bioware.

 

[Casimir]

Just make this one like Origins, not Shit Mountain and everything will be forgiven, Bioware.

No, don't do that. If you only have low expectations for DA3, you should be pleasantly surprised with what Bioware delivers.

 

[doubleplusgood]

A shame they're sticking with humans only. I usually play human characters in such games, but I like having options, and DA:O did that fairly well. It might be easier for Bioware to construct a story by limiting the playable races and their origin. However I'm not sure they should take such rigid control of the story. Atleast DA:O felt a lot more open and when it comes to RPGs I prefer them that way.

 

[EVOL 100%]

No, don't do that. If you only have low expectations for DA3, you should be pleasantly surprised with what Bioware delivers.

Well, if DA3 turns out to be Shit Mountain redux (which I'm fully expecting tbh) there's always Project Eternity... and Wasteland... and Shadowrun.. and Dead State so I'd be able to live with it.

 

[Vagabundo]

So they are sticking with the interactive adventure book format and calling it an RPG.

I just started ME2 last week and I think I'm done with Bioware.

 

[Sentenza]

For god's sake take your time with this one......This does not need to release in 2013. Push it to 2014 and make it incredible.

Making it any good would already be a nice start.

 

[Tears For Fears]

Was hoping for a 2014 release, looks like EA us cracking the whip.

 

[saltinekracka]

As someone who just finished DA:O and is starting (and close to quitting) DA2, I am cautiously optimistic. I think they got a lot of feedback about how awful the second game was and can maybe right some wrongs. I just hope it isn't rushed. Take your time, Bioware. Take your time.

 

[Sothpaw]

I expect more complete trash. Must be human and no isometric option already disqualify this as a purchase from me.

 

[SerRodrik]

I expect more complete trash. Must be human and no isometric option already disqualify this as a purchase from me.

Have they said no isometric view? I wasn't expecting it after DA2, but I wasn't aware they had confirmed it.

Also yes, this game probably won't be good.

 

[Sentenza]

I expect more complete trash. Must be human and no isometric option already disqualify this as a purchase from me.

Is no "isometric" view already confirmed?

 

[Trigger]

Was isometric really ever on the menu though? I was under the impression that the DA team weren't going back in that direction.

 

[Zephyrus]

All I care is the gameplay to be like DA2. If it's like DA:O, no buy.

 

[Taruranto]

Replace ME3 with DA3 and i think this sums the situation pretty well.

Spoiler

I love this comic so much

 

[Mister_Bubbles]

I expect more complete trash. Must be human and no isometric option already disqualify this as a purchase from me.

Do you not enjoy any games in which the main character is a human and the perspective isn't isometric? If you do, what is it about Dragon Age that makes you so against these two aspects that you'd refuse to play the game because of them?

 

[Lancehead]

Do you not enjoy any games in which the main character is a human and the perspective isn't isometric? If you do, what is it about Dragon Age that makes you so against these two aspects that you'd refuse to play the game because of them?

Dragon Age happens to have several races and party based combat and gameplay.

 

[Sentenza]

All I care is the gameplay to be like DA2. If it's like DA:O, no buy.

Both suck, at the end of the day. Too simple, repetitive and poorly balanced.
But DA: O was a promising start point, potentially capable to improve to BG2 levels, while DA2 is just a turd.

 

[Mister_Bubbles]

Dragon Age happens to have several races and party based combat and gameplay.

So party based RPG's are only enjoyable if playing as a non-human from an isometric perspective? To do otherwise renders the entire game terrible? If that's the case then fair enough, I just can't really comprehend it myself. If people's tastes were really that specific, they wouldn't enjoy any other games.

Edit: I mean, of course it is nice when RPG's offer greater depth of character creation choice, but it doesn't affect whether a game is good or not.

 

[Jibbajabbawockky]

Have they said no isometric view? I wasn't expecting it after DA2, but I wasn't aware they had confirmed it.

Actually, not long after DA2 was announced, Laidlaw made mention on the BioWare forums how having a free roaming tactical camera was central to tactical gameplay... and then DA2 didn't have a free roaming tactical camera like Origins on PC.


I don't think they've confirmed anything with respect to the camera for DA3 yet. DA2's camera sucked though. Never being able to move it around properly or zoom out far enough to see what was going on around you.

 

[Lancehead]

So party based RPG's are only enjoyable if playing as a non-human from an isometric perspective? To do otherwise renders the entire game terrible? If that's the case then fair enough, I just can't really comprehend it myself.

Uh, you're reading my post completely wrong. I pointing out "what is it about Dragon Age" that makes one give weight to features such as race selection and isometric view.

If people's tastes were really that specific, they wouldn't enjoy any other games.

Why wouldn't they? If some other game had possibility of race selection and isometric view, then of course people would consider those features. If not, then they won't.

Edit: I mean, of course it is nice when RPG's offer greater depth of character creation choice, but it doesn't affect whether a game is good or not.

That really depends on how the game is designed. If the PC is more or less blank slate character, then race selection can definitely make a huge difference.

 

[SerRodrik]

Actually, not long after DA2 was announced, Laidlaw made mention on the BioWare forums how having a free roaming tactical camera was central to tactical gameplay... and then DA2 didn't have a free roaming tactical camera like Origins on PC.


I don't think they've confirmed anything with respect to the camera for DA3 yet. DA2's camera sucked though. Never being able to move it around properly or zoom out far enough to see what was going on around you.

Ha ha, yeah, I remember that quote. My impression at the time was that there wouldn't be an isometric view, but they would at least have the camera detach or something. And instead we got...nothing.

And yeah, the camera was one of several things that made combat in DA2 a clusterfuck. They could just go back to what made Origins good and make improvements from there, but they almost certainly won't.

 

[Mister_Bubbles]

Double Post.

 

[Mister_Bubbles]

Uh, you're reading my post completely wrong. I pointing out "what is it about Dragon Age" that makes one give weight to features such as race selection and isometric view.

Ah yes, I did read that wrong - that's fair enough when weighing against Dragon Age: Origins as a comparison...

Why wouldn't they? If some other game had possibility of race selection and isometric view, then of course people would consider those features. If not, then they won't.

Well, what Sothpaw was saying is that because he can't choose his race or play from an isometric perspective, the rest of the game is not even worth considering. To me, that seems like a slightly over-the-top judgement.

That really depends on how the game is designed. If the PC is more or less blank slate character, then race selection can definitely make a huge difference.

From a personal roleplaying perspective it's awesome, I absolutely agree, however in terms of actual gameplay content, I'm not convinced the difference is large enough to affect the quality of a game.

Edit: My own opinion on the race selection thing is that we were spoiled by DA:O. The scope of being able to choose so many different playable origins and races was only possible because of its abnormally lengthy development time, a feat which Bioware said would just not be a feasible thing to reproduce a second time round. As players we naturally expect them to follow the traditional route of expanding on the original game in every sense, as a developer obviously should aim to do, however, they kind of shot themselves in the foot because DA:O's incredible breadth of player customization and reactivity was an anomaly, and I think that it will take another similar miracle for us to see its scope expanded further.

 

[Lancehead]

Edit: My own opinion on the race selection thing is that we were spoiled by DA:O. The scope of being able to choose so many different playable origins and races was only possible because of its abnormally lengthy development time, a feat which Bioware said would just not be a feasible thing to reproduce a second time round. As players we naturally expect them to follow the traditional route of expanding on the original game in every sense, as a developer obviously should aim to do, however, they kind of shot themselves in the foot because DA:O's incredible breadth of player customization and reactivity was an anomaly, and I think that it will take another similar miracle for us to see its scope expanded further.

Priorities - on where you spend your resources; also, design philosophies. The Doctors said they'll never make another game like BG2. But now we have Project Eternity.

 

[Patryn]

Priorities - on where you spend your resources; also, design philosophies. The Doctors said they'll never make another game like BG2. But now we have Project Eternity.

The Doctors aren't making PE, though.

But I do get what you're saying.

 

[schwabdizzle]

3rd times a charm with this game maybe? Hopefully?

 

[DocSeuss]

Is no "isometric" view already confirmed?

I seem to remember tweeting Laidlaw about this and getting a "no."

 

[Lancehead]

I seem to remember tweeting Laidlaw about this and getting a "no."

If that's the case, I think they should try to emulate Mass Effect style combat. It'd be better that way.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

That concept art looks quite good, i like the idea of customizing your own castle. I still haven't played DA1 or DA2 though.

 

[DocSeuss]

If that's the case, I think they should try to emulate Mass Effect style combat. It'd be better that way.

But players have swords. Wouldn't emulating The Witcher 2, but with more responsive controls make more sense?

 

[Jibbajabbawockky]

Edit: My own opinion on the race selection thing is that we were spoiled by DA:O. The scope of being able to choose so many different playable origins and races was only possible because of its abnormally lengthy development time, a feat which Bioware said would just not be a feasible thing to reproduce a second time round. As players we naturally expect them to follow the traditional route of expanding on the original game in every sense, as a developer obviously should aim to do, however, they kind of shot themselves in the foot because DA:O's incredible breadth of player customization and reactivity was an anomaly, and I think that it will take another similar miracle for us to see its scope expanded further.

I don't know... I mean, for me, the Origin stories and race selection in Origins were almost a natural evolution of the backgrounds you could pick in Mass Effect. I don't know that the mere existence of the origin stories was due to BioWare spending a long time on the game though.

Certainly if they wanted to, you'd think that even with a human only character they could have origin stories again- maybe one is human noble versus a human commoner or one nationality or another. But instead it seems they're going back to Mass Effect 1 style backgrounds.

If that shows me anything, its that BioWare isn't really willing to invest in unique content that isn't accessible in one playthrough of their game. Because as unique content, the origin stories are still accessible to anyone, since they're right at the beginning of the game. Its not like The Witcher 2's second act where the unique and divergent content is hours into the game, thus maybe making some people less likely to experience it.

If that's the case, I think they should try to emulate Mass Effect style combat. It'd be better that way.

I don't know... the second combat gets even further into real time, then its not really a party based game for me since you're primarily only focusing on controlling one character while the AI does the rest. Party based games should be all about having to control your entire party to succeed- more like XCOM, less like Mass Effect.

 

[Lancehead]

But players have swords. Wouldn't emulating The Witcher 2, but with more responsive controls make more sense?

I'm talking from party management perspective.

 

[DocSeuss]

I don't know... I mean, for me, the Origin stories and race selection in Origins were almost a natural evolution of the backgrounds you could pick in Mass Effect. I don't know that the mere existence of the origin stories was due to BioWare spending a long time on the game though.

Certainly if they wanted to, you'd think that even with a human only character they could have origin stories again- maybe one is human noble versus a human commoner or one nationality or another. But instead it seems they're going back to Mass Effect 1 style backgrounds.

If that shows me anything, its that BioWare isn't really willing to invest in unique content that isn't accessible in one playthrough of their game. Because as unique content, the origin stories are still accessible to anyone, since they're right at the beginning of the game. Its not like The Witcher 2's second act where the unique and divergent content is hours into the game, thus maybe making some people less likely to experience it.

I have to wonder how much work creating those specific backgrounds really took. As a writer, I could make necessary script changes with less than a week's work, by myself. Recording race-specific dialog shouldn't take that much time. I'd assume that mapping/animating custom stuff would take the longest, but we're looking at, what, maybe a month's worth of work for less than a dozen people (barring voice actors)?

I'm talking from party management perspective.

Oh. Uh... I guess? I thought it was handled decently in DAO. You could give them rules to follow, or, if you wanted, you could select them as an individual and just play them. Alternatively, you could pause the game, offer commands, and then get started again.

 

[Camp Lo]

Goddamn I cannot wait for this. I loved DA2, so hyped.

 

[Deified Data]

Still very much invested in the characters and settings of Dragon Age, and I want to see things through to some form of conclusion.

Dragon Age II was an inferior product, but I will always stand by my assessment that it had some of the best characterization in gaming. It's worth a playthrough or two for the character interactions alone.

 

[Lancehead]

Oh. Uh... I guess? I thought it was handled decently in DAO. You could give them rules to follow, or, if you wanted, you could select them as an individual and just play them. Alternatively, you could pause the game, offer commands, and then get started again.

What I mean is, if they're going to go full on third person with no zoom out, then perhaps reduce the size of the party to three to make it more manageable, so they can concentrate on action-y combat, also making only the PC directly controllable, and giving orders without leaving the perspective of the PC.

 

[Dictator93]

Goddamn I cannot wait for this. I loved DA2, so hyped.

!______________________________________________!

 

[SerRodrik]

What I mean is, if they're going to go full on third person with no zoom out, then perhaps reduce the size of the party to three to make it more manageable, so they can concentrate on action-y combat, also making only the PC directly controllable, and giving orders without leaving the perspective of the PC.

That...doesn't sound very good to me. I think I'd even prefer the way it was handled in DA2 to that. And in general, I'd like to see the Dragon Age series differentiate itself more from the Mass Effect series, as opposed to becoming even more like it.

 

[Escape Goat]

Goddamn I cannot wait for this. I loved DA2, so hyped.

Somebody liked DA2?

 

[Ploid 3.0]

DA2 was good when you looked past the character options, repeating maps, enemy waves, and more. Ok if you got it at a very cheap price and had nothing else to play then put a lot of time into adjusting the battle system was interesting.

 

[Hargenx]

I don't know what to feel right now...

 

[Lancehead]

That...doesn't sound very good to me. I think I'd even prefer the way it was handled in DA2 to that. And in general, I'd like to see the Dragon Age series differentiate itself more from the Mass Effect series, as opposed to becoming even more like it.

Mass Effect has the advantage that it's mostly guns and ranged combat. But if executed right it could be something unique in a fantasy setting. They don't seem to have any interest to go back to BG style combat, so might as well try something new and bold.

 

[Enduin]

Somebody liked DA2?

I still liked it a lot despite all its shortcomings. It wasn't an unmitigated disaster everyone makes it out be it. It had a number of good ideas that were woefully underdeveloped and fleshed out along with some other less than good ideas and shortcuts. It's still well within BioWare's means to come back strong with DA3.

 

[DocSeuss]

Still very much invested in the characters and settings of Dragon Age, and I want to see things through to some form of conclusion.

Dragon Age II was an inferior product, but I will always stand by my assessment that it had some of the best characterization in gaming. It's worth a playthrough or two for the character interactions alone.

It does some things supremely well, but characterization is not one of them. You're confusing time spent with characters for good characterization. Plenty of other games, like Bulletstorm and Call of Duty, have better characterization, but you spend so little time getting to know the characters (no lengthy conversations where they spill their guts) that you don't get to see it.

 

[Tex117]

I still want to believe.