|
I think that was just them allowing so many different characters to be killed off bit them in the rear end. Chances are, Origins was probably initially meant as just a singular entry. Then they were like "Hey! Let's go all ME over DA." Then they needed a way to deal with all of those insane choices.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
I've heard that the Dragon Age franchise was originally supposed to be several unconnected games spread over the length of age (something like 100 years) but yeah, Mass Effect 2 happened and they got this idea that all their games needed that same inter-connectivity. The choice to bring so many event flags over wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't go overboard with it. As it is it really seems like the entire freaking population of Ferelden decided to move to Kirkwall at one point or another. And even that wouldn't be so bad if they were ever used for something. You let Sophia what's her name from Warden's Keep live? Well she's all of a minute's content as you kill her rear end just up a hill in the first act of DA2. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Wow, I had no expectations for Dragon Age 3 but I noticed there was a gameplay video in the OP and wow. My biggest critique with DA2, aside from the story stuff, was that the gameplay didn't go far enough. It was neither actiony nor the strategic gameplay of DA:O. That video plus a video from PAX I just had a friend send me really has me honestly excited for the game. I'll have to keep my eyes on this game!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I really don't see the need to make them connected like that. Mass Effect had a story that strongly implicated a followup. Dragon Age absolutely did not - it was complete in itself, and there was no need for any kind of direct tie-in. It would have been far better if they just made a strong, original story in the same setting instead of mucking around with this connections nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Yeah, I really don't see the need to make them connected like that. Mass Effect had a story that strongly implicated a followup. Dragon Age absolutely did not - it was complete in itself, and there was no need for any kind of direct tie-in. It would have been far better if they just made a strong, original story in the same setting instead of mucking around with this connections nonsense. That's how I feel. Honestly, I don't even care if there's an official 'canon' version of events. I don't see anything wrong with making a game with a wide variety of outcomes and then picking just one you think makes the most interesting setting for your next game. Just don't lie about what your doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
Agreed. They should just come out and say: "Sorry, we screwed up with the choices in the first two games. In the interest of a better story and more time spent to make DA3 as good as possible, we are dropping most of your choices from Origins and DA2. Demon baby is canon, Anders is dead and Leliana lives." This would probably get the Bioware forums overflowing with rage, but I would rather have them spend time to make Inquisition a good game than having them check if Hawke joined the mercenaries or the smugglers and inserting a footnote somewhere in the Codex. On the other hand, something that could work well is the issue of who rules Ferelden. Alistair is probably more willing to lend you troops than the rather paranoid Loghain. Perhaps they could even announce that all choices that are not present in Dragon Age: Keep will not be relevant to Inquisition? That would be an interesting solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Perhaps they could even announce that all choices that are not present in Dragon Age: Keep will not be relevant to Inquisition? That would be an interesting solution. That might be the best conclusion. Each choice in these games should be meaningful, and actually have consequences. Doing a kind of soft retcon of the more obscure choices, and being upfront about it, is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Merry Magpie posted:Arlathan being the Black City would require the following: Merry Magpie posted:Leiliana could spontaneously reattach her decapitated head. There was no plot reason for why Leliana had to be in that game, her role in the plot could have been accomplished by a carrier pigeon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
Doublehex posted:Chances are, Origins was probably initially meant as just a singular entry. Then they were like "Hey! Let's go all ME over DA."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Who the hell names something "Origins" and doesn't plan to make it a series? He probably meant it was supposed to be the "origins" of the series, with subsequent games being entirely unconnected outside of setting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Alouicious posted:He probably meant it was supposed to be the "origins" of the series, with subsequent games being entirely unconnected outside of setting. I thought it was a reference to the different "origins" in the game itself? Human noble, Dalish elf etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
Really the most baffling thing about the continuity plan was Morrigan's demon baby. It's almost cliffhanger levels of a sequel hook and it was completely optional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Agreed. They should just come out and say: "Sorry, we screwed up with the choices in the first two games. In the interest of a better story and more time spent to make DA3 as good as possible, we are dropping most of your choices from Origins and DA2. Demon baby is canon, Anders is dead and Leliana lives." This would probably get the Bioware forums overflowing with rage, but I would rather have them spend time to make Inquisition a good game than having them check if Hawke joined the mercenaries or the smugglers and inserting a footnote somewhere in the Codex. On the other hand, something that could work well is the issue of who rules Ferelden. Alistair is probably more willing to lend you troops than the rather paranoid Loghain. Is dead Anders ~Bioware preferred canon~ like Alistair becoming king, or were you just throwing out examples? Honest question-- I don't follow the extra materials outside the games much, but I do know that Bioware tends to push certain choices from the games in their books and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
BioMe posted:Really the most baffling thing about the continuity plan was Morrigan's demon baby. It's almost cliffhanger levels of a sequel hook and it was completely optional. Exactly. And with Morrigan already announced as an importan figure in Inquisition, I can imagine several interesting stories that can be spun about the demon child. But with this choice being optional, this could become a huge train wreck as they try to keep the baby-less story interesting and consistent with the demon child story. necessary voodoo posted:Is dead Anders ~Bioware preferred canon~ like Alistair becoming king, or were you just throwing out examples? Honest question-- I don't follow the extra materials outside the games much, but I do know that Bioware tends to push certain choices from the games in their books and stuff. This was just an example because I want Anders dead. I have no idea if Bioware indicated a preference for him being alive or dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I thought it was a reference to the different "origins" in the game itself? Human noble, Dalish elf etc. It's a multi-layered title, to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Who the hell names something "Origins" and doesn't plan to make it a series? What I meant was, Dragon Age was in development for a long time. Like 6 years or so, long before the ridiculously huge success that was Mass Effect. Once that got all popular they probably thought "Hey, maybe we should have choices be linked between games!" And that was when they decided to do what we saw in Dragon Age II. However that didn't work because of the absurd amount of choices you could have in DA. They didn't plan for all of those choices having an effect on the other entries in the series. Probably. That's what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
I think Dragon Age 2 would have been better received by fans if it had been named "Dragon Age: Exodus" as planned instead of leading people to believe it was a more direct sequel to the first. It wouldn't have excused every flaw, but would have maybe lessened the dissapointment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
Leelee posted:I think Dragon Age 2 would have been better received by fans if it had been named "Dragon Age: Exodus" as planned instead of leading people to believe it was a more direct sequel to the first. It wouldn't have excused every flaw, but would have maybe lessened the dissapointment. Thats irrelevant. This one is called DA: Inquisition and people still call it DA3 anyway. It doesnt matter if it has a 2 or 3 in the title, it wasn't a good sequel to DA:O regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
DAO chat: holy poo poo the guardian of Andraste's ashes destroys Leliana. Ice cold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
However a small "sidequel" could probably have been easier to overlook, especially if they didn't hype it as much while working on a proper "sequel." Like, imagine if DA:I didn't import poo poo from DA2 and, if it imported anything at all, only launched off DA:O's end states (because part of the game visits Ferelden); and then imagine if DA:Exodus only focused on the events in Kirkwall and didn't do anything to jeopardize the international balance--just its own; you could over throw the templars, overthrow the circle, burn them both down, but you kept it isolated to just that city. DA2 would be easier to ignore. (Which seems to be what they're trying to do anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Lotish posted:However a small "sidequel" could probably have been easier to overlook, especially if they didn't hype it as much while working on a proper "sequel." Well, in hindsight treating DA2 like a standalone title in the same universe would have made sense, but the success of Mass Effect was difficult to ignore. Just thinking about it, did anything carry over from Baldur's Gate to BG2, besides your player character and your equipment? If you killed and never revived Minsk in the first game, would he not appear in his cell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Leelee posted:I think Dragon Age 2 would have been better received by fans if it had been named "Dragon Age: Exodus" as planned instead of leading people to believe it was a more direct sequel to the first. It wouldn't have excused every flaw, but would have maybe lessened the dissapointment. There was such a massive disconnect between their original idea for the game, their ambitions and the ridiculous marketing. I agree that it probably would have been better received if they didn't use the awfully judjed ME2 marketing but what makes me really depressed is thinking about what the game could have been if they'd limited themselves and stuck to the concept of "Dragon Age: Exodus" the expansion pack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Well, in hindsight treating DA2 like a standalone title in the same universe would have made sense, but the success of Mass Effect was difficult to ignore. Which is kind of funny since DA:O was their best selling game of all time (at that point anyway).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Well, in hindsight treating DA2 like a standalone title in the same universe would have made sense, but the success of Mass Effect was difficult to ignore. No, they basically chose the group you ran with (Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen), killed two of them and started from there. No deaths of any NPCs like that carry over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
I liked the plot and lore in DA2 in general, but specifics (characters) were terrible. I did enjoy playing my snarky mage Hawke who insulted everyone besides Aveline, Varric, and that DLC prince guy. I wish the friendship/rivalry system had worked as advertised, where rivalry was less being a big dick and more calling them out on being dumb and challenging them to be better. But insulting Anders felt good so who cares. I can't wait to be able to pick a race again. Dwarves for life.. except I really want to see a Qunari (I keep wanting to call them Quarians)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:No, they basically chose the group you ran with (Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen), killed two of them and started from there. No deaths of any NPCs like that carry over. There was dialogue in the game that involved you being able to say some characters (Xar springs to mind) that was along the lines of 'hey, didn't you die?' and having them just explode on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
I haven't played either game (I picked up DA:O ultimate and DA2 for like $5-10 on sale at some point) so they are both still on my backlog. With that said, I'd guess the biggest issue with DA2 was the 16 month or so timeline between game releases. It has rush job written all over it. Maybe it would've sucked no matter what, but another year or two of development time, I would imagine it would have been a much better received game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
~We'll never know~ I hope I get to swing at someone with my horns as a Qunari
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
BioMe posted:Really the most baffling thing about the continuity plan was Morrigan's demon baby. It's almost cliffhanger levels of a sequel hook and it was completely optional. Agreed. It seemed like an obvious hint that the kid was going to be the main character of a sequel game (I still hope that s/he is instead of another NPC to stand next to the next non-entity protagonist), but making it an optional choice drags down on that. They really screwed up with making so many choices that could eliminate characters and plot lines in DAO. I guess that's why they made everything so railroaded in DAII to make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:
What do you think Qunari sweat tastes like? I'm gonna say a chocolaty rust
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
jerichojx posted:What do you think Qunari sweat tastes like? Is it also an addictive performance enhancing drug though? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
jerichojx posted:What do you think Qunari sweat tastes like? Well they are grey and firm so probably tuna.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
Tx2005 posted:I haven't played either game (I picked up DA:O ultimate and DA2 for like $5-10 on sale at some point) so they are both still on my backlog. With that said, I'd guess the biggest issue with DA2 was the 16 month or so timeline between game releases. It has rush job written all over it. Maybe it would've sucked no matter what, but another year or two of development time, I would imagine it would have been a much better received game. Except the things they did waste the time on ended up looking like poo poo e.g. the darkspawn redesign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:I liked the plot and lore in DA2 in general, but specifics (characters) were terrible. I did enjoy playing my snarky mage Hawke who insulted everyone besides Aveline, Varric, and that DLC prince guy. I wish the friendship/rivalry system had worked as advertised, where rivalry was less being a big dick and more calling them out on being dumb and challenging them to be better. But insulting Anders felt good so who cares. I wasn't sure I'd like the rivalry system since I get the pixel guilt (I know...), but being Merrill's rival was so much more satisfying than being her friend in DA2. Seeing her destroy the stupid mirror was a much better end state than just going along with her and fixing a cursed item that killed her elf friends in the first game. If only the rival-romances weren't as creepy. Oh, what am I saying. All the romances were creepy. Although I will forever treasure saying "want a sandwich?" after Anders told my Hawke he loved her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
The rivalry system was a good idea. Influence systems where you have to be nice to people to get influence, and where you need the influence to progress the stories of these characters are bad. They should have added a second relationship meter. It only goes from 0 to 100, and fills up every time you gain friendship or rivalry points, but much slower. And when you get to 100 without having at least 80 friendship/rivalry, it would permanently lock your friendship/rivalry meter at 0 (ie. neutral). Then you would have a third story arc for that character, where they respect you not as a rival or friend, but just somebody with whom they sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. That would eliminate the need to game the system/play with a guide to get party members to 100% rivalry/friendship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Alpha Protocol more or less got it. There's different rewards across the entire spectrum of liking/disliking someone. Neither are better just different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
^^What a lot of people complained about with regards to the character interactions in DA2 was it felt you were gaming the characters to get what you want rather than just saying whatever you felt like. Alpha Protocol was all about gaming people to get the reaction you wanted. Torrannor posted:The rivalry system was a good idea. Influence systems where you have to be nice to people to get influence, and where you need the influence to progress the stories of these characters are bad. Or perhaps have one bar but have three reaction types--neutral, friend and rival. Each action increases one of the values and you get the bonus from the largest value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Lotish posted:Or perhaps have one bar but have three reaction types--neutral, friend and rival. Each action increases one of the values and you get the bonus from the largest value. Yes. Every relationship must be expressed in a three-way triangular plot graph.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Well of course it would be nice to have something more complicated or character specific; I was just suggesting simplification of that guys idea. edit: You know what? This comes across as kind of pissy. Never mind. marshmallow creep fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Sep 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
Do we know anything about the new talent trees? Will they go with the "do-quest-to-unlock-specialization" model of DA:O or will they use the DA2 system of specializations being unlocked at specific levels? Another thing, I guess the inability of Dwarves to become mages will still be present, do you think we can play Qunari mages? Or perhaps Qunari cannot become rogues? That would probably fit better, we know about Sareebas, and it is difficult to imagine Qunari sneaking around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 21:56
|
|