You mean before they spent a year or two removing it in the previous game?
I’m happy that bioware has recognized their mistakes in the previous game, but I wish they hadn’t abandoned the DA1 fanbase in the first place.
The PAX footage looks pretty good. I still worry they are going too much in the direction of generic action game/elder scrolls though. It amused me that basically all of the big applause moments were things they did in DA1 but removed in DA2.
They should really call this Dragon Age 2: The real sequel.
Since when is the standard One person vs the world original? If anything, as a whole, fighting alongside allies is original in video games, because it is harder than the alternative.
I know it is cool to make fun of bioware on these forums with this specific complaint, but it really doesn’t make sense. Even in real life events, when governments try to perform large scale military actions, they try to form coalitions instead of going it alone.
I’ve always been of the opinion that non hostile (particularly allied) npcs are one of the most important things in an rpg. The more things i see in a world that are trying to do things with greater depth than “shoot player,” the more realistic the world feels to me. It helps to add a sense of scale that is (generally) impossible when the player is single-handedly doing… everything.
I like tactical views. I like gathering factions, after all what idiot takes on a large threat alone? Is that a console version they are showing at PAX?
It makes absolute sense because it’s becoming such a staid formulae for the dev. I’m tired of the meat of recent Bioware games consisting almost entirely of running around garnering factional support, the only real choice during replays being the order in which each faction is approach, and the result of which most likely being only a slight difficulty adjustment for the final mission. And if you insist on your fantasy CRPGs imitating the realpolitik maneuverings of nation-states to make “sense” or be more fun, I don’t know what to tell you. There’s not a damn thing wrong with wanting a dev to be less formulaic in their game designs, but what is wrong/silly is citing real world imitation as a defense of rote regurgitation of a tired, unimaginative structure.
Speaking of unimaginative, rifts opening up across the game world that can be closed individually, Bioware? Hmmm, let me think real hard where else we’ve seen this recently. And doesn’t it fly in the face of their new world’s lore wherein all the baddies dwell almost entirely underground?
Despite my grousings, and my keen dislike of what they did with DA2, I’ll buy DA3 at launch. Those PAX videos looked great and the game’s combat could be excellent if Bioware can hit a sweet spot balancing the best aspects from the first two titles.
Mulling it over a bit, it’s a very good question. I think that dragonspawn coming through the rifts – if it is dragonspawn and not just demons – is going to be a “WTF?” moment for our character and we’ll be investigating the how and why this is happening. Because really, it shouldn’t given what we know about them.
I think the gate scene is the Dragon Age equivalent to a building falling over in Battlefield 4.
“Lets see, you can either spend time and effort spreading your influence and buying siege weapons to take down this super strong keep… or your warrior can just bash in the gate with no effort at all.” It made no sense to me after he spent time talking about how these keeps were huge deals and then they just slash down the gate like it is a level 1 darkspawn.
As before the release of any new game there are people who see the trailers and talk about how based on “that” the game will suck and I won’t be buying that. I have seen that with every AAA game for the last however many years.
Sure I won’t buy it as a new release, I am to damn cheap. But I will eventually own and play the game, unless after it comes out people who have played it say it sucks.
