Dragon Age: Inquisition Pre-Release Thread

[cvv]

Gaider was the main writer for the Dragon Age universe?

Just finished the DAO - DA2 marathon and although DA2 is pretty awful game, the writing itself is definitely not the worst part.

I kindda liked the world and there was one single thing that I even loved about the game - the whole Mages/Templars conflict, a genuinely complex political drama, not neccessarily in the way the characters are written and presented, but definitely the concept itself. This is after all in the core of the whole "government vs. individual freedom" debate - whether to police/regulate/control some people just because they are potentially dangerous.

Of course it's a fantasy RPG for teenage masses so most of the rest is infused with all sorts of silliness and childish faggotry but this specific element is genuinely fantastic. The only reason I didn't uninstall this pictogram of a game was my curiosity to see how does it all pan out and for that this Gaider guy deserves my kudos.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

Just finished the DAO - DA2 marathon

I kindda liked the world and there was one single thing that I even loved about the game

this specific element is genuinely fantastic

Spoiler

tbh i agree with you

 

[Rake]

Most of the consept of DA2 was better than DA:O.
The Quanari culture, Mage/Templar being the only grey situation in Bioware's history(even with the consept ripped from Warhammer Fantasy), having a more personal story, moving away from the epic Biowarian structure and having the game move on time instead of miles covering the fate of a single city, having the player not being the "chosen one" but instead being reactive with no real control over the situation and making thing worse in the long run.

All of these were good ideas. Better than DA:O's "ancient evil awakens and wants to destroy the world, you are the only one who can unite the humanity to stop it" that describes more than half of Bioware games.In the hands of a company that knew what they were doing these elements would have made a good game.
Bioware just had a shity execution of EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, with shit gameplay and level design on top.

 

[Delterius]

was my curiosity to see how does it all pan out

Such strange faith in BioWare's ability to find a fitting ending to their games.

good [but poorly executed story] ideas(...) with shit gameplay and level design on top.

That.

There's also how BioWare's PR and Hype machine managed to turn complete non-issues into points of contention. Like tone icons suddenly became an issue because BioWare think people can't read.

 

[Athelas]

I'd argue that the less epic scope was more a result of the quick cash-in nature of Dragon Age II rather than a deliberate creative choice. They only had a limited amount of time to rush it out, so they decided to center the story around a city and its direct environment, and reuse those same few maps for the entire game.

 

[cvv]

was my curiosity to see how does it all pan out

Such strange faith in BioWare's ability to find a fitting ending to their games.

True that. Ending was more idiotic than I expected though - leaders of both factions turning into monsters and had to be put down, so no real drama to see here people, no profound societal conflict to be resolved. The whole shitstorm happened only because the bigwigs lost their shit. Now let's hold hands and sing kumbayah.

Fuck that!
- Templars are evil nazis and I want the mages slaughter them all and break free!
- Mages are freakin monsters and have to be either reigned in or exterminated!
Now that's what I call an ending bitches!

P.S. - The final battle was a sad, depressing joke compared to the epic catharsis from the end of DAO. Just sayin.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

DA2 was a sad sick joke.

 

[Roguey]

Still better than Euroshit. Even a game with discernible intentions I don't agree with is better than one with none

 

[Athelas]

Still better than Euroshit. Even a game with discernible intentions I don't agree with is better than one with none

Even when those intentions are creatively bankrupt?

 

[Roguey]

Still better than Euroshit. Even a game with discernible intentions I don't agree with is better than one with none

Even when those intentions are creatively bankrupt?

Yes, of course.

generally speaking, my attitude when presented with "someone already did this" as a problem is to not care at all. I won't go on a crazy rant about it, but I think people should worry a lot less about doing something original and a lot more about doing something well.

Too bad Bioware has difficulty doing things well.

 

[Space Satan]

So, just for lulz and to stop hiver's stream of consciousness, exactly what DA:I should do to become a decent action RPG - in other words, to be good for what it is?

 

[DalekFlay]

So, just for lulz and to stop hiver's stream of consciousness, exactly what DA:I should do to become a decent action RPG - in other words, to be good for what it is?

There's a whole thread about what would make a quality popamole RPG. Some good ideas there.

 

[Roguey]

So, just for lulz and to stop hiver's stream of consciousness, exactly what DA:I should do to become a decent action RPG - in other words, to be good for what it is?

It won't be an action RPG to start with.

They should do what Josh Sawyer would do, the most important being "don't try to make it appealing for people who don't like games" and also "make a better game for people who actually enjoyed Dragon Age."

I think it comes down to–in a lot of cases–that instead of people listening to criticism they just know there is criticism and then they decide independent of it that they’re going to change some stuff. So like you said, you made a modest impact, you really struck home with some people that really liked the game, and maybe the execution needed some work. So why not just make the execution of what you were going for so that the next one is totally awesome and those things that people loved about it is now even better. Then if there’s stuff that’s janky about it, yeah change the janky stuff, but not if it’s something that those people that loved the game really liked. Just make it better. I think there’s where things go wrong. People look at something and go, “Ok, so we have this core of people that love the game and this other group that fundamentally hates it, so let’s make it a different game.” And it’s like, “Well… no. They hate the game. They didn’t like anything about it. You’re not going to win those people over. They don’t even like the idea of what you’re making.”

This also means they should ignore the romance-and-cooldown hating demographic.

 

[Rake]

They should do what Josh Sawyer would do, the most important being "don't try to make it appealing for people who don't like games" and also "make a better game for people who actually enjoyed Dragon Age."

I think it comes down to–in a lot of cases–that instead of people listening to criticism they just know there is criticism and then they decide independent of it that they’re going to change some stuff. So like you said, you made a modest impact, you really struck home with some people that really liked the game, and maybe the execution needed some work. So why not just make the execution of what you were going for so that the next one is totally awesome and those things that people loved about it is now even better. Then if there’s stuff that’s janky about it, yeah change the janky stuff, but not if it’s something that those people that loved the game really liked. Just make it better. I think there’s where things go wrong. People look at something and go, “Ok, so we have this core of people that love the game and this other group that fundamentally hates it, so let’s make it a different game.” And it’s like, “Well… no. They hate the game. They didn’t like anything about it. You’re not going to win those people over. They don’t even like the idea of what you’re making.”

I find that hilarious though. BG2 mage battles were loved by players and many consider them the most fun aspect of IE combat.
Sawyer: Hard counters have no place in a game where you can accidentaly miss the counter.

 

[Infinitron]

They should do what Josh Sawyer would do, the most important being "don't try to make it appealing for people who don't like games" and also "make a better game for people who actually enjoyed Dragon Age."

I think it comes down to–in a lot of cases–that instead of people listening to criticism they just know there is criticism and then they decide independent of it that they’re going to change some stuff. So like you said, you made a modest impact, you really struck home with some people that really liked the game, and maybe the execution needed some work. So why not just make the execution of what you were going for so that the next one is totally awesome and those things that people loved about it is now even better. Then if there’s stuff that’s janky about it, yeah change the janky stuff, but not if it’s something that those people that loved the game really liked. Just make it better. I think there’s where things go wrong. People look at something and go, “Ok, so we have this core of people that love the game and this other group that fundamentally hates it, so let’s make it a different game.” And it’s like, “Well… no. They hate the game. They didn’t like anything about it. You’re not going to win those people over. They don’t even like the idea of what you’re making.”

I find that hilarious though. BG2 mage battles were loved by players and many consider them the most fun aspect of IE combat.
Sawyer: Hard counters have no place in a game where you can accidentaly miss the counter.

Sawyer: "Hard counters weren't the reason people liked the BG2 mage battles. They liked them because mages had cool spells and abilities, not because there was only one way to overcome those spells and abilities."

 

[Rake]

They should do what Josh Sawyer would do, the most important being "don't try to make it appealing for people who don't like games" and also "make a better game for people who actually enjoyed Dragon Age."

I think it comes down to–in a lot of cases–that instead of people listening to criticism they just know there is criticism and then they decide independent of it that they’re going to change some stuff. So like you said, you made a modest impact, you really struck home with some people that really liked the game, and maybe the execution needed some work. So why not just make the execution of what you were going for so that the next one is totally awesome and those things that people loved about it is now even better. Then if there’s stuff that’s janky about it, yeah change the janky stuff, but not if it’s something that those people that loved the game really liked. Just make it better. I think there’s where things go wrong. People look at something and go, “Ok, so we have this core of people that love the game and this other group that fundamentally hates it, so let’s make it a different game.” And it’s like, “Well… no. They hate the game. They didn’t like anything about it. You’re not going to win those people over. They don’t even like the idea of what you’re making.”

I find that hilarious though. BG2 mage battles were loved by players and many consider them the most fun aspect of IE combat.
Sawyer: Hard counters have no place in a game where you can accidentaly miss the counter.

Sawyer: "Hard counters weren't the reason people liked the BG2 mage battles. They liked them because mages had cool spells and abilities, not because there was only one way to overcome those spells and abilities."

IWDs don't get praised for this even though they have also cool spel.s and abilities. IWD2 "mage battles" were nonexistent.

 

[Infinitron]

IWDs don't get praised for this even though they have also cool spels and abilities.

IWD didn't have spell sequencers, mantles, and the like. It also simply didn't have mage battles as a focus of the game.

My point is, you can have cool abilities...and also MORE cool abilities that counter those abilities. Being overpowered isn't what makes them cool.

 

[Rake]

IWDs don't get praised for this even though they have also cool spels and abilities.

IWD didn't have spell sequencers, mantles, and the like. It also simply didn't have mage battles as a focus of the game.

My point is, you can have cool abilities...and also MORE cool abilities that counter those abilities. Being overpowered isn't what makes them cool.

I agree. But hard Counters doesn't mean OP.

 

[Infinitron]

I agree. But hard Counters doesn't mean OP.

If only one single class in an RPG with multiple classes can counter an ability, then that ability is overpowered.

Your ability to conduct teh awesome mage duels in BG2 would not be harmed if fighters had some abilities to help them cope with mages.

 

[Shadenuat]

They had. Inquisitor had like 2 most badass counters in the game, as well as other kits.
Fighters had exclusive potions and equipment, too, which only they could use.
Personally, I think all that "hard counters" stuff is overblown, as BG2 is perfectly playable with mages, without mages, full clerical party, full multi-class party and solo-able probably with every class out there.

 

[Rake]

I agree. But hard Counters doesn't mean OP.

If only one single class in an RPG with multiple classes can counter an ability, then that ability is overpowered.

Your ability to conduct teh awesome mage duels in BG2 would not be harmed if fighters had some abilities to help them cope with mages.

Kangaxx. The most extreme case of hard counters in the game. And mage was absolutely needless. Just have Korgan go berserk and you win. You have scrolls.You can turn to slayer. And yes, who can have a mage cast the right immunity.

Above he mentioned Inquisitor. Thieves could backstab, every ranged char could disrupt spells etc.
The whole "wizards were nessesary to win the game" is BS.

 

[Infinitron]

The whole "wizards were nessesary to win the game" is BS.

OK maybe so, but which is it? Are hard counters fine and good, or maybe they were never hard counters in the first place?

Spoiler

In any case, the difference is that compared to mage spells all of those other counters were either obscure (only available in a kit, or in a consumable item you might not have) or just not nearly as effective (disrupt the spell? okay but what if you fail to disrupt it?)

 

[Rake]

Are hard counters fine and good

Yes in my opinion

or maybe they were never hard counters in the first place?

They were, but they had more than one way to counter them. The whole "one way to pass them and if you didn't have it you were screwed" is overblown

the difference is that compared to mage spells all of those other counters were either obscure (only available in a kit, or in a consumable item you might not have) or just not nearly as effective

Why exactly is a problem to have magic being countered mainly by magic with the other ways to counter it being suboptimal and circumstantial? And it was not like every enemy you fought in BG2 was a mage

(disrupt the spell? okay but what if you fail to disrupt it?)

Eeh, deal with it?

 

[Infinitron]

Why exactly is a problem to have magic being countered mainly by magic with the other ways to counter it being suboptimal and circumstantial? And it was not like every enemy you fought in BG2 was a mage

They were too suboptimal, too circumstantial - especially since those mage battles were such a centerpiece of the game. (the other centerpieces were crazy stuff like beholders and illithids which were also pretty hard counter-ish - SHIELD OF BALDURAN OR DIE, FOOL)

Eeh, deal with it?

Deal with it how? You're fucked.

Anyway, we're derailing the thread. The point is, Sawyer wouldn't agree with you that what he's doing is in any way counter to the expectations of most BG2 fans. He'd say he was removing the "janky" parts of BG2 and making it better.

 

[Rake]

Why exactly is a problem to have magic being countered mainly by magic with the other ways to counter it being suboptimal and circumstantial? And it was not like every enemy you fought in BG2 was a mage

They were too suboptimal, too circumstantial - especially since those mage battles were such a centerpiece of the game. (the other centerpieces were crazy stuff like beholders and illithids which were also pretty hard counter-ish - SHIELD OF BALDURAN OR DIE, FOOL)

The original way of clearing beholder caves without shield of Balduran was the only one that was any fun.
And is it not quite telling that the most memorable fights were the hard counterish ones?
Mages,dragons,beholders,illithids.

Deal with it how? You're fucked.

How many cases you remember where if an enemy caster cast his spell it was instant game over?

Anyway, we're derailing the thread. The point is, Sawyer wouldn't agree with you that what he's doing is in any way counter to the expectations of most BG2 fans. He'd say he was removing the "janky" parts of BG2 and making it better.

And if he succeeds .
I realy hope he does. But IWD2's way is not the correct solution, and that is the only example of Sawyer's design i have seen so far.