Dragon Age Dragon Age: Dreadwolf - full reveal in Summer 2024, Solas fangirls rejoice

[TemplarGR]

Do you really believe that or are you roleplaying a shitposter or something?

Ofcourse i believe that. Seriously, play them today, one after another. Which is going to be more enjoyable? I replayed them both last spring, seriously Origins was a slog and i wanted to kill myself for playing it. Dragon Age II was actually pretty fun and although not the best RPG experience by any means, was fun enough and the story was interesting enough.

 

[TemplarGR]

Should be easier for bioware this time around than they had with DA:I because EA forced them to use their frostbite engine and not only did bioware have to learn it, they needed to also develop the rpg mechanics, interfaces, etc... so DA:I could work.
This time though they've had experience with DA:I, anthem, and even adromeda to some extend, in addition to having the frameworks already done from DA:I.
So overall, it's not looking too bad, there's a good chance they'll make something better than what they made with DA:I.

This is a myth. Why people believe so many myths is beyond me. Bioware's usage of Frostbite was just fine, it ran pretty well on then-current hardware and it hard relatively few bugs. Spaces were large enough and detailed enough. There was nothing wrong with the game in terms of utilization of the engine, all things considering. It was actually one of the few good things about the game. The fact that even on then-current hardware it looked quite good with everything maxed (aside from character faces which were ugly), means that Bioware had no issue at all with the engine.

The reason DAI sucked was for the same reason Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning sucked dick: They were never meant to be single player games, they were designed from the ground up to be MMOs but switched at the last minute and the single player campaign was an afterthought. Nothing to do with the engine, enough with the fake news people, you are getting on my nerves sometimes.

 

[Agame]

Do you really believe that or are you roleplaying a shitposter or something?

Ofcourse i believe that. Seriously, play them today, one after another. Which is going to be more enjoyable? I replayed them both last spring, seriously Origins was a slog and i wanted to kill myself for playing it. Dragon Age II was actually pretty fun and although not the best RPG experience by any means, was fun enough and the story was interesting enough.

 

[AwesomeButton]

TemplarGR values the story, immersion and C&C, not the combat and systems aspects.

 

[Storyfag]

TemplarGR values the story, immersion and C&C, not the combat and systems aspects.

There were story, immersion and C&C in DA II? There were good combat and system aspects in DAO?

 

[Cael]

TemplarGR values the story, immersion and C&C, not the combat and systems aspects.

There were story, immersion and C&C in DA II? There were good combat and system aspects in DAO?

Programmable tactics was a good idea in DAO.

 

[TemplarGR]

I value everything. No just combat or just story. But not every game is story-focused and not every game is combat-focused. I love me some storyfag games and i love me some combatfag games, but each one has to play to its strengths properly. If a storyfag game has a shitty story, then it is a shitty game. If a combatfag game has shitty combat, then it is a shitty game. It is as simple as that.

DAO had garbage casual fake-tactical combat and a mediocre cliched story. It is an absolute failure by any measure. Even its graphics weren't that good.

DAII was made after the lessons learned from Mass Effect II. Dragon Age II is essentially Mass Effect II: Fantasy Edition. They stopped pretending combat was tactical (in Origins it was not, it was just tedious garbage) and instead adopted a more arcade-like and fast-flowing combat, and created a more interesting story than a simple lord of the rings clone. The focus was on Bioware's strengths, some C&C, and interesting characters and relationships between characters. The graphics were vastly improved, when maxed on PC DAII does not look much worse than Dragon Age Inquision, the difference in graphical quality is immense considering it only arrived what, 2.5 years later? The voice acting was also much better in my opinion. The only bad aspects were the re-used maps and the rushed production, but i still enjoyed it much, much more than the overrated garbage that was Origins.

 

[Yosharian]

 

[AwesomeButton]

It would take immense masochism to dig up examples from your past posts, but that's the impression you've left.

You are the one always ranting that Gamebryo games are better than isometric rules-heavy RPGs because it's more "immersive".

 

[TemplarGR]

It would take immense masochism to dig up examples from your past posts, but that's the impression you've left.

You are the one always ranting that Gamebryo games are better than isometric rules-heavy RPGs because it's more "immersive".

So? You are the one who is misunderstanding, i see no inconsistency here at all. I don't play only one type of CRPG or game in general, and just because i think Bethesda's Skyrim and Fallout 4 are the best examples of the modern AAA CRPG, does not mean i only play Bethesda-type experiences. I love Witcher 3, but just for the story and characters, it is a storyfag rpg with an immensely good for game standards story, so it gets my vote.

I also like combatfag crpgs, for example i love Icewind Dale which is my favourite from the IE era games. The reason it is my favourite is because it has well designed combat that is perfectly balanced in the sense that it has no grinding at all and is neither unfair nor easy. It fluids fast enough while still providing tactical challenge when fights get serious/bosses. Thus it succeeds on the core of the game (isometric rule-heavy RPG with focus on combat) while ditching all the crap that are unneeded in a combatfag rpg (much story, characters, romances etc).

The reason i call most isometric rule-heavy rpgs shit, is not because they are isometric or rule heavy per se, but because they ARE SHIT. Take for example Pathfinder Kingmaker. Don't take my word for it, go visit Steam reviews and look at the negatives, almost everyone paints the picture of a DnD game with a DM that is angry with your for fucking his wife the previous night and wanting to destroy your game. This is not "good combat", this is just "hating the player". Same with DOS 2. They include a metric crapton of boring slow and tedious battles that are unfair just for the lulz. You are meant to cheese and/or savescum constantly. This is NOT fun.

So, not only isometric crpgs are archaic and belong to the 90s, but they don't even design them well! I mean, i wouldn't mind to play a modern Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate, but nothing made in the kickstarter era was actually good for a 90s style crpg clone. They just exploit nostalgia to make money.

 

[Thac0]

The reason i call most isometric rule-heavy rpgs shit, is not because they are isometric or rule heavy per se, but because they ARE SHIT. Take for example Pathfinder Kingmaker. Don't take my word for it, go visit Steam reviews and look at the negatives, almost everyone paints the picture of a DnD game with a DM that is angry with your for fucking his wife the previous night and wanting to destroy your game. This is not "good combat", this is just "hating the player". Same with DOS 2. They include a metric crapton of boring slow and tedious battles that are unfair just for the lulz. You are meant to cheese and/or savescum constantly. This is NOT fun.

I agree for DOS, but did you play Pathfinder on the recommended normal difficulty?
Its pretty easy on that, the fights dont become unfair until you crank it up and the AC boosts start kicking in. There is some tedious shit like old Sycamore and ability drain, but overall I found it easier than Icewind Dale.

 

[anvi]

Do you really believe that or are you roleplaying a shitposter or something?

Ofcourse i believe that. Seriously, play them today, one after another. Which is going to be more enjoyable? I replayed them both last spring, seriously Origins was a slog and i wanted to kill myself for playing it. Dragon Age II was actually pretty fun and although not the best RPG experience by any means, was fun enough and the story was interesting enough.

 

[DalekFlay]

I agree for DOS, but did you play Pathfinder on the recommended normal difficulty?
Its pretty easy on that, the fights dont become unfair until you crank it up and the AC boosts start kicking in. There is some tedious shit like old Sycamore and ability drain, but overall I found it easier than Icewind Dale.

I played Pathfinder on "challenging" without much trouble. The only tricky thing was having the right buffs at the right time, everything else was pretty damn easy honestly, especially after level 5 or so. It does require "save scumming" though, as you discover what you need to buff against too late to effectively do it most of the time. So you reload and cast delay poison or whatever before the fight. I can understand why many people find this annoying. I tend to enjoy combat that's balanced per-encounter more, personally.

 

[Thac0]

I agree for DOS, but did you play Pathfinder on the recommended normal difficulty?
Its pretty easy on that, the fights dont become unfair until you crank it up and the AC boosts start kicking in. There is some tedious shit like old Sycamore and ability drain, but overall I found it easier than Icewind Dale.

I played Pathfinder on "challenging" without much trouble. The only tricky thing was having the right buffs at the right time, everything else was pretty damn easy honestly, especially after level 5 or so. It does require "save scumming" though, as you discover what you need to buff against too late to effectively do it most of the time. So you reload and cast delay poison or whatever before the fight. I can understand why many people find this annoying. I tend to enjoy combat that's balanced per-encounter more, personally.

I played one difficulty higher on my furthest run even and it definitly was a rough challenge. I am not too good at RTWP compared to true turn based since my reflexes are mediocre and I sometimes press pause too late. I tried it on maximum diffculty afterwards and it was interesting for the challenge but also pure cheese.

But on normal it really isnt unfair or anything. Sometimes the random encounters roll retarded results but most of the times its well balanced.

 

[moon knight]

Dragon Age II sucks. But out of all 3 games, it was the one with the best potential. Which is why I hate it.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

TemplarGR values the story, immersion and C&C

Skyrim really is a bastion of those qualities...

 

[Varnaan]

Is there still a market for Dragon Age?
Origins was pretty much the only RTWP rpg when it came out and rode hard on Baldur's Gate nostalgia in Marketing, no one liked Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition was a bloated piece of shit that's only tolerable if you ignore 80% of the content and turn off your brain during cut-scenes.
I really tried to like Inquisition because on the surface level it looked fine but the core systems are fucked, the story is horrible, and the game has a weird design philosophy that's sitting between MMO fetch quest/repeatable content and AssCreed.

 

[AwesomeButton]

just because i think Bethesda's Skyrim and Fallout 4 are the best examples of the modern AAA CRPG, does not mean i only play Bethesda-type experiences.

And? I did not claim you only play this type.

The reason i call most isometric rule-heavy rpgs shit, is not because they are isometric or rule heavy per se, but because they ARE SHIT. Take for example Pathfinder Kingmaker. Don't take my word for it, go visit Steam reviews and look at the negatives, almost everyone paints the picture of a DnD game with a DM that is angry with your for fucking his wife the previous night and wanting to destroy your game. This is not "good combat", this is just "hating the player". Same with DOS 2. They include a metric crapton of boring slow and tedious battles that are unfair just for the lulz. You are meant to cheese and/or savescum constantly. This is NOT fun.

I still haven't reached such a part of PKM, but I guess I haven't advanced far enough.

 

[1451]

Drakensang came out a year earlier than dao and utilized rtwp more efficiently.

 

[Varnaan]

Drakensang came out a year earlier than dao and utilized rtwp more efficiently.

Only people who were looking for it played Drakensang and/or River of Time, and Dark Eye rules are obtuse as fuck to anyone who is not German.
Also the games had much lower production value and no marketing.

Edit: furthermore the first Drakensang wasnt available in stores in my country and was released on Steam for me years after River of Time.

 

[1451]

Dark Eye rules are extremely easy to understand. I had no prior experience and accustomed myself to them in no time. They actually make sense and aren't arbitrary like in Pillars of Eternity for example.
Production values weren't lower in terms of graphics and animations. It just lacks overpaid voice actors.
If you judge drakensang and dao as rpgs, the former is clearly superior.

 

[Varnaan]

If you judge drakensang and dao as rpgs, the former is clearly superior.

I don't disagree with you on that point, but DAO had a much larger potential audience because
It's a Bioware Game back when people still liked Bioware
It actually had marketing
It was marketed as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate

Drakensang had no marketing, wasn't widely available retail even in countries that share a border with Germany, wasn't available on Steam until years after release in parts of the world, The Dark Eye is not a mass appeal franchise like D&D, and à multitude of other factors.

It's also far from having similar production values as Origins, the animations are wonky and weak, the game is technically years behind, and sorry but I'll reiterate, The Dark Eye, or at least its implementation in the Drakensang games is very obtuse in certain parts.
Not unmanageable but obtuse.

 

[Sweeper]

Should be easier for bioware this time around than they had with DA:I because EA forced them to use their frostbite engine and not only did bioware have to learn it, they needed to also develop the rpg mechanics, interfaces, etc... so DA:I could work.
This time though they've had experience with DA:I, anthem, and even adromeda to some extend, in addition to having the frameworks already done from DA:I.
So overall, it's not looking too bad, there's a good chance they'll make something better than what they made with DA:I.

That is fabulously optimistic.
BioWare was dead to me the moment I played DA II.

Ofcourse i believe that. Seriously, play them today, one after another. Which is going to be more enjoyable? I replayed them both last spring, seriously Origins was a slog and i wanted to kill myself for playing it. Dragon Age II was actually pretty fun and although not the best RPG experience by any means, was fun enough and the story was interesting enough.

Templar I like you. If you wanna shitpost you'll have to do it more subtly. It's more fun for everyone that way.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I consider myself one of the more subtle shitposters on the Codex

 

[NJClaw]

TemplarGR values the story, immersion and C&C, not the combat and systems aspects.

There were story, immersion and C&C in DA II? There were good combat and system aspects in DAO?

DA 2 story was all right and companions interactions were engaging. It's everything else that sucked big hairy balls.