813 réponses à ce sujet

[Jman5]

I am worried that Bioware/EA might just decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Actually, what I'm most concerned about is that Bioware just dumps Dragon Age 3 altogether. Or turn it into a facebook game completely.

[AAHook2]

Oloria wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...
I sometimes don't know what game people are playing when they describe Origins.

Heh, that's OK. I often wonder the same thing when I read people describing DA2. We all get different things from these stories I guess.

AAHook2 wrote...
It was what you wanted it to be. There were tons of gray area decisions. One of the nicest surprises happened to me when playing through the Bracilian Forest when I figured out that you could side with the Werewolves.
There was the Harrowmont vs. Bhalen angle which had long lasting ramifications. Later there was Branka and whether to help her or kill her. There was the Anvil of the Void. None of those were easy decisions, and sometimes doing what seemed like th right thing to do had very dire ramifications, or prevented you from unlocking comething later on in the game, but you were forced to live with your decision...it was poignant.
There was the drama of Redcliffe of whether to spare a boy, or make it easier for yourself by letting him die. You could spare Jowan, or have him killed.
There were more decisions in this game than I can bear to mention.

All those examples you list are great choices that DAO offers, but personally I didn't find them to be "hard" choices. By that I mean there was usually an option which felt obviously right to me (e.g. allowing Isolde to sacrifice herself to save her son is kinder than killing him IMO - ignoring the skip to the Circle and save everyone option).

That said, not everyone is going to agree with what makes a choice hard or not and you and I clearly do not! I gave Loghain's execution as an example of a decision I personally found difficult, but you only have to glance at the DAO forums to see plenty of people who would disagree and categorically state that killing him/sparing him is obviously the "right" thing to do.

AAHook2 wrote...
I suppose I don't think your arguments stick very well for me. I disagree.

Fair enough, I think I'm OK with that
For the record, I wasn't really making arguments as such. I'm not on a mission to make people like DA2's story - it's too subjective so why bother. I was simply (attempting) to explain why I had different reasons for enjoying DA2 as I had for enjoying DAO.

Just realised this thread was on page 3, so sorry for the bump. I linked straight from my profile and didn't notice

I respect your opinion. It is subjective isn't it?

I had actually played through all of the Origins to settle on which one I wanted to play through. I knew from the Dwarf Noble origin that Bhalen was an outright bass turd, so I found it hard to back him in the Orzammar section, even though his views were more sympathetic to my character's plight, being a casteless brand.
Objectively, that was a hard decision.
Whether to destroy or restore the Anvil of the Void was a hard decision because at that point it could be seen as a way to help restore the Dwarven Kingdoms, though at the cost of enslaving several hundreds if not thousands of Dwarves in the process. Hard decision for me.
Siding with the Werewolves wasn't morally hard for me to decide, I ended up with a beautiful reconciliation note when I least expected it, but doing so barred me from obtaining a ready supply of resources to make a useful set of potions and poisons. It had an unforeseen ramification I didn't anticipate until afterward. It even effected some portions of Dragon Age 2 as the healed werewolves reappeared there and siding with them made it hard for me at points to deal with the Dalish. Again, a seemingly inocuous decision having long lasting consequences.

There are far more examples of decisions like this in Origins compared to Dragon Age 2 where a lot of outcomes big and small felt like fixed tones in the story.
You may disagree with me, but I feel like I can go on for days about this with examples. I'd be hard pressed to do so concerning the events surrounding the Kirkwall saga.

It's almost as if the developers made their task in storytelling hard for themselves by allowing such varied outcomes in the first game only to try to rein it in with more of a linear, fixed framework in the second game. A pity because that was the bulk of the charm in Origins.

Your example of Loghain is a good one on that point. You can find as many people who killed him as had him spared. Even more varied is who killed him. The Warden, Alistair...Did it result in Alistair leaving the group. Did Anora become queen as a result? Did you become King or Queen? Did you later have Loghain perform the Dark Ritual? So many options.
You just didn't get that from Dragon Age 2. Pity as this was probably one of the hallmarks of the series up until the release of the sequel. Rightfully, fans of Origins had some serious questions because of the disparity.
In any case, you're entitled to your feelings and your civilty is much appreciated.

[Liou]

Afraid? Not at all. I hope they do. I hated the combat in DA II. But not because it was hack n slash. I would have prefered the tactical combat system from Origins but i could have accepted the hack n slash approach if it was done right.

[TEWR]

If they could just perfect the new combat I'd be happy. But having all your characters attack faster and everyone else just uses Origins style combat against you gives you an unfair edge and makes combat too easy.

Level the playing field, and things will be better. Make the enemies attack with the new style, and combat will be loved (or at the very least, liked a lot more)

[Embargoed]

AAHook2 wrote...

Oloria wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...
I sometimes don't know what game people are playing when they describe Origins.

Heh, that's OK. I often wonder the same thing when I read people describing DA2. We all get different things from these stories I guess.

AAHook2 wrote...
It was what you wanted it to be. There were tons of gray area decisions. One of the nicest surprises happened to me when playing through the Bracilian Forest when I figured out that you could side with the Werewolves.
There was the Harrowmont vs. Bhalen angle which had long lasting ramifications. Later there was Branka and whether to help her or kill her. There was the Anvil of the Void. None of those were easy decisions, and sometimes doing what seemed like th right thing to do had very dire ramifications, or prevented you from unlocking comething later on in the game, but you were forced to live with your decision...it was poignant.
There was the drama of Redcliffe of whether to spare a boy, or make it easier for yourself by letting him die. You could spare Jowan, or have him killed.
There were more decisions in this game than I can bear to mention.

All those examples you list are great choices that DAO offers, but personally I didn't find them to be "hard" choices. By that I mean there was usually an option which felt obviously right to me (e.g. allowing Isolde to sacrifice herself to save her son is kinder than killing him IMO - ignoring the skip to the Circle and save everyone option).

That said, not everyone is going to agree with what makes a choice hard or not and you and I clearly do not! I gave Loghain's execution as an example of a decision I personally found difficult, but you only have to glance at the DAO forums to see plenty of people who would disagree and categorically state that killing him/sparing him is obviously the "right" thing to do.

AAHook2 wrote...
I suppose I don't think your arguments stick very well for me. I disagree.

Fair enough, I think I'm OK with that
For the record, I wasn't really making arguments as such. I'm not on a mission to make people like DA2's story - it's too subjective so why bother. I was simply (attempting) to explain why I had different reasons for enjoying DA2 as I had for enjoying DAO.

Just realised this thread was on page 3, so sorry for the bump. I linked straight from my profile and didn't notice

I respect your opinion. It is subjective isn't it?

I had actually played through all of the Origins to settle on which one I wanted to play through. I knew from the Dwarf Noble origin that Bhalen was an outright bass turd, so I found it hard to back him in the Orzammar section, even though his views were more sympathetic to my character's plight, being a casteless brand.
Objectively, that was a hard decision.
Whether to destroy or restore the Anvil of the Void was a hard decision because at that point it could be seen as a way to help restore the Dwarven Kingdoms, though at the cost of enslaving several hundreds if not thousands of Dwarves in the process. Hard decision for me.
Siding with the Werewolves wasn't morally hard for me to decide, I ended up with a beautiful reconciliation note when I least expected it, but doing so barred me from obtaining a ready supply of resources to make a useful set of potions and poisons. It had an unforeseen ramification I didn't anticipate until afterward. It even effected some portions of Dragon Age 2 as the healed werewolves reappeared there and siding with them made it hard for me at points to deal with the Dalish. Again, a seemingly inocuous decision having long lasting consequences.

There are far more examples of decisions like this in Origins compared to Dragon Age 2 where a lot of outcomes big and small felt like fixed tones in the story.
You may disagree with me, but I feel like I can go on for days about this with examples. I'd be hard pressed to do so concerning the events surrounding the Kirkwall saga.

It's almost as if the developers made their task in storytelling hard for themselves by allowing such varied outcomes in the first game only to try to rein it in with more of a linear, fixed framework in the second game. A pity because that was the bulk of the charm in Origins.

Your example of Loghain is a good one on that point. You can find as many people who killed him as had him spared. Even more varied is who killed him. The Warden, Alistair...Did it result in Alistair leaving the group. Did Anora become queen as a result? Did you become King or Queen? Did you later have Loghain perform the Dark Ritual? So many options.
You just didn't get that from Dragon Age 2. Pity as this was probably one of the hallmarks of the series up until the release of the sequel. Rightfully, fans of Origins had some serious questions because of the disparity.
In any case, you're entitled to your feelings and your civilty is much appreciated.

You argue that Origin's decisions were long lasting, but we've yet to see what transpires from DA2's decisions. 

Just sayin', if you're gonna use stuff like that, put into perspective. We didn't know that those kinds of choices would be available after doing stuff in DA:O. 

[Jitter]

Embargoed wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...

Oloria wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...
I sometimes don't know what game people are playing when they describe Origins.

Heh, that's OK. I often wonder the same thing when I read people describing DA2. We all get different things from these stories I guess.

AAHook2 wrote...
It was what you wanted it to be. There were tons of gray area decisions. One of the nicest surprises happened to me when playing through the Bracilian Forest when I figured out that you could side with the Werewolves.
There was the Harrowmont vs. Bhalen angle which had long lasting ramifications. Later there was Branka and whether to help her or kill her. There was the Anvil of the Void. None of those were easy decisions, and sometimes doing what seemed like th right thing to do had very dire ramifications, or prevented you from unlocking comething later on in the game, but you were forced to live with your decision...it was poignant.
There was the drama of Redcliffe of whether to spare a boy, or make it easier for yourself by letting him die. You could spare Jowan, or have him killed.
There were more decisions in this game than I can bear to mention.

All those examples you list are great choices that DAO offers, but personally I didn't find them to be "hard" choices. By that I mean there was usually an option which felt obviously right to me (e.g. allowing Isolde to sacrifice herself to save her son is kinder than killing him IMO - ignoring the skip to the Circle and save everyone option).

That said, not everyone is going to agree with what makes a choice hard or not and you and I clearly do not! I gave Loghain's execution as an example of a decision I personally found difficult, but you only have to glance at the DAO forums to see plenty of people who would disagree and categorically state that killing him/sparing him is obviously the "right" thing to do.

AAHook2 wrote...
I suppose I don't think your arguments stick very well for me. I disagree.

Fair enough, I think I'm OK with that
For the record, I wasn't really making arguments as such. I'm not on a mission to make people like DA2's story - it's too subjective so why bother. I was simply (attempting) to explain why I had different reasons for enjoying DA2 as I had for enjoying DAO.

Just realised this thread was on page 3, so sorry for the bump. I linked straight from my profile and didn't notice

I respect your opinion. It is subjective isn't it?

I had actually played through all of the Origins to settle on which one I wanted to play through. I knew from the Dwarf Noble origin that Bhalen was an outright bass turd, so I found it hard to back him in the Orzammar section, even though his views were more sympathetic to my character's plight, being a casteless brand.
Objectively, that was a hard decision.
Whether to destroy or restore the Anvil of the Void was a hard decision because at that point it could be seen as a way to help restore the Dwarven Kingdoms, though at the cost of enslaving several hundreds if not thousands of Dwarves in the process. Hard decision for me.
Siding with the Werewolves wasn't morally hard for me to decide, I ended up with a beautiful reconciliation note when I least expected it, but doing so barred me from obtaining a ready supply of resources to make a useful set of potions and poisons. It had an unforeseen ramification I didn't anticipate until afterward. It even effected some portions of Dragon Age 2 as the healed werewolves reappeared there and siding with them made it hard for me at points to deal with the Dalish. Again, a seemingly inocuous decision having long lasting consequences.

There are far more examples of decisions like this in Origins compared to Dragon Age 2 where a lot of outcomes big and small felt like fixed tones in the story.
You may disagree with me, but I feel like I can go on for days about this with examples. I'd be hard pressed to do so concerning the events surrounding the Kirkwall saga.

It's almost as if the developers made their task in storytelling hard for themselves by allowing such varied outcomes in the first game only to try to rein it in with more of a linear, fixed framework in the second game. A pity because that was the bulk of the charm in Origins.

Your example of Loghain is a good one on that point. You can find as many people who killed him as had him spared. Even more varied is who killed him. The Warden, Alistair...Did it result in Alistair leaving the group. Did Anora become queen as a result? Did you become King or Queen? Did you later have Loghain perform the Dark Ritual? So many options.
You just didn't get that from Dragon Age 2. Pity as this was probably one of the hallmarks of the series up until the release of the sequel. Rightfully, fans of Origins had some serious questions because of the disparity.
In any case, you're entitled to your feelings and your civilty is much appreciated.

You argue that Origin's decisions were long lasting, but we've yet to see what transpires from DA2's decisions. 

Just sayin', if you're gonna use stuff like that, put into perspective. We didn't know that those kinds of choices would be available after doing stuff in DA:O. 

Did you just spin an unfinished game , as a possible plot enhancement ?
Where do you work ?

[Haexpane]

ManiacalEvil wrote...

This game is not as well rated as the previous game, I think we can all conclude that. Am I the only one afraid that the nostalgia backlash this game received will make BioWare games become less actiony in the future? I immensely enjoyed DA2 and I'd go as far as to classify it as one of my top 5 games (Origins didn't make it, a bit too boring and slow). I really enjoy how actiony yet tactical the combat was, how deep the characters were (being able to talk to your family really made those characters awesome)

I am afraid the reviews will make DA3 have combat like DA:O which I found boring and unreallistically slow, and return to unvoiced and list dialogue, instead of wheeled and voiced. Anyone else feels like this?

EDITED to remove spoilers.

Is this a joke post?  The difference between the Wheel and the List is almost nothing.  The combat is just sped up from DAO< same core engine.

The REAL Difference is the re-use of the same locations over and over agin with Respawning enemies.  

Sadly, you didn't even notice, and many players also probably did not notice the cost cutting design motiff.

[Embargoed]

Jitter wrote...

Embargoed wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...

Oloria wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...
I sometimes don't know what game people are playing when they describe Origins.

Heh, that's OK. I often wonder the same thing when I read people describing DA2. We all get different things from these stories I guess.

AAHook2 wrote...
It was what you wanted it to be. There were tons of gray area decisions. One of the nicest surprises happened to me when playing through the Bracilian Forest when I figured out that you could side with the Werewolves.
There was the Harrowmont vs. Bhalen angle which had long lasting ramifications. Later there was Branka and whether to help her or kill her. There was the Anvil of the Void. None of those were easy decisions, and sometimes doing what seemed like th right thing to do had very dire ramifications, or prevented you from unlocking comething later on in the game, but you were forced to live with your decision...it was poignant.
There was the drama of Redcliffe of whether to spare a boy, or make it easier for yourself by letting him die. You could spare Jowan, or have him killed.
There were more decisions in this game than I can bear to mention.

All those examples you list are great choices that DAO offers, but personally I didn't find them to be "hard" choices. By that I mean there was usually an option which felt obviously right to me (e.g. allowing Isolde to sacrifice herself to save her son is kinder than killing him IMO - ignoring the skip to the Circle and save everyone option).

That said, not everyone is going to agree with what makes a choice hard or not and you and I clearly do not! I gave Loghain's execution as an example of a decision I personally found difficult, but you only have to glance at the DAO forums to see plenty of people who would disagree and categorically state that killing him/sparing him is obviously the "right" thing to do.

AAHook2 wrote...
I suppose I don't think your arguments stick very well for me. I disagree.

Fair enough, I think I'm OK with that
For the record, I wasn't really making arguments as such. I'm not on a mission to make people like DA2's story - it's too subjective so why bother. I was simply (attempting) to explain why I had different reasons for enjoying DA2 as I had for enjoying DAO.

Just realised this thread was on page 3, so sorry for the bump. I linked straight from my profile and didn't notice

I respect your opinion. It is subjective isn't it?

I had actually played through all of the Origins to settle on which one I wanted to play through. I knew from the Dwarf Noble origin that Bhalen was an outright bass turd, so I found it hard to back him in the Orzammar section, even though his views were more sympathetic to my character's plight, being a casteless brand.
Objectively, that was a hard decision.
Whether to destroy or restore the Anvil of the Void was a hard decision because at that point it could be seen as a way to help restore the Dwarven Kingdoms, though at the cost of enslaving several hundreds if not thousands of Dwarves in the process. Hard decision for me.
Siding with the Werewolves wasn't morally hard for me to decide, I ended up with a beautiful reconciliation note when I least expected it, but doing so barred me from obtaining a ready supply of resources to make a useful set of potions and poisons. It had an unforeseen ramification I didn't anticipate until afterward. It even effected some portions of Dragon Age 2 as the healed werewolves reappeared there and siding with them made it hard for me at points to deal with the Dalish. Again, a seemingly inocuous decision having long lasting consequences.

There are far more examples of decisions like this in Origins compared to Dragon Age 2 where a lot of outcomes big and small felt like fixed tones in the story.
You may disagree with me, but I feel like I can go on for days about this with examples. I'd be hard pressed to do so concerning the events surrounding the Kirkwall saga.

It's almost as if the developers made their task in storytelling hard for themselves by allowing such varied outcomes in the first game only to try to rein it in with more of a linear, fixed framework in the second game. A pity because that was the bulk of the charm in Origins.

Your example of Loghain is a good one on that point. You can find as many people who killed him as had him spared. Even more varied is who killed him. The Warden, Alistair...Did it result in Alistair leaving the group. Did Anora become queen as a result? Did you become King or Queen? Did you later have Loghain perform the Dark Ritual? So many options.
You just didn't get that from Dragon Age 2. Pity as this was probably one of the hallmarks of the series up until the release of the sequel. Rightfully, fans of Origins had some serious questions because of the disparity.
In any case, you're entitled to your feelings and your civilty is much appreciated.

You argue that Origin's decisions were long lasting, but we've yet to see what transpires from DA2's decisions. 

Just sayin', if you're gonna use stuff like that, put into perspective. We didn't know that those kinds of choices would be available after doing stuff in DA:O. 

Did you just spin an unfinished game , as a possible plot enhancement ?
Where do you work ?

Not really. I'm saying that using examples from DA2 as examples of DA:O's long lasting effects on the world of Thedas is kind of wrong. And DA2 isn't an unfinished game. It may be flawed, but not unfinished. 

[Heretical]

I enjoyed the combat very much so in DA2, but there were so many aspects of the game that simply were not good. The map variety was staggeringly bad (giant concrete slabs? Really?), watching enemies simply crumble into bite-size pieces was disturbing and annoyingly unrealistic (where are my kill animations?), romance was a bore, and the list can go on. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing the series take a turn back towards DA:O.

[Spuro]

The combat of DA2 took me back to the days of playing Diablo 2 when I was in business principles classes in high school. You can mindless spam the attack button on enemies and still win while working on something else. Occasionally you pop a potion or heal when your health bar is low, but really DA2 was a button masher at best. A far cry from the slower paced DA:O yet far more tactical approach that at least required more of my immediate attention as a player. This is just the combat alone in DA2 I'm talking about, never mind the complete dumbing down (or removal) of other role-playing elements that were what made DA:O a breath of renewed air from the saturation of 'action RPGs' in the market nowadays.

I haven't completely given up on Bioware yet, but I do not think I would ever pre-order from them again.

[AAHook2]

Embargoed wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...

Oloria wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...
I sometimes don't know what game people are playing when they describe Origins.

Heh, that's OK. I often wonder the same thing when I read people describing DA2. We all get different things from these stories I guess.

AAHook2 wrote...
It was what you wanted it to be. There were tons of gray area decisions. One of the nicest surprises happened to me when playing through the Bracilian Forest when I figured out that you could side with the Werewolves.
There was the Harrowmont vs. Bhalen angle which had long lasting ramifications. Later there was Branka and whether to help her or kill her. There was the Anvil of the Void. None of those were easy decisions, and sometimes doing what seemed like th right thing to do had very dire ramifications, or prevented you from unlocking comething later on in the game, but you were forced to live with your decision...it was poignant.
There was the drama of Redcliffe of whether to spare a boy, or make it easier for yourself by letting him die. You could spare Jowan, or have him killed.
There were more decisions in this game than I can bear to mention.

All those examples you list are great choices that DAO offers, but personally I didn't find them to be "hard" choices. By that I mean there was usually an option which felt obviously right to me (e.g. allowing Isolde to sacrifice herself to save her son is kinder than killing him IMO - ignoring the skip to the Circle and save everyone option).

That said, not everyone is going to agree with what makes a choice hard or not and you and I clearly do not! I gave Loghain's execution as an example of a decision I personally found difficult, but you only have to glance at the DAO forums to see plenty of people who would disagree and categorically state that killing him/sparing him is obviously the "right" thing to do.

AAHook2 wrote...
I suppose I don't think your arguments stick very well for me. I disagree.

Fair enough, I think I'm OK with that
For the record, I wasn't really making arguments as such. I'm not on a mission to make people like DA2's story - it's too subjective so why bother. I was simply (attempting) to explain why I had different reasons for enjoying DA2 as I had for enjoying DAO.

Just realised this thread was on page 3, so sorry for the bump. I linked straight from my profile and didn't notice

I respect your opinion. It is subjective isn't it?

I had actually played through all of the Origins to settle on which one I wanted to play through. I knew from the Dwarf Noble origin that Bhalen was an outright bass turd, so I found it hard to back him in the Orzammar section, even though his views were more sympathetic to my character's plight, being a casteless brand.
Objectively, that was a hard decision.
Whether to destroy or restore the Anvil of the Void was a hard decision because at that point it could be seen as a way to help restore the Dwarven Kingdoms, though at the cost of enslaving several hundreds if not thousands of Dwarves in the process. Hard decision for me.
Siding with the Werewolves wasn't morally hard for me to decide, I ended up with a beautiful reconciliation note when I least expected it, but doing so barred me from obtaining a ready supply of resources to make a useful set of potions and poisons. It had an unforeseen ramification I didn't anticipate until afterward. It even effected some portions of Dragon Age 2 as the healed werewolves reappeared there and siding with them made it hard for me at points to deal with the Dalish. Again, a seemingly inocuous decision having long lasting consequences.

There are far more examples of decisions like this in Origins compared to Dragon Age 2 where a lot of outcomes big and small felt like fixed tones in the story.
You may disagree with me, but I feel like I can go on for days about this with examples. I'd be hard pressed to do so concerning the events surrounding the Kirkwall saga.

It's almost as if the developers made their task in storytelling hard for themselves by allowing such varied outcomes in the first game only to try to rein it in with more of a linear, fixed framework in the second game. A pity because that was the bulk of the charm in Origins.

Your example of Loghain is a good one on that point. You can find as many people who killed him as had him spared. Even more varied is who killed him. The Warden, Alistair...Did it result in Alistair leaving the group. Did Anora become queen as a result? Did you become King or Queen? Did you later have Loghain perform the Dark Ritual? So many options.
You just didn't get that from Dragon Age 2. Pity as this was probably one of the hallmarks of the series up until the release of the sequel. Rightfully, fans of Origins had some serious questions because of the disparity.
In any case, you're entitled to your feelings and your civilty is much appreciated.

You argue that Origin's decisions were long lasting, but we've yet to see what transpires from DA2's decisions. 

Just sayin', if you're gonna use stuff like that, put into perspective. We didn't know that those kinds of choices would be available after doing stuff in DA:O. 

Your point is a little off base here. Your assumption is that we will see the effects of choices in a future that is not yet known to us. It's grasping at straws.
Just look at Origins. The events encapsulated in that game take place over the course of roughly a year, yet that year catalogued a world defining adventure that changed the course of history in Thedas. In that year, it felt like more happened than in 7 years of Hawke in Kirkwall.
In Origins, we got to witness the result of our actions in the brilliant epilogues. In Dragon Age 2, we're left with a cliffhanger that hardly keeps us interested even until the credits roll. I remember clearly saying outloud to my television screen.
"Really? That's it?"

[TheButterflyEffect]

Please do not do not dump the Lycium Engine! It's beyond awesome. Seriously. You did amazing, keep it.

[sleepyowlet]

Afraid? No. I hope they do. But I guess they won't. Pity.

If they got rid of the twitchy combat and guys in full plate doing sommersaults, if they got rid of the Wheel of WTF and actually write mature lines for the main character (not this adolescent drivel Hawke is stuck with now), if they managed to write a complex, interesting, mature LI (honestly, I'm sick of this emo/teenie nonsense - isn't the DA series supposed to be a game for adults?), if they managed to come up with a good, deep story again - then I'd buy DA3.

But that's not going to happen, the devs already said so - especially when it comes to the Wheel of WTF.

[ruttunenn]

I totally wan`t them to go down this path and seeing that DA3 is:
- Cover based action RPG shooter
- You can choose between mage and archer
- Less dialogue and dialogue options who wants to talk when you can kill exploding stuff right?
  - If we have to talk atleast limit the options to " I like your idea " and " Me X me smash you "
- Regenerating health and that awesome red jelly effect to tell me I am hurt.
- Less inventory hassle just make all items but weapon static.
- More linear story my mind just can`t handle all those plot twists.
- Make the male huge beefcake and the female a playboy bunny
   - the armors should also reflect this
- Don`t even bother with map anymore just let the story take us from place to place instead of us actually having to make the hard choise of where to go , preferrably by going back and forth the same corridor for the 30-40 hours.
- We also would like to see about 5-10 day 1 DLC options like:
   - A two hour sidequest to kill some irrelevant person for 10$
   - Most generic and bland sidekick you can come up with , I suggest you pick up just someone from the office you rarely even notice and make him the character " Bob from accounting " the pencil throwing hero.
- And to top this master piece off let our protagonist be voiced by Antoine Dodson

Bi-Winning!

[Haexpane]

I spent more time watching stiff cutscenes last night than actually engaging in any combat.

The combat sections last like 2 minutes, then there is 5 minutes of wooden faced, uncanny valley, ugly elf yappin.

[Persephone]

Haexpane wrote...

The combat sections last like 2 minutes, then there is 5 minutes of wooden faced, uncanny valley, ugly elf yappin.

No offense, but the wooden faced, uncanny valley, so-so facial animations sound like 95% of all the DAO cutscenes. (Much as I love them still, but those animations were outdated even in 2009. ME1 had better animations than DAO did.)

[DAFerelden91]

Keep the combat system and graphic design in Dragon Age 2,bring back epic story and beautiful world of Dragon Age:Origin,polish the game a little,then Dragon Age 3 would be perfect!

[Killjoy Cutter]

The elves in this game are alien -- it's one of the things I don't mind as much.

[Nozybidaj]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The elves in this game are alien -- it's one of the things I don't mind as much.

And ugly, don't forget the ugly part.

[abaris]

DAFerelden91 wrote...

Keep the combat system and graphic design in Dragon Age 2,bring back epic story and beautiful world of Dragon Age:Origin,polish the game a little,then Dragon Age 3 would be perfect!

They should keep the combat system - to themselves.

And the graphics are what you would expect from a five year old game. Even ME1 had better graphics than DAII on full settings. It's not necessarily a game breaking element if the story is good enough. But that wasn't the case either.

[Sabriana]

Elves are Aliens? Oh, that explains the fish-face and cat-nose. They're form planet Aquarium.

I like the traditional elves. They are supposed to be humanoid. Not fishoid.

[Arken]

I have an old video card on my laptop. The game plays a little slower. Combat felt very natural for me, but rogues cartwheeling so much annoyed me when I just wanted to swap to a different enemy.

Combat was faster than origins, but slower than regular combat. It was very enjoyable. I didn't even realize until I watched a combat video on Youtube just now. I think the animations should be slowed down just a little. so that they look a little more natural.

I like having a voiced character, companions with their own body models, more focus on class distinctions, more weapon models, the new Qunari look, and more focus on graphical presentation (the levels, and weapon models still look dated. Character models improved though.)

I just think combat should be brought to a balance between Origins, and II. It looks good on my laptop.

[Elanareon]

The only real problem of DA:O is really just being slow.... But Bioware changed everything now DA2 sucked...