2816 réponses à ce sujet

[BubbleDncr]

DAYtheELF wrote...

Parahexavoctal wrote...

Deviija wrote...

-Keep all LIs as bisexual options,
offering more player choice to everyone rather than being exclusive
content only some people will play with certain PCs. More freedom =
more roleplaying.

I agree with pretty much everything
you said except this (and the voiced protagonist - it doesn't bother me
overmuch). Sexuality is part of a person's character - they should have a
preference whether they show it or not. Making everyone bisexual for
the sake of "equal roleplaying options" cheapens the characters and is
demeaning, in my opinion.

On the subject of romances, I'd like to see a character that is strictly gay.

I actually prefer to have it be flexible. Have al LIs available regardless of protagonist gender, but adapt the story and background to choices made.

For example, MaleCompanionLI in a game with a male protagonist is an LI option; if protagonist expresses interest in guys early on, MaleCompanionLI might play out like a gay (not bi) character whom protagonist may or may not hook up with. If protagonist doesn't express interest in guys, MaleCompanionLI might play out as a completely hetero character.

The point is that as long as we don't know their stories beforehand and their stories remain consistent for every playthrough in isolation without metagaming, they can come off as believable whole characters and maybe even avoid this whole sensation of everyone being interested in the protagonist.

But when it comes down to it, if the choice is between always bisexual (or protagonist-sexual like in DA2) or fixed sexualities like DA:O and ME, I hands down vote for the freedom of having as much choice of LI as possible (that being bi/protagonist-sexual).

I prefer fixed as it is more true to life.  My warden tried so so so hard to get down Morrigan's pants (including doing something bad to Wynne) until about halfway through the game when she/ I finally realized that Morrigan was straight.  It made the game more realistic, cuz come on hasn't that happened to most of us in some way, shape or form at some time?  Although in an ideal world everyone would be bi, that just isnt how it works and it did seem a little odd.

However, I do like the idea of characters that are say 90% straight or gay, but if you make the right choices they could eventually be romanced.  I know people who identify as gay, but have been in a long-term heterosexual relationships because they found "that one person".   A mix of total gay, total straight, total bi, and flexibles would be so cool!

Sexuality is a spectrum, and I would prefer for the game to reflect that.  And if that means I cannot romance my favorite person, or makes me decide not to romance anyone because I don't like my choices?  Well, that's the nature of the beast.  It makes our characters and NPCs have more depth, history, and emotion IMHO. <3

This.

[The Elder King]

nevermind

Modifié par hhh89, 20 mars 2012 - 10:21 .

[Thor Rand Al]

Darji wrote...
Again...

They just need to decide which direction they want to go. The tactical and complex RPG origins or the more streamlined action oriented DA2.  Decide on one audience and than go straight for it instead of making compromises. These core RPG players that loved origins wont make compromises.  So if you try to please everyone you just can lose.

And whats wrong with taking a lil from both games along with combining other things that the devs are asking n making a hell of a DA3 game, those that loved DAO get what they want n those that loved DA2 get what they want n those like me that liked both get what they want.  I see np with this, it's a win win situation.  Everyone gets a lil bit of something.

[Joseph627]

So Will da3 have a new engine??

Many people complained about it and didnt even looked at da2 because of its bad graphics.The art style also didnt let it look much better. Using a new engine would have much more benefits then using the old one in my opinion. The witcher 2 had brilliant graphics and got a lot of attention because of that, if it hadnt had that good graphics it wouldnt have gotten that much attention. I fear Da3 could end up being a huge improvement over da2 but no real attention paid by anyone (if it would use the old engine)

Using a new engine (for example Frostbite 2) for da3 would attract a lot more gamers imo and the game would be a real competition for other games, it would also save time and effort for a future dragon age title because of its up to date graphics, rather then starting from scratch because of its out dated engine. Me2 and me3 did the same thing, both used the same engine, Da2's engine isnt up to date so it would be a bad idea to use it for da3, If they would use the same engine as da2 had, i fear that many people wont buy it because they will think that da3 hasnt changed much from da2 and many would again judge it because of its bad graphics. 

I think you should give your best for da3 and if you are going to do it, do it right. Start Da3 from scratch with the good things from both dao and da2, and i suggest take a good engine to make it more appealing for more people.

Modifié par Joseph627, 20 mars 2012 - 10:26 .

[vitotamito]

Cryocore wrote...

Here's the thing though, NOT everyone hated DA2.  Their are some issues but it's not hateable by everyone.  For everyone that wants DA2 trashed like it never existed there are also those that loved the game.  2 sides of the coin and the fact that Bioware is considering taking things from both games makes people like me happy because I loved both games, just prefered 2 better. 
But the point is there are people that liked DA2 so by saying trash DA2 ur saying our opinions n feelings don't matter because according to you the game was garbage.  NOT SO.

I am not saying everyone did. What I am saying is that of those that did (and there are many of us) we are entitled to express our opinion just as much as you are. Saying we cant say something means you limit our ability to express our issues, and as a result you skew the results.

I am not saying your opinions dont matter. I am saying our opinions are as valid as yours. If I thought otherwise I would have said that you cant express it. The point is my opinion is as valid as yours and we both should be free to express it. Pretty simple... and what I said initially

What Mark is getting at is that there's a right way to begin a conversation, and a wrong way.  there's a right way to carry on a conversation and a wrong way.  When you want to make a point and not come across as an uneducated jerk, you take the time to express that you understand that there are people who enjoyed the game and people who didn't.  Then you launch into your argument.

Something like,

Mark, while I understand that there are other people in the world but me, some who may have liked the game, I happened to not like Dragon Age 2, and here is why...

He's trying to teach you an important life lesson.

Modifié par vitotamito, 20 mars 2012 - 10:23 .

[DAYtheELF]

Gyrefalcon wrote...


4) Special requests: I (and I am not speaking for everyone here, just myself and possibly a few others) would love to see Anders managing to join the Mage resistance if he lived and Justice doing it if Anders was killed. There is SUCH a great arc you have going from loveable, to downward spiral, to dedicated revolutionary or even villain depending on how you spin the next installment. It has a great trilogy feel to it! Also: If there is no more DLC's can you please give Anders or Justice back his cat in your epilogue? Even the Anders haters would probably agree that you shouldn't take a man's cat! ;D

Yes yes yes yes yes yes! 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mark Darrah wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

Guess my dialog compass idea went unanswered/ignored. Pity, but I guess it won't hurt to keep posting it.

Compass idea is interesting.
We will be looking at additional options and posibilities in this space.
The compass (at least as you present it here) has some issues on the consoles where screen real estate is at a premium.

Any chance you can stop supporting 640*480?  That would free up a ton of screen space.

NWN came out 11 year ago, and it didn't support 640*480.

That is not to say they have to be the same.

Wait, what?  That's news.  BioWare's been very clear in recent years that they would not design a PC-specific UI.  Is that what you're suggesting?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darji wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote on the BSN status update of EyesofaStorm...

"DAO was the compromise. DAO made all sorts of concessions to new players and console limitations and supposedly changing market expectations. DAO was a compromise between the game I want and those newer trends.

I'm not willing to compromise any further. If they want to take another good feature away, they need to replace it with something equally good. So far, they're not doing that."

^ Bravo, Sylvius. My mistaken impressions at the time were that the DA series was intended for the more traditional or "hardcore" roleplayers and that the ME series was to placate the action gamer segment of the market. Sadly, this proved not to be the case.

I want my hardcore emulation of a tabletop RPG back: silent protagonist, choices with profound in-game consequences, racial PC choices + origins, no parachuting enemies, no anime-style combat (but a bit quicker than DA:O), plenty of exploration, companions that'll actually leave if you sufficiently irritate them, no class weapon/fighting style limitations that make no sense (why the heck can't a warrior be an archer?), less magical swag, no preposterously designed weapons, none of this "iconic look" limitations for companions, no compromises for the KKs, and no G-d d-mn-d "awesome button".

Oh, and while you're at it, fire your present marketing team and start from scratch. We don't need any more nonsense of the "This is the New Excrement" variety.

Wasteland 2 google it XD

I donated to it.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

I'm not saying have 1 short dungeon  I'm saying have 20 shorter dungeons instead of 1 long dungeon. 

If you look at the lore, the deep roads are expansive. It makes no sense to have tiny 10 min long small dungeons from a lore perspective. We're paying more for games these days, and people want less content because it bores them or 

Please point out where I said I wanted less content.

[darth gringo]

Darji wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Darji wrote...

Yes they should not be the enemy same goes for a overview camera it should be included in every party based tactical RPG.  And again ME was just a shooter mechanicwise.  it never was tactical or strategical it was just a normal cover based shooter.

Mass Effect gameplay has strategy too.

But sure, it's easy in the Normal and even Hardcore difficulty. But those games are great examples of what I ment. They envolved to better direction gameplay wise part by part. I don't see why DA wouldn't be able to do the same. Even if it would mean having more RTS-styled combat, just as long the controls work.

They work becasue these games are simplified and more action oriented.......
Something that Origins not was.

And for RTS combat: Name me one  RTS game with woth good controller controlsr. There is none!!!!!!

Not sure if your point is against console controller schema's or the behind-the-character camera, but I have to disagree on both accounts.  I played DA:O on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC, and I gotta say I dug the console way more.  The default button mapping was perfect, and the camera's proximity to the player was a major source of adreniline for me.  I really felt like I was in a pinch during console combat, on PC it felt more layed back.

[Realmzmaster]

Darji wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Darji wrote...

For example: How does Bethesda do it with all these armors they have? Do they each armor for every race and every height and weigt combination that is possible? I dont really think so. 

In fact they do.  And Bioware also did it in DA:O.  The process is complex and time consuming because seperate meshes for each piece of armor have to be made in order to fit the different races and genders.  Take the Blood Dragon armor.  it has to be  "remade" to fit  Sten, since he's a giant.  It also has to be re made to fit a Female Human because she's got breasts....  And a male Dwarf because he's short and stocky.  You then have to do the same thing with every piece of armor in the game

Time consuming.  And in game development, time consuming means  resource consuming.

But that's the nature of the beast, and why fans will eagerly spend money on an RPG that allows for such customization.  If Bioware wants to  cut  corners then fine.  But this is the kind of stuff that  I look at when determining whether I'm going to shell out $60 bucks to buy their game.

Than how did people create the Witcher 2 armor for geralt and trish in skyrim in like a day?

Ther must be some autofitfunction. Again modders do that in a day or 2 and we are talking about profesionals. And the modders one often look even much much better than the original ones.  

Modders take an already existing piece from the game and modify it. This is much different from creating the look of the armor from scratch.

[Thor Rand Al]

vitotamito wrote...

Cryocore wrote...

I am not saying everyone did. What I am saying is that of those that did (and there are many of us) we are entitled to express our opinion just as much as you are. Saying we cant say something means you limit our ability to express our issues, and as a result you skew the results.

I am not saying your opinions dont matter. I am saying our opinions are as valid as yours. If I thought otherwise I would have said that you cant express it. The point is my opinion is as valid as yours and we both should be free to express it. Pretty simple... and what I said initially

What Mark is getting at is that there's a right way to begin a conversation, and a wrong way.  there's a right way to carry on a conversation and a wrong way.  When you want to make a point and not come across as an uneducated jerk, you take the time to express that you understand that there are people who enjoyed the game and people who didn't.  Then you launch into your argument.

Something like,

Mark, while I understand that there are other people in the world but me, some who may have liked the game, I happened to not like Dragon Age 2, and here is why...

He's trying to teach you an important life lesson.

[Darji]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

Darji wrote...
Again...

They just need to decide which direction they want to go. The tactical and complex RPG origins or the more streamlined action oriented DA2.  Decide on one audience and than go straight for it instead of making compromises. These core RPG players that loved origins wont make compromises.  So if you try to please everyone you just can lose.

And whats wrong with taking a lil from both games along with combining other things that the devs are asking n making a hell of a DA3 game, those that loved DAO get what they want n those that loved DA2 get what they want n those like me that liked both get what they want.  I see np with this, it's a win win situation.  Everyone gets a lil bit of something.

Yeah ok lets try that.

People want the combat from origins: The other side thinks its borin and want the DA2 combat . Both are completly different. Now try to find the middle.  Have fun.

But to save time. You will never find it.

Same goes for the dialogue wheel: POrigin people dont really want it. DA2 and ME people things its awesome.
Try to find the middle.

But to save time you will never find it.

Another thing Origin people hated the hawke story and hawk in general. DA2 people loved hawk. and the way the story was told. Again Try to find the middle. You wont find it.

That all said. RPG player like myself are stuborn they dont make much compromises and thats why Bioware, MArk or whoever needs to decide on one direction and tell us before or with the actual announcement trailer and infos.

[Arppis]

Darji wrote...

It was easy ass combat with no tactical meaning at all. Hell even the fights were triggered. IT was not even possible to surprise attack guys like you even could do in origins.

Might just be that you are the missing the point I am trying to tell.

I liked the controls bit better in it and they worked thanks to the "move here" button. It made world of difference. Difficulty doesn't matter one bit, if it's hard as nails, so be it, I'll work it out as long as controls are good.

DA2 were... ok. They did what I wanted them to do. Ofcourse more polish would be nice.

Modifié par Arppis, 20 mars 2012 - 10:29 .

[Darji]

darth ****** wrote...

Darji wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Darji wrote...

Yes they should not be the enemy same goes for a overview camera it should be included in every party based tactical RPG.  And again ME was just a shooter mechanicwise.  it never was tactical or strategical it was just a normal cover based shooter.

Mass Effect gameplay has strategy too.

But sure, it's easy in the Normal and even Hardcore difficulty. But those games are great examples of what I ment. They envolved to better direction gameplay wise part by part. I don't see why DA wouldn't be able to do the same. Even if it would mean having more RTS-styled combat, just as long the controls work.

They work becasue these games are simplified and more action oriented.......
Something that Origins not was.

And for RTS combat: Name me one  RTS game with woth good controller controlsr. There is none!!!!!!

Not sure if your point is against console controller schema's or the behind-the-character camera, but I have to disagree on both accounts.  I played DA:O on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC, and I gotta say I dug the console way more.  The default button mapping was perfect, and the camera's proximity to the player was a major source of adreniline for me.  I really felt like I was in a pinch during console combat, on PC it felt more layed back.

I never played it on consoles. I just tried to explain why some people thing that the combat in DA2 was better eith a controller. It was better becasue it was more simplified and action orited which suited more to their taste. I dont know how the actual controls in Origins were with a controller. On the PC however they were great.

[seraphymon]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

Darji wrote...
Again...

They just need to decide which direction they want to go. The tactical and complex RPG origins or the more streamlined action oriented DA2.  Decide on one audience and than go straight for it instead of making compromises. These core RPG players that loved origins wont make compromises.  So if you try to please everyone you just can lose.

And whats wrong with taking a lil from both games along with combining other things that the devs are asking n making a hell of a DA3 game, those that loved DAO get what they want n those that loved DA2 get what they want n those like me that liked both get what they want.  I see np with this, it's a win win situation.  Everyone gets a lil bit of something.

Because the trouble with that is trying to decide what was best. Even if you could, your once again trying to please everyone, which you arent going to be able to do. Giving out a bone to everyone and spreading things thin, makes the overall experience not good.

[sizuka2]

Tactical combat, ability to influence events... y'know, like Dragon Age I.

But with slightly less padding. Endless corridors of darkspawn, like endless waves of reinforcement, don't work. Change it up! One endless corridor is neat. Occasionally being surprised by reinforcements is great. Different encounters, different tactical situations, different objectives, different solutions - that's what keeps the combat fresh.

As for the writing side - choices that pay out consequences.

[AngryFrozenWater]

For me the problem is the dialogue formula of DA2 which leads to bad story telling. Let me explain. The DA2's wheel allowed you to have some control over how things were said. It was trying to give the player the illusion of choice. However, there were rarely any real choices in the game and without those the others cannot keep up the illusion. I think there went a lot of thought and energy in it, but in the end it did not deliver. People were promised that their decisions would matter, but it turned out that none did. The game tried to make you select a side, but no matter what you had chosen the game played out the same - you fought the same bosses and did the same quests. The little changes to it were too insignificant to have a real impact. In the end all those dialogue choices felt like rationalizations to keep you on the railroad track. Add that to the fact that DA2 didn't provide any closure to the DA:O cliff hangers and that DA2 added even more and one ends up very dissatisfied.

If a class like a mage has some relevance to the story then make the story and NPCs recognize that class. If that means a different story for the PC who becomes a mage then that would even be better.

For the above mentioned reason I would like to see the dialogue wheel go. Instead focus on the story. If you want decisions to have an impact then branch the story. And don't branch it somewhere at the end of the game, but branch it early on. Make them mutually exclusive. Be bold. Don't try to make them come together at the end of the game. Of course that will make the game shorter, but at least replayability doesn't suffer from DA2's endless rationalizations. Instead you can focus on the good storytelling BW is famous for again.

To me DA2 felt like an exercise in economics. Lots of things were cut from the game, not because people didn't like it, but because it was cheaper to do or took less time to implement. Those are considerations for a small studio that cannot create blockbusters. BW is supposed to do that and therefor I expect the extra mile.

In ME we see a trend of making sure it is not recognized as an RPG. Have a look at ME3's site. You will notice that the term RPG is absent. Instead the game is described as an "action game with an interactive story". Please, do not go that route. Do not follow ME3's trend. Instead focus on RPG. Let's see what an RPG is supposed to feel like these days. Action games have always been popular, but the recent success of Skyrim proves that one can take the RPG away from the niche market they were supposed to be, without it becoming a full action game.

Do not try to make DA3 become an ME3 with swords. Give DA3 its own RPG identity with its own gameplay and its own dialogue and storytelling styles.

More customization is a good thing. I don't want an abstract screen which allows me to select 3 recolored armors for an a companion. Instead, I want to find unique stuff in the game and allow to give it to any companion or maybe I can use it myself. Attach quests specific to finding that stuff.

Not all customization is good. For an example the tattoos were pretty much meaningless. To make those work give them a gameplay role. Add an ability to them and include them in the lore. Have great quests to find a tattoo master who can ink them on your skin. Something like that. Apply that to everything. Use trainer quests to obtain talent trees, have weapons and armor have background quests to obtain them, etc.

I think a lot of the so called "cool" features in the game were designed to attract an audience who falls for that. But I don't think that audience exists if flashy combat is just cosmetic and is just created to replace strategic combat. Make combat itself great. Focus on great AI and don't make foes jump all over the place, because that doesn't allow any strategic insight. It is not about surviving foes with a gazillion hit points or wave after wave or some crazy invulnerable foe, but it should be about great strategic combat. And please make sure we can overview the battlefield again, like in DA:O.

Assume that your players are intelligent (even if the forum often proves otherwise - ghehe), spoiled by playing many games, and according to statistics aren't kids anymore, so treat them like that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 mars 2012 - 10:36 .

[Darji]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Darji wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Darji wrote...

For example: How does Bethesda do it with all these armors they have? Do they each armor for every race and every height and weigt combination that is possible? I dont really think so. 

In fact they do.  And Bioware also did it in DA:O.  The process is complex and time consuming because seperate meshes for each piece of armor have to be made in order to fit the different races and genders.  Take the Blood Dragon armor.  it has to be  "remade" to fit  Sten, since he's a giant.  It also has to be re made to fit a Female Human because she's got breasts....  And a male Dwarf because he's short and stocky.  You then have to do the same thing with every piece of armor in the game

Time consuming.  And in game development, time consuming means  resource consuming.

But that's the nature of the beast, and why fans will eagerly spend money on an RPG that allows for such customization.  If Bioware wants to  cut  corners then fine.  But this is the kind of stuff that  I look at when determining whether I'm going to shell out $60 bucks to buy their game.

Than how did people create the Witcher 2 armor for geralt and trish in skyrim in like a day?

Ther must be some autofitfunction. Again modders do that in a day or 2 and we are talking about profesionals. And the modders one often look even much much better than the original ones.  

Modders take an already existing piece from the game and modify it. This is much different from creating the look of the armor from scratch.

are great thank you I was waiting for this information XD but why does Bioware need to create everything from a scratch when the modders in Skyrim do not need that and they look totally different too?

[Realmzmaster]

Addai67 wrote...

Mark Darrah wrote...
If the story demands a human-only (or dwarf, elf, or qunari only for that matter) than we would do that.

An advantage of a single player race is that it allows us to offer a lot more customization options. Customization is definately a place we want to focus.

So you limit customization for the sake of greater customization? 

I think you guys might have forgotten what that word means.

edit- I see you clarified later, but not having enough armors was never a problem for Hawke, only for the companions.  When I think of character customization, it's that I get to shape who my character is, and if the most fundamental part of that is taken away so that the developers retain story control, you might as well go with a completely set character.

No it is far easier to make lots of armor type if you only have two boy types to worry about male and female human. The more body types you add then each piece of armor has to be redeigned to fit that body type whether it be elf, dwarf, human or Kossith. Bioware has finite resources so if you increase the number of races and keep the two sexes something has to give so you reduce the number of armor types.

[Arppis]

darth ****** wrote...

Darji wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Darji wrote...

Yes they should not be the enemy same goes for a overview camera it should be included in every party based tactical RPG.  And again ME was just a shooter mechanicwise.  it never was tactical or strategical it was just a normal cover based shooter.

Mass Effect gameplay has strategy too.

But sure, it's easy in the Normal and even Hardcore difficulty. But those games are great examples of what I ment. They envolved to better direction gameplay wise part by part. I don't see why DA wouldn't be able to do the same. Even if it would mean having more RTS-styled combat, just as long the controls work.

They work becasue these games are simplified and more action oriented.......
Something that Origins not was.

And for RTS combat: Name me one  RTS game with woth good controller controlsr. There is none!!!!!!

Not sure if your point is against console controller schema's or the behind-the-character camera, but I have to disagree on both accounts.  I played DA:O on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC, and I gotta say I dug the console way more.  The default button mapping was perfect, and the camera's proximity to the player was a major source of adreniline for me.  I really felt like I was in a pinch during console combat, on PC it felt more layed back.

You weren't bothered by the lack of "move here" button? Well more power to you then.

[craigdolphin]

What is the rationale for not designing platform-specific UI to go along with the platform specific controls?

Why should PC gamers have to settle for an ugly and low-res UI when their machines are perfectly capable of running something much better? Similarly why should PC gamers have to deal with controls focussed solely on gamepads?

And vice versa, console gamers should not have to deal with controls that are clunky on gamepads, or UI's that don't function well on that platform.

Seriously. The interface and controls need not be identical for every platform do they?

Lord knows that the consoles got the short end of the stick with controls in DAO, and PC gamers got shafted for DA2 (the auto attack was lacking from the get-go). Why can't both sets of players expect an interace and control system designed specifically for that platform? Ports suck.

Modifié par craigdolphin, 20 mars 2012 - 10:37 .

[Christoffeldg]

Please Bioware, I beg of you, don't make a Dragon Age 3. We all loved the interesting and humorous characters, the in-depth lore, the party customizations, the completely customizable and diverse voiceless protagonist and the loot hunting of Dragon Age Origins, DA 2 was a dissapointment that tarnished that, anything more will just make people lose hope.

If anything, try to get your old lead designer back (whoever it was, it wasn't the same one who did nr 2) and give the guy a new series, a fresh start. Let him repeat the pure awesomeness that was Dragon Age 1 which will immediately give you the same financial success, even if it takes another 5 years to make.

I'm sure this is what Dragon Age Origins fans are really waiting for.

Seriously, I had such incredibly good memories of Dragon Age Origins, it was the game I was waiting years upon years for. I even bought it 3 times, a physical copy for use, a physical one for my glass case and the steam version for easy installation. And then DA 2 came along .

[Darji]

Arppis wrote...

darth ****** wrote...

Darji wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Darji wrote...

Yes they should not be the enemy same goes for a overview camera it should be included in every party based tactical RPG.  And again ME was just a shooter mechanicwise.  it never was tactical or strategical it was just a normal cover based shooter.

Mass Effect gameplay has strategy too.

But sure, it's easy in the Normal and even Hardcore difficulty. But those games are great examples of what I ment. They envolved to better direction gameplay wise part by part. I don't see why DA wouldn't be able to do the same. Even if it would mean having more RTS-styled combat, just as long the controls work.

They work becasue these games are simplified and more action oriented.......
Something that Origins not was.

And for RTS combat: Name me one  RTS game with woth good controller controlsr. There is none!!!!!!

Not sure if your point is against console controller schema's or the behind-the-character camera, but I have to disagree on both accounts.  I played DA:O on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC, and I gotta say I dug the console way more.  The default button mapping was perfect, and the camera's proximity to the player was a major source of adreniline for me.  I really felt like I was in a pinch during console combat, on PC it felt more layed back.

You weren't bothered by the lack of "move here" button? Well more power to you then.

I doont even know what this means. I used mouse and keyboard as controls. ^^