171 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Would like to DA2 Talent and Spell Trees, enhanced Companion AI, and faster combat speed; feels more visceral, IMO. But I would like to have the Difficulty Slider reset to DAO standards, as well as more Skills, whether or not they are separate from the Abilities.

[TK514]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I prefer each Dragon Age game to be its own popsicle.

I want DA 2 to be as important to DA:I as DA:O was to DA 2. As in, 'hardly at all.'

This works for me. I, personally, preferred DA2 to DA:O, but I have no interest in playing DA2-2.  Inquisition should stand as its own entry in an evolving setting.

I don't mind Varric mentioning Hawke based on a carried over friendship/rivalry and dominant tone, but that should be the extent of it.  (E.g. "Hawke?  He was a stand up guy, and my friend." Or "She was kind of a thug, and we never really saw eye to eye.")

[BouncyFrag]

I like having Varric back. If we're getting follow ups to story lines from previous DA games, I'd rather they be DA:O ones rather than DA2's.

[cJohnOne]

Since DA2 appears to be a side story There doesn't have to be much brought over from it except the beginnings of the mages leaving the circles etc.

[OlgaStarcher]

 There is LOTS that should come back from DAII

DAII had better tactic presets and more tactic slots for mage characters. Still not enough, but FAR better than DAO.

DAII did away with a lot of what I call "class blending" that took place in DAO and thank GOD for that! Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed walking around with a heavy-armour-wearing rogue swinging two long swords and needing no one else safe for a token mage (sure, you don't quite hit that point till Awakening, but it's there). That being said, it shouldn't happen in a game like this. There must always be a trade-off for the character class you choose. I dislike it when a game lets me have my cake and eat it too.

DAII fixed the ridiculous notion that every character can learn every skill in their class. Do they not have personalities? Wishes? Desires? Opinions? Inclinations? Wynne would never be a blood mage. Alistar would not become a reaver. Zevran is just not a bow and arrow kind of guy. I'd like to see that persist and I'd like to see each companion have his/her own unique talent set.

DAII also fixed an even more ridiculous notion that every companion can be magically squeezed into whatever set of armour you find. Really? How does a Qunari fit into a slight elven armour? How does a full-grown human put on Legion of the Dead set? And all of it is unisex, of course. You want to have your human wear a dwarven armour set? Fine! But you should at least have to take that set to a blacksmith before it's wearable!

DAII cleaned up skill trees. That was needed. By Awakening, you had so many active talents that there was no way to utilize more than a fraction of them unless you were willing to sit there and meticulously preset tacticts for every area and, sometimes, every battle. Mage skill trees, especially, got a very nice update.

Speaking of mages! Anyone else notice the stark deficit of decent mage armour, weapons, and accessories in DAO? I sure did! I had rogue and warrior armour coming out of my ears. Mage outfits? Nope! In fact, if you play a mage Warden, you might as well just leave Wynne in her Senior Enchanter Robes. There is only one substantially better robe set "readily-ish" available and you'll be wearing that one. Yes, yes, I understand that you can go and pay an arm and a leg for a state-of-the-art mage robe at the tower, but why should you have to when every other class has their badass armour sets tied to quests, looting, or crafting - all damn-near free. DAII did not have that problem in the slightest! In fact, certain armour sets changed to accomodate your character class (i.e. Champion and Warden armour). 

Fluid movements and battle style were also a nice treat. 

Great DLC - DAII had it. Sebastian sucked and I wish there was an option to stab him. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin, however, were fantastic. Both had involved storylines. Both gave you several good hours of gameplay. Both came with awesome end-bosses. DAO didn't have that. Stone Prisoner, Return to Ostagar, and Warden's Keep all felt like they really should have been in the game from the get-go. It felt like someone along the way went "Whoooops! Forgot to include these... Oh, what the hell! Let's just charge them for it!"

No more saintly protagonist! I really disliked that about DAO. No matter what a colosal turd bag you were throughout the game, you'd always get a good ending and be crowned a hero. No one hated you. Not so in DAII. In the end you had to make a choice between helping the mages and becoming a refugee or helping the Templars and continuing your social climb all the way up to the Viscount seat. Someone at the end of that game would always end up hating your guts and that is how it should be. Sure, one can argue that The Blight was larger than all the problems faced by all the races combined and that Wardens do what they must, but there is always a price for all actions - there has to be. You cannot just slaughter an entire clan of people, for example, and the only consequence you face is one less shop to go to and maybe one fewer quest to finish. 


Don't get me wrong, I loved DAO. If I didn't, I wouldn't have played it as many times as I have (and let's not talk about how many times that was). But it was NOT a perfect game. Far from it, in fact, and DAII improved on a great number of things and a lot of those improvements should stay and should be expanded on.

[Teahuppoo]

Tarek wrote...

nothing plz

I like to pretend it did not happen

[Sasie]

There are plenty of things I would like from DA2 but the most important one is how it handled companions. The friendship/rivalry system was MUCH better then simply approval from DA:O.

I Origins it sort of felt like there was right and wrong answers when talking to companions and unless you kept boosting their like/approval you simply lost out on conversation simply because the reactions for falling in influence usually just lead to one or two conversation were some would leave. In Dragon Age 2 I felt like all options was possible and I could roleplay my character out or choose the choices I wanted without caring about missing out content.

[Vilegrim]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

A lot of the specifics are being discussed, but I was just wondering overall how much some of you want DA:I to tie in with DA:2?

The reason I ask is because I despised DA:2 with a passion, and would love nothing more than for everything but the essential plotlines to be ignored entirely. Nothing would please me more than for Hawke to be dispatched within the opening 5 minutes of the game, and pretty much eveything apart from Varric ignored.

But that's just my opinion and I'd be interested to hear others. So how much DA:2 would you like, or can you stomach, in DA:I?

EDIT: I'm thinking of all aspects of DA:2, but one POV I am thinking in particular is how much should DA:I "distance" itself from DA:2? There are just so many aspects of DA:2 I hated that, for me personally, I feel DA:I being too closely linked with DA:2 could ruin DA:I itself - even if it turns out to be awesome.

It'd kind of like recieving the best gift ever from the kid who used to beat you up at school if you get my meaning.

DOUBLE EDIT: And just to expand this further, would you sooner see Hawke specifically included, never mentioned again, or do you not care either way?

I am disappointed Varric is in, if we could loose everything else apart from the war, that would be for the best, no mention of Hawke, and none of the game play style at all.

[jvaz]

OlgaStarcher wrote...

 There is LOTS that should come back from DAII

DAII had better tactic presets and more tactic slots for mage characters. Still not enough, but FAR better than DAO.

DAII did away with a lot of what I call "class blending" that took place in DAO and thank GOD for that! Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed walking around with a heavy-armour-wearing rogue swinging two long swords and needing no one else safe for a token mage (sure, you don't quite hit that point till Awakening, but it's there). That being said, it shouldn't happen in a game like this. There must always be a trade-off for the character class you choose. I dislike it when a game lets me have my cake and eat it too.

DAII fixed the ridiculous notion that every character can learn every skill in their class. Do they not have personalities? Wishes? Desires? Opinions? Inclinations? Wynne would never be a blood mage. Alistar would not become a reaver. Zevran is just not a bow and arrow kind of guy. I'd like to see that persist and I'd like to see each companion have his/her own unique talent set.

DAII also fixed an even more ridiculous notion that every companion can be magically squeezed into whatever set of armour you find. Really? How does a Qunari fit into a slight elven armour? How does a full-grown human put on Legion of the Dead set? And all of it is unisex, of course. You want to have your human wear a dwarven armour set? Fine! But you should at least have to take that set to a blacksmith before it's wearable!

DAII cleaned up skill trees. That was needed. By Awakening, you had so many active talents that there was no way to utilize more than a fraction of them unless you were willing to sit there and meticulously preset tacticts for every area and, sometimes, every battle. Mage skill trees, especially, got a very nice update.

Speaking of mages! Anyone else notice the stark deficit of decent mage armour, weapons, and accessories in DAO? I sure did! I had rogue and warrior armour coming out of my ears. Mage outfits? Nope! In fact, if you play a mage Warden, you might as well just leave Wynne in her Senior Enchanter Robes. There is only one substantially better robe set "readily-ish" available and you'll be wearing that one. Yes, yes, I understand that you can go and pay an arm and a leg for a state-of-the-art mage robe at the tower, but why should you have to when every other class has their badass armour sets tied to quests, looting, or crafting - all damn-near free. DAII did not have that problem in the slightest! In fact, certain armour sets changed to accomodate your character class (i.e. Champion and Warden armour). 

Fluid movements and battle style were also a nice treat. 

Great DLC - DAII had it. Sebastian sucked and I wish there was an option to stab him. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin, however, were fantastic. Both had involved storylines. Both gave you several good hours of gameplay. Both came with awesome end-bosses. DAO didn't have that. Stone Prisoner, Return to Ostagar, and Warden's Keep all felt like they really should have been in the game from the get-go. It felt like someone along the way went "Whoooops! Forgot to include these... Oh, what the hell! Let's just charge them for it!"

No more saintly protagonist! I really disliked that about DAO. No matter what a colosal turd bag you were throughout the game, you'd always get a good ending and be crowned a hero. No one hated you. Not so in DAII. In the end you had to make a choice between helping the mages and becoming a refugee or helping the Templars and continuing your social climb all the way up to the Viscount seat. Someone at the end of that game would always end up hating your guts and that is how it should be. Sure, one can argue that The Blight was larger than all the problems faced by all the races combined and that Wardens do what they must, but there is always a price for all actions - there has to be. You cannot just slaughter an entire clan of people, for example, and the only consequence you face is one less shop to go to and maybe one fewer quest to finish. 


Don't get me wrong, I loved DAO. If I didn't, I wouldn't have played it as many times as I have (and let's not talk about how many times that was). But it was NOT a perfect game. Far from it, in fact, and DAII improved on a great number of things and a lot of those improvements should stay and should be expanded on.

You sir, are my hero.  Took the words right out of my mind.  Did DA2 have flaws? YES.  Did DAO have flaws? YES.  Were they both great games? YES and for different reasons.  Most of the people I know who disliked 2 only dislike it because it wasn't DAOx2 which would have been really, really, cliche and boring.  I'm glad BW took a chance with at least trying something different for DA2 and hope they continue the pattern with DAI.  

[Melca36]

Sasie wrote...

There are plenty of things I would like from DA2 but the most important one is how it handled companions. The friendship/rivalry system was MUCH better then simply approval from DA:O.

I Origins it sort of felt like there was right and wrong answers when talking to companions and unless you kept boosting their like/approval you simply lost out on conversation simply because the reactions for falling in influence usually just lead to one or two conversation were some would leave. In Dragon Age 2 I felt like all options was possible and I could roleplay my character out or choose the choices I wanted without caring about missing out content.

They already said the new game would not have friendship/rivalry and would feature something different.

[Sylvianus]

If they include some things from DAII. ( and it will be the case ) I'd rather prefer they do it without telling us. Talking about DAII in DA:I's marketting isn't in any way something that would get me excited. Quite the opposite.

That's not even rational. Bad memories I suppose.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 21 août 2013 - 09:24 .

[Angrywolves]

It would be nice to know the fate of the other DA2 companions minus Hawke.
They can go into Hawke's fate separately.

[TyranidODST]

I like Dragon age 2 and the both plot DLCs. I enjoy the story and the combat but there was 3 thing i did not like, 1 was re-used places 2 was i could not change the companions outfits and 3 was many character had diffidence voice actors. I did like some of the new voice actors but it was weird that characters had a difference voice. I think both games are great and i think DA:I is going to be one of the best of bioware games.

[Clertar]

OlgaStarcher: +10000

[phantomrachie]

Ophir147 wrote...

Can we post serious answers now?

Cross-class combos
Interesting encounter designs (Prosper and Ancient Rock Wraith spring to mind)
Reactive companions with dynamic storylines
Subjective sexuality aka playersexual companions
Willingness to experiment with narrative and storyline (to a point)
Florence + the Machine ()
More difficult Nightmare Mode

100% Agree 
Along with companions that seem to have a life outside of the protagonist; I loved walking into a companions home base and watching them interact with another companion. It made it feel like they were friends and not just people who hung about together because they'd all agreed to help Hawke.

As for storyline transfers, I'd like the Red Lyrium to be important and the death of the Arishok by Hawke's hand to be atleast mentioned. I also think the side that you choose in Act 3 should be reflected somehow.

I would also like Varric to tell ridiculously exaggerated stories to Hawkes exploties to the Inquisitor:P

[SpunkyMonkey]

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

I prefer them to forget about DA2. Rather than emphasize how important the events of the game were and what a great character Hawke was.

I remember DA2's release as a painful period of time that I don't want to revisit. For whatever reason I still have negative associations with it.

You see that's why I'm a bit concerned about how much the DA:I trailer had to do with DA:2, and one of the reasons I posted - Looking at the trailer it ties in with DA:2 loads and instead of being blown away by great graphics and potential, I was left think "oh God no, not him again"

I liked Varric, but the second I saw that stupid JRPG style bow my heart sank simply because it reminded me of DA:2.

OlgaStarcher wrote...

DAII also fixed an even more ridiculous notion that every companion can be magically squeezed into whatever set of armour you find. Really? How does a Qunari fit into a slight elven armour? How does a full-grown human put on Legion of the Dead set? And all of it is unisex, of course. You want to have your human wear a dwarven armour set? Fine! But you should at least have to take that set to a blacksmith before it's wearable!

Please don't take this personally, but it's this approach to game design which is killing the fun in games for me. Do we REALLY care about how armour fits in real life? And should that be prioritized over looking cool or with how that fits in the game if it makes the game more fun?

Not in my opinion it shouldn't.

Worrying about aspects such as this is like worrying about whether Sean Connery wore a wig in the James Bond films - it's not real, and the most fun option should usually be prioritized.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 22 août 2013 - 11:15 .

[Deputy Secretary of Awesome]

I loved a lot about DA2, even with its obvious flaws (repeated environments, mashy combat, lack of customisation, the unpleasant visuals, etc.).

While the game had its let downs, it was great nonetheless for what it did right: the story was confronting, intimate, and utterly engrossing. The characters were the highlight - you truly got to know them and love them or hate them. The tale was different: you weren't a miracle hero that could solve anything, you had to make difficult choices in events that were spiraling out of your control.

Crucially, DA2 also added the voiced protagonist. Origins was great in many ways, but its lack of a voiced protagonist was excruciating. Secondly, Origins had great tactical combat but it could be awkward and unintuitive. A move towards combining the tactics of Origins with the fluidity and Skill Trees of DA2 would be welcome.

Ideally in Inquisition, I want to see a return to many of the great touchstones of Origins (a proper world to explore, customisation, more branches of choice and consequence), but I also want it to retain the many great things that DA2 built on (intimate characterisation, sharp story-telling, voiced protagonist, companions that reacted realistically and according to their own values and goals).

One last point: Hawke was fantastic. I want her (him) to return in as signficant a way as they can get away with or resources allow.

[OlgaStarcher]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
Please don't take this personally, but it's this approach to game design which is killing the fun in games for me. Do we REALLY care about how armour fits in real life? And should that be prioritized over looking cool or with how that fits in the game if it makes the game more fun? 

Not in my opinion it shouldn't.

Worrying about aspects such as this is like worrying about whether Sean Connery wore a wig in the James Bond films - it's not real, and the most fun option should usually be prioritized.

I take very few things personally and you certainly did not make this personal.

Your enjoyment aside, however, I have to politely disagree.

If people insist on making a stink about there being multiple races, then they also have to accept that each race comes with its own set of advantages and limitations. A dwarf, for example, could really clean up on ancient armour in the Deep Roads, but there would be very little for him by the way of armour in a human city or at a Dalish Camp. Otherwise, why would you bother with having different races and different builds?

We also all like having memorable companions, no? Well, unless your Warden/Hawke/Inquisitor bought those companions at a slave auction, he/she has very limited say about what those people will wear. Can you really see Varric giving up his suede trentch coat for anything less than a higher-quality suede trentch coat? Sure, he might be swayed by leather, fur, or other nice material, but your standard rogue leather armour? Hell no!

That doesn't mean there wouldn't be a ton of items for each character. Dungeon Siege III was a mediocre game in all aspects safe for two (one of which is irrelevant to Dragon Age franchise). It did a very good job providing each character with multiple sets of awesome-looking armour that was unique to the character and in tune with his/her style, gender, and weapon choice. And that is what I like. you should be able to upgrade characters without taking away who they are in terms of race, gender, and personality.

[TheInquisitor]

Some elements of the combat could work well in DAI. But apart from that, I want it to be more like origins in every other regard.

[OlgaStarcher]

jvaz wrote...

You sir, are my hero.  Took the words right out of my mind.  Did DA2 have flaws? YES.  Did DAO have flaws? YES.  Were they both great games? YES and for different reasons.  Most of the people I know who disliked 2 only dislike it because it wasn't DAOx2 which would have been really, really, cliche and boring.  I'm glad BW took a chance with at least trying something different for DA2 and hope they continue the pattern with DAI.  

But... but... I'm not a sir...

Actually, I seem to find this pattern true for A LOT of serial games. Number one complaint about Final Fantasy XIII boiled down to "it wasn't Final Fantasy X." But I don't want to play another FFX or another DAO. I rather see a company try and get things less than perfect than succumb to a formula. There is a very limited number of successful franchises that can be formulaic and get away with it: Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Megaman, and (for whatever reason) Tales.

[SpunkyMonkey]

OlgaStarcher wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
Please don't take this personally, but it's this approach to game design which is killing the fun in games for me. Do we REALLY care about how armour fits in real life? And should that be prioritized over looking cool or with how that fits in the game if it makes the game more fun? 

Not in my opinion it shouldn't.

Worrying about aspects such as this is like worrying about whether Sean Connery wore a wig in the James Bond films - it's not real, and the most fun option should usually be prioritized.

I take very few things personally and you certainly did not make this personal.

Your enjoyment aside, however, I have to politely disagree.

If people insist on making a stink about there being multiple races, then they also have to accept that each race comes with its own set of advantages and limitations. A dwarf, for example, could really clean up on ancient armour in the Deep Roads, but there would be very little for him by the way of armour in a human city or at a Dalish Camp. Otherwise, why would you bother with having different races and different builds?

We also all like having memorable companions, no? Well, unless your Warden/Hawke/Inquisitor bought those companions at a slave auction, he/she has very limited say about what those people will wear. Can you really see Varric giving up his suede trentch coat for anything less than a higher-quality suede trentch coat? Sure, he might be swayed by leather, fur, or other nice material, but your standard rogue leather armour? Hell no!

That doesn't mean there wouldn't be a ton of items for each character. Dungeon Siege III was a mediocre game in all aspects safe for two (one of which is irrelevant to Dragon Age franchise). It did a very good job providing each character with multiple sets of awesome-looking armour that was unique to the character and in tune with his/her style, gender, and weapon choice. And that is what I like. you should be able to upgrade characters without taking away who they are in terms of race, gender, and personality.

Sold - that is a fun way of looking at and explaining why various armours would work in such a way. It would alos allow for a bigger take on such armours (such as re-crafting a Dwarven armour to fit a human)

So long as the variety, and the feeling that you are shaping characters in a certain way, is there then that's the key thing.

Cool avatar btw

[wright1978]

Deputy Secretary of Awesome wrote...

I loved a lot about DA2, even with its obvious flaws (repeated environments, mashy combat, lack of customisation, the unpleasant visuals, etc.).

While the game had its let downs, it was great nonetheless for what it did right: the story was confronting, intimate, and utterly engrossing. The characters were the highlight - you truly got to know them and love them or hate them. The tale was different: you weren't a miracle hero that could solve anything, you had to make difficult choices in events that were spiraling out of your control.

Crucially, DA2 also added the voiced protagonist. Origins was great in many ways, but its lack of a voiced protagonist was excruciating. Secondly, Origins had great tactical combat but it could be awkward and unintuitive. A move towards combining the tactics of Origins with the fluidity and Skill Trees of DA2 would be welcome.

Ideally in Inquisition, I want to see a return to many of the great touchstones of Origins (a proper world to explore, customisation, more branches of choice and consequence), but I also want it to retain the many great things that DA2 built on (intimate characterisation, sharp story-telling, voiced protagonist, companions that reacted realistically and according to their own values and goals).

One last point: Hawke was fantastic. I want her (him) to return in as signficant a way as they can get away with or resources allow.

All of the bolded i am in utter agreement with.

[macrocarl]

Story-wise, I think a max of what they can fit in and then that way folks who don't want it to tie in can use different saves.
As for elements of game play and animation I thought facial animations were really great, the pallet of the game was super nice and the humor was so fun! More reactive animations where you click a button and a spell or whatever lights off is always appreciated but the bad guys exploding was a bit over the top.
What I would like to see less of is melodrama.

[dorianpervus]

Tarek wrote...

nothing plz

I like to pretend it did not happen

^ 

[Clertar]

 Also some of that: