DAI will upload progress to the Keep when you're online. But it's not clear how it will be stored. Should it update the world state directly, deleting that world state would also delete your progress. So we still hope it will be stored seperately, but Bioware hasn't clarified that yet. Probably because it's still work in progress.
Ahhh, okay.
That's exactly what I was wondering about, okay awesome, thank you for the answer, I guess I'll have to keep watch. 
I agree 6 slots would be perfect I just hate the idea that I will Create a WS then delete it to make another only to then repeat that process if I want to replay the original WS.
question for the beta testers. are the "completed quests" sections in DAO and DA2 sufficient for filling in the information the Keep asks for?
question for the beta testers. are the "completed quests" sections in DAO and DA2 sufficient for filling in the information the Keep asks for?
I'm not a beta tester so I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine so as long as it's not a bugged quest. For example, the Male Dwarf Noble can have a son, and you can do well for your son by asking the new Dwarven King (Bhelen or Harrowmont, whoever you chose) to accept him and his mother as a member of their house, but you have to set it up before hand and then keep your end of the bargain and make them King. Otherwise, your son remains a casteless bastard. However, the quest is bugged in that no matter what you actually do, the game entry and your save file say you failed to provide for your son and his mother. So, as long as you can remember your choices from the info in those 'completed quest' entries, then it's sufficient, I'd imagine.
I was replying to Queenpurplescrap's comment. On first glance I thought she was saying that there were more people out there who have played multiple characters, than single ones. I guess I was reading it wrong, however - just looked at it again. XD
Right. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I am not claiming that the majority of people have more than one completed game. I am predicting that the number of people with at least 2 world-states in the Keep will be greater than the number of people who only completed DAO once because they can see the results of different decisions. Their active world-state may still be the game they actually played, but the Keep sounds like a good way to satisfy your curiosity about the choices you didn't make.
Perhaps, but the default ME1 choices in Mass Effect 2 were terrible. Everybody dies, you don't meet certain people, Shepard makes evil choices, etc. I'm okay with reading about or watching the DLCs and making a choice instead of taking that risk.
The difference is, the "default" in ME determines that Shepard only did the main storyline. And his choices are "evil" only such if you think things like the Genophage should be cured... After all, I might think that a "default" Warden makes "evil" choices because they recruited the Circle rather than annulling it.
The Keep will, again presumably, have every sidequest that affects Inquisition in it. Now, again, you may not like the choice the consequences of the default choices, but if you've never played the game(or did those sidequests), then how would you know until you've played Inquisition?
The benefit DA's import system has over ME's is that as much as ME proclaimed "choice", there was really only one option if you wanted to have the "correct" ending. But there has yet to be a choice in DA that can universally be called "bad for Thedas"(or even "bad" for your specific game). And the existence of the Keep tells me that those involved with DA want to keep that going.
if you read what they write. The keep is too complicated for use like the genesis program in Mass Effect
Honestly though I dont know why anyone will bother trying to correct you. You have an opinion completely at odds with everyone else especially based on what we know about the keep.
This is a very backward way of doing things and totally counterproductive. Why not integrate the entire system in the game or as a DLC like we had for Mass Effect 2. How will players with no internetconnection whatsoever be able to even use this feature as it now stands? This is just like Microsoft with the XBOX ONE at start that told everyone it had to always be connected to the internet.
How I understand it, it's a very in depth questionaire that very likely can't be integrated into the main game, or would probably make the beginning of the game *very* boring/tedious if it was implemented as part of the game. There are other reasons why I personally don't think that would work, but just the idea alone that you'd have to remake all of the choices in your previous two games before starting a new game sounds much less appealing to me than what they've been telling us the Keep is - then again that's just me.
The players with no internet connection is a legitimate concern - however those who don't have connection can likely find a place which does have connection long enough to go on the site and create a worldstate; and then again in order to just quickly log in to EA Origins from whatever console they use, and download the worldstate. After that, they've said you can unplug and never plug in to the internet again.
This isn't anything like an always online DRM. It's more akin to downloading a day 1 update.
And pray tell, how will a user (still relevant) with no internetconnection be able to use "the Keep"...? How will a user in the future (9-15 years from now use "the Keep"...?! By "excluding" VERY IMPORTANT content/components in a game, you (the developers) are "longterm" killing it's "future compatibility".
It's been stated that the Keep is intended to be used for all future Dragon Age titles. Supposedly, they plan on continuing the franchise for quite a while, so my guess is that we're going to be covered for a long time. That being said, I imagine there will be a plan for when that date comes closer. Even if there's not (which seems unlikely to me, then again I'm just a fan so I really don't know) I have absolute certainty that people are going to find a way to mod Frostbite 3 - and if that's the case, I'm sure they'll be able to datamine the game and figure out how the Keep options are stored, and create an alternative.
Not the ideal outcome, but I don't believe that people 20 some years down the line who want to play a DA game will be as SOL as you're suggesting.
When it comes to the "main game" something does not feel right in my guts... I noticed lots "semi-forced" path-finding. Let me explain: there is lots of videos from different players/demos done in "same areas" and I notice there is NO ROOM for side exploring i.e. players are forced into paths that give the illusion of "free to explore". Let me explain more in detail: What is the "odds" that 8+ different play videos from different reviewers/players of the same "area" walk EXACTLY the same broken path!? Well, in the videos (all can look it up) players are FORCED into "paths", and YES, from time to time they "branch" out, but this is something that I really predict DA:I will suffer from "down the road" since the game is marketed as something completely different.
Have any of the gameplay videos been done by non-Bioware employees? Because everyone I saw was done by someone who works for the company and is likely told they can only go certain places and do certain things for the presentation.
This is a very backward way of doing things and totally counterproductive. Why not integrate the entire system in the game or as a DLC like we had for Mass Effect 2. How will players with no internetconnection whatsoever be able to even use this feature as it now stands? This is just like Microsoft with the XBOX ONE at start that told everyone it had to always be connected to the internet.
There's been a plethora of reasons in this thread given as to why they haven't put the Keep in the game itself. One of the biggest would be the ability to fix any issues and add onto it as necessary. Microsoft isn't a great comparison for this - you need to connect to the Keep via the start game ONE time to import the world state.
And pray tell, how will a user (still relevant) with no internetconnection be able to use "the Keep"...? How will a user in the future (9-15 years from now use "the Keep"...?! By "excluding" VERY IMPORTANT content/components in a game, you (the developers) are "longterm" killing it's "future compatibility".
They won't. If there's is absolutely no way of getting internet to the console or PC then there will not be a way for the user to import their world state. There is a default world state they can use. But again, since it's a one time connection instead of a continuous one, it at least opens up the options - go to the library, a friend's house, tether your phone, etc. The world state can be set up on anything with a browser, so if you're on the this forum, you're at least able to setup a world state.
It may not seem fair, but the amount of people without any type of internet connection at all are in the minority.
Tell me in what way a customer benefit more with turning on a web browser, logging in with email address/password, clicking in lots boxes, having a virtual savegame created and stored on a server, starting up Dragon Age: Inquisition, login again, clicking in lots buttons and have the savegame transfered to the actual game. All the steps is so totally NOT NEEDED: Just have "the Keep" into the game or as a plain DLC (this has been done with Mass Effect 2 as a DLC when ME2 was released on PS3, and then PC/XBOX 360 could download the DLC too).... or are anyone in their right mind arguing against the logic here? Lets make an easy comparison with different alternatives:
At this point, it's clear you haven't read anything that the Devs had said in regards to WHY they aren't including the Keep as an on disk feature. If you really think the Devs hadn't looked into all possibilities and all situations before deciding that the Keep was the best course of action... okay.
Alternative 2: Built into a physical external program delivered with the game or downloaded from the official DA:I homepage (at least for the PC users) that *without* any forms of logins just create the savegame and copy it into the savegame folder.
Alternative 3: Use a web page with connectivity issues and lots overcomplicated steps with booting up a game after the webpage has been access to log in again inside the game and god knows what issues then will come up, and lets not forget: any user with NO INTERNET can't access the features, and 9-15 years from now nostalgic players wont be able to access "the Keep" or even the co-op multiplayer in DA:I (or ME3 for that matter) becouse EA shut down support for the game (no servers) or gone bankrupt.
Alt 2: They aren't going to give an option to PC users they can't give to console uers in regards to the Keep. And taking external files for the consoles is a touchy subject with Microsoft and Playstation. In the same vein, that's why saving to a flash drive and plugging it into the console instead of connecting to the internet won't be an option at launch.
Alt 3: There's really no sense in worrying about 15 years down the road. At that point, they could easily create an offline method of storing the Keep. It's really not relevant at this point in time.
The Keep will never be able to hold its own candle versus anything Gibbed hopefully makes for Dragon Age: Inquisition regarding "savegame editing". Yes, "the keep" lets you create (with lots of semi-copy-protection strings and online demands) a "startpoint" savegame, but it totally fail doing all the other things: you wont be able to load in a "in-progress" savegame and directly update things/change your race/sex or world events. For the sake of discussion; you are many hours deep in DA:I and "regret" a setting you made in "the keep", but the only way to change it is to start all over... BUT, with Gibbeds editor you just have to load in the savegame (yes, some of gibbeds editors even support XBOX 360 for what its worth) in the editor and fix it
The Keep doesn't need to compete with Gibbed. Just because Gibbed allowed you to change settings mid game, it isn't something the Devs ever set up themselves, so they aren't supporting it. This is in the same vein as those upset that their modded decisions or appearances won't carry over. Sorry... if you go outside the game to change things that's what happens. Anyone not playing on a PC rarely used Gibbed, so the realization that you've regretted a decision and want to change it really doesn't garner any sympathy. That's the way it goes.
Problem with "the Keep" is that it's entering an already existing arena/scene with a sub-par product when it does not have to: "the keep" MUST be "built into" DA:I's character creation system and NOT delivered as a external product. Game developers should NOT CUT CONTENT FROM A GAME AND PUBLISH IT ON A WEB PAGE, it's not what gaming is about: - have ALL the components working RIGHT FROM THE BOX. This is how you MUST do it, period!
They aren't cutting content by not adding it to the game disk. If anything, they're able to add additional options because they aren't subjected to a space limit.
As a endnote I also want to cover the multiplayer co-op component in more detail since it has relevance in the "grand scheme of things" as it now stands: By DELIBERATELY removing all forms of co-op OFFLINE mode, LAN and DIRECT IP CONNECTION from DA:I and only providing a EA forced server connection to access ALL co-op content, that part of the game will forever die (as told earlier) when EA servers go down (permanent one day), and how do you as developers fell about 9-15 years from now have the entire co-op content UNPLAYABLE in DA:I by nostalgic users?
The main reason (correct me if I am wrong) with forced EA server dependency is the "micro transaction" paywall exposure. It's said that no player needs to by the ingame currency called "platinum" to enjoy co-op, but still, here we are: a customer is BUYING a singleplayer game with a co-op multiplayer feature and have to PAY REAL LIFE CASH to CHEAT, yes, you read it: pay to OFFICIALLY BE ABLE TO CHEAT over players that don't pay. This "scamming activity" is rotten to the core! Why should not ALL gamers EQUALLY be able to enjoy co-op multiplayer, but oh no, let players be able to CHEAT and get all items/gear/classes or whatever earlier *IF* they pay real life cash. For heaven sake: WHEN A CUSTOMER BUYS THE GAME, its a DONE DEAL, sell cut content as a DLC and expansion packs or whatever, but DON'T SCAM/EXPLOIT CUSTOMERS with content you already sold... its a shameful bad-karma activity nothing good ever will come out from.
The "pay-to-cheat" concept is when I think on it even more horrible than "the keep", yes, this entire affair has "Sim City 2013 constant online lies", "Mass Effect 3 ending lies" and "Dragon Age 2's recycle flair" (DA2 truthfully only had the quality of an expansionpack and not standalone game anyways) all over it... Why drag down a good company name in the dirt. As a "developer" one have to uphold certain standards and take a stand: - assisting a company with scamming customers with a co-op multiplayer concept is horrible. Please include a "offline mode" for co-op and LAN/Direct connect alternatives for players that so desire as options to EA forced server connectivity "micro scam transaction solution", its the RIGHT THING to do. And include/build in "the keep" into the game as a part of the character creation.
Oh Christ. Pay to cheat? Seriously? How old are you? Just like ME3, no one has to drop one red cent into MP if they choose not to. It's an add on. It's totally optional. ALL of the DLC for MP is coming FREE to users. If you don't like MP, don't play it. It's really that simple. But there are plenty of people that can attest to not paying a dime and getting all the good gear, etc from ME3 MP. Cheating = going around the rules. Paying for additional in game money does not equal cheating. Get serious.
ME3 MP was a HUGE success - so hardly a 'short term' desire. They haven't created an offline mode for that since it's been out the past 2 years. Highly unlikely they'll 'need to' create one for DAI.
When it comes to the "main game" something does not feel right in my guts... I noticed lots "semi-forced" path-finding. Let me explain: there is lots of videos from different players/demos done in "same areas" and I notice there is NO ROOM for side exploring i.e. players are forced into paths that give the illusion of "free to explore". Let me explain more in detail: What is the "odds" that 8+ different play videos from different reviewers/players of the same "area" walk EXACTLY the same broken path!? Well, in the videos (all can look it up) players are FORCED into "paths", and YES, from time to time they "branch" out, but this is something that I really predict DA:I will suffer from "down the road" since the game is marketed as something completely different.
Seriously? If you give 10 players 20 minutes in the same area, they're going to go around and discover some of the same stuff. All of the demos I've seen of the Fallow Mire in itself have different stuff happening. There's not much of an illusion. Nearly all of them went off the beaten path and found new events, creatures, or loot that vary.
If you are so leery of the Keep and everything DAI so far, don't purchase it, and wait for the user reviews.
Presumably the reason why they always walk around the same area is because the builds they show off are locked to that area
[...]
Let me clarify some of my concerns:
The Keep can without problems be integrated in the game as a "option" for people who so desire, so not everyone would be forced to play trough it.
The co-op "multplayer" part demands constant access to the internet even when it does not need to in reality, and that *IS* a very serious concern since with offline mode a single player could have accessed the content and with LAN/Direct IP the contect could have been accessed locally or outside the "EA server dependency".
Regarding gameplay videos, yes, many review-sites has been able to play (non Bioware employees), and my alarming observations is that Dragon Age: Inquisition is more "forced path" than previously told. And yes, the maps are "big" but DA:I is played more like the 38 Studios (bankrupt company) game called "Kingdoms of Amalur" (and that does not bode well looking on how much THAT concept benefited that game and company).
Edit:
I would also like to add, that excluding "features" to users when it's not needed is a bad trend. Yes, I actually agree with many of your "arguments" against "my arguments", but sometimes you shoot over the target: - motivating/defending "bad changes" will lead to even worse changes down the road. Look on Sim City 2013 and the "online" controversy and how gamers where promised a "ending situation" in Mass Effect 3 was NOT delivered... its all those "small steps" that turn into large changes that in the "long term" makes most modern games "harder to access" for customers.
Internet/online access is FORCED on users to access content when it does not have to be like that. In WHAT way is many modern games made BETTER by it? Example: DA:I could have an offline mode for co-op multiplayer, but no, everyone has to be online or no access, period! Why not include independant LAN/Direct Connect trough IP adress? It's all easy to do, but as I tried to explain:
Many modern game developers/publishers deliberately cut out content/features that give their customers freedom to enjoy the game outside a controlled environment. Why is there even a OPTION to buy for real life cash a "in-game" currency to get items faster in DA:I co-op multiplayer? Do you not all see that NO OTHER option exist to "play" co-op multplayer than the one forced on users trough the EA servers.
This is all a economical decision, and I still stand by what I said earlier: DA:I's co-op multiplayer's "platinum currency" is PLAIN ORGANIZED cheating, yeah, cheating all the customers who don't PAY to get items/classes faster. Why cant ALL players get EVERYTHING same time fair and square with the same rule-set? Anyone using REAL LIFE CASH to bypass something in a singeplayer game with a co-op part in it is "cheating". Period!
Removing options is never a good thing, and selling things in an already sold game is plain downright scamming....
Let me clarify some of my concerns:
The Keep can without problems be integrated in the game as a "option" for people who so desire, so not everyone would be forced to play trough it.
Are you speaking from experience on the simplicity of integrating this into the game for five platforms or are you just assuming? And if there is an error with the keep after integrating it how much should bioware charge customers to install a patch designed for their specific system or should they just shoulder the charges from sony/microsoft to use bandwidth?
The co-op "multplayer" part demands constant access to the internet even when it does not need to in reality, and that *IS* a very serious concern since with offline mode a snigle player could have accessed the content and with LAN/Direct IP the contect could have been accessed locally or outside the "EA server dependency".
So your concern here is that you think you should not need to go online to play an online multiplayer mode?
Regarding gameplay videos, yes, many review-sites has been able to play (non Bioware employees), and my alarming observations is that Dragon Age: Inquisition is more "forced path" than previously told. And yes, the maps are "big" but DA:I is played more like the 38 Studios (bankrupt company) game called "Kingdoms of Amalur" (and that does not bode well looking on how much THAT concept benefited that game and company).
These gameplay videos are all intended to be teasers, something to get the player interested in the game. Obviously they are not going to let the person who is playing a teaser for the game wander all about the map.
Because the idea is to have the Keep function as a living document. The Keep as it looks on the release day of Inquisition is not its final form. The idea is that things can be added to it, both choices in future games as well as choices that were missed in the old games. We can't have Inquisition being patched over and over again every time they want to change up the Keep, thus it functions as an online service instead.This is a very backward way of doing things and totally counterproductive. Why not integrate the entire system in the game or as a DLC like we had for Mass Effect 2.
Let me clarify some of my concerns:
The Keep can without problems be integrated in the game as a "option" for people who so desire, so not everyone would be forced to play trough it.
The co-op "multplayer" part demands constant access to the internet even when it does not need to in reality, and that *IS* a very serious concern since with offline mode a single player could have accessed the content and with LAN/Direct IP the contect could have been accessed locally or outside the "EA server dependency".
Regarding gameplay videos, yes, many review-sites has been able to play (non Bioware employees), and my alarming observations is that Dragon Age: Inquisition is more "forced path" than previously told. And yes, the maps are "big" but DA:I is played more like the 38 Studios (bankrupt company) game called "Kingdoms of Amalur" (and that does not bode well looking on how much THAT concept benefited that game and company).
Stop stating the Keep without problems can be integrated as an in game option. You have zero idea of what went into making the Keep or why they decided against doing that. Do you really think that when they sat down to discuss how decisions could be carried over and what the best course of action was they didn't discuss that as one of the options?
Co-op is online. That shouldn't be a big shock - that's pretty much the norm in MP games now and it was the same way 2 years ago when ME3 integrated MP. Since it doesn't affect the SP game experience whatsoever, the only thing you're missing out on without internet in regards to this, is the experience of playing it. Part of that experience is to be online with other individuals. I don't play much MP in general, but I can't think of a single MP co-op component lately that doesn't require online connectivity. If there is, it's definitely not the norm.
As far as gameplay videos... your clarification doesn't really offer any clarification at all. Yes, the hands on demos we have seen have been the same content. If 10 people are confined in the same area for 20 minutes to explore they're going to run into the same stuff. Considering that none of the demos of the Fallow Mire consist of the players going into the castle and fighting the main antagonist of the area (that I've seen), I think that's pretty impressive. Spending 20 minutes or so inside the area and NOT touching the main portion of that storyline? Fine by me. And each one I saw had something unique about it.
Edit:
I would also like to add, that excluding "features" to users when it's not needed is a bad trend. Yes, I actually agree with many of your "arguments" against "my arguments", but sometimes you shoot over the target: - motivating/defending "bad changes" will lead to even worse changes down the road. Look on Sim City 2013 and the "online" controversy and how gamers where promised a "ending situation" in Mass Effect 3 was NOT delivered... its all those "small steps" that turn into large changes that in the "long term" makes most modern games "harder to access" for customers.
Internet/online access is FORCED on users to access content when it does not have to be like that. In WHAT way is many modern games made BETTER by it? Example: DA:I could have an offline mode for co-op multiplayer, but no, everyone has to be online or no access, period! Why not include independant LAN/Direct Connect trough IP adress? It's all easy to do, but as I tried to explain:
Many modern game developers/publishers deliberately cut out content/features that give their customers freedom to enjoy the game outside a controlled environment. Why is there even a OPTION to buy for real life cash a "in-game" currency to get items faster in DA:I co-op multiplayer? Do you not all see that NO OTHER option exist to "play" co-op multplayer than the one forced on users trough the EA servers.
This is all a economical decision, and I still stand by what I said earlier: DA:I's co-op multiplayer's "platinum currency" is PLAIN ORGANIZED cheating, yeah, cheating all the customers who don't PAY to get items/classes faster. Why cant ALL players get EVERYTHING same time fair and square with the same rule-set? Anyone using REAL LIFE CASH to bypass something in a singeplayer game with a co-op part in it is "cheating". Period!
Removing options is never a good thing, and selling things in an already sold game is plain downright scamming....
ok its really annoying when someone replies to a post by editng a previous post.. posting actual replies are awesome.
but in response to your new points, so many new points..
What features exactly have been excluded in DAI given your apparent first hand knowledge of the game?
If you want to play multiplayer of course its going to be online, thats kind of the basics behind online multiplayer. Have they said they have not included a lan option, and even if they haven't how many games actually do these days besides COD?
As for the rest of your edit... microtransactions pay for dlc, devs to work on future titles etc. They are also optional, pay for them if you want or don't. It's up to you. And if you do pay for in game currency, it's not cheating.
Edit:
I would also like to add, that excluding "features" to users when it's not needed is a bad trend. Yes, I actually agree with many of your "arguments" against "my arguments", but sometimes you shoot over the target: - motivating/defending "bad changes" will lead to even worse changes down the road. Look on Sim City 2013 and the "online" controversy and how gamers where promised a "ending situation" in Mass Effect 3 was NOT delivered... its all those "small steps" that turn into large changes that in the "long term" makes most modern games "harder to access" for customers.
Internet/online access is FORCED on users to access content when it does not have to be like that. In WHAT way is many modern games made BETTER by it? Example: DA:I could have an offline mode for co-op multiplayer, but no, everyone has to be online or no access, period! Why not include independant LAN/Direct Connect trough IP adress? It's all easy to do, but as I tried to explain:
Many modern game developers/publishers deliberately cut out content/features that give their customers freedom to enjoy the game outside a controlled environment. Why is there even a OPTION to buy for real life cash a "in-game" currency to get items faster in DA:I co-op multiplayer? Do you not all see that NO OTHER option exist to "play" co-op multplayer than the one forced on users trough the EA servers.
This is all a economical decision, and I still stand by what I said earlier: DA:I's co-op multiplayer's "platinum currency" is PLAIN ORGANIZED cheating, yeah, cheating all the customers who don't PAY to get items/classes faster. Why cant ALL players get EVERYTHING same time fair and square with the same rule-set? Anyone using REAL LIFE CASH to bypass something in a singeplayer game with a co-op part in it is "cheating". Period!
Removing options is never a good thing, and selling things in an already sold game is plain downright scamming....
Well, that's not annoying after I already replied 
Re: "Defending bad changes" - bad is entirely your opinion.
What features have been excluded? Sim City really doesn't have a place in this argument since it wasn't made by Bioware. ME3's ending was a huge controversy, and they fixed it. I don't really see how that relates to cutting features? Regardless, it seems irrelevant since MP has zero effect on SP whatsoever. There connection isn't there, whereas it was in ME3. Problem solved.
Internet is part of modern society. That's just the way it is. Connectivity is a party of life nowadays for the majority of society. That's the way it goes. You don't have to like it, but it's happening as games move forward and utilize the technology they have. They aren't going to remain stagnant and it's not cost effective to cover every possible scenario when creating a game.
Your issue with microtransactions is literally the fact that they exist, and I can't help you with that. Everyone playing MP has the same opportunity to utilize MTs if they choose they want to get higher gear faster. It's not cheating - it's available to all. It's also entirely optional. Since there is no PvP in DAMP I don't see why you care if someone chooses to spend $10 to get a better mage staff faster than you can obtain it? They aren't overpowering their character and killing you because of that better staff. If it was PvP I could get behind the irritation, because that can be used against you. But it's not.
You're idea of scamming is silly. Giving you the option to purchase something is entirely different than forcing it upon you. There's no way to scam you if you choose not to be scammed. 'I can buy that gun for $3? No thanks. I'll just wait until I get it in game.' HUGE CONSPIRACY. I guess the alternative is to not provide free DLC, but to charge $15 for a DLC map/weapons pack. Sounds much better.
In complaining about features being taken away, you're neglecting to realize that they're giving more instead. The OPTION to pay for what you want OR to play the game and find it down the road. They're giving us 300 plot flags in the DAI Keep, which certainly would have been watered down had it been on disk.
Mass Effect 3 had microtransactions and an amazing multiplayer experience. Microtransactions help level the playing field for working adults who have a spare extra $5 but not as much spare time. It's not a scam. It's an option you can chose to take part of or not. BioWare created a near perfect system with ME3 MP so I think any concerns for DA:I MP are utterly unfounded.
As for Dragon Age Keep, I think it presents a tremendous opportunity for people crossing platforms, have lost their save games, or otherwise want to 'retcon' their own save-states. It makes sense to have it all in one place online as opposed to "in-game" because it makes very little sense to waste resources developing a UI and everything for a feature that could be created and beta tested in one centralized website. The fact that it requires a one-time internet connection to load your save-state is hardly need for concern except for people who have no internet access. While this is a downer for those folks, they are likely to be a very tiny minority. Having lived in a rural area I sympathize with poor internet access, but taking valuable time and resources away from other elements of the game (after being delayed already) to spend on a feature that very few people appreciate is ill-advised.
I'm not a beta tester so I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine so as long as it's not a bugged quest. For example, the Male Dwarf Noble can have a son, and you can do well for your son by asking the new Dwarven King (Bhelen or Harrowmont, whoever you chose) to accept him and his mother as a member of their house, but you have to set it up before hand and then keep your end of the bargain and make them King. Otherwise, your son remains a casteless bastard. However, the quest is bugged in that no matter what you actually do, the game entry and your save file say you failed to provide for your son and his mother. So, as long as you can remember your choices from the info in those 'completed quest' entries, then it's sufficient, I'd imagine.
If I'm going to be rebuilding the faces of my old characters I'll need to have the 360 games running to reference them
Just for clarification, the Keep won't allow you to rebuild your faces. There's no character creator in the Keep - it's in the game itself
Also - the son thing is in reference to one of the dwarf origins. If you didn't play dwarf, you wouldn't have one.
Ah! A VERY glitched quest then!Just for clarification, the Keep won't allow you to rebuild your faces. There's no character creator in the Keep - it's in the game itself
Also - the son thing is in reference to one of the dwarf origins. If you didn't play dwarf, you wouldn't have one.
I'm extremely OCD about making faces - the idea of having to make THREE and get them exactly right first go is AWFUL! I wonder if the game will let you save faces, ala the downloadable face generator they let us have before DAO
Ah! A VERY glitched quest then!
Yeah, it is a very glitched quest. I'm pretty sure you get the "You failed to provide a life for your son" no matter what your origin was, despite what it was supposed to be - I know I had it in my journal for my Mage Warden. :/
Ah! A VERY glitched quest then!
Wait, no character generator in the keep?! It does look like you choose at least the name of the previous characters?
Ooh boy
Hey devs - can you give us a face generator pre-launch? It would be VERRA helpful
Yeah, we've definitely seen evidence in the Keep that you at least choose the personality/gender/class/etc of Hawke. The Devs had said that we'd get to customize the appearance of any returning character. Since we know there's no CC in the Keep itself, it's obviously in game somewhere, but no details have really been discussed at all. I imagine they won't discuss how that particular issue will work pre-launch.
Yeah, we've definitely seen evidence in the Keep that you at least choose the personality/gender/class/etc of Hawke. The Devs had said that we'd get to customize the appearance of any returning character. Since we know there's no CC in the Keep itself, it's obviously in game somewhere, but no details have really been discussed at all. I imagine they won't discuss how that particular issue will work pre-launch.
Let me clarify some of my concerns:
The Keep can without problems be integrated in the game as a "option" for people who so desire, so not everyone would be forced to play trough it.
Are you speaking from experience on the simplicity of integrating this into the game for five platforms or are you just assuming? And if there is an error with the keep after integrating it how much should bioware charge customers to install a patch designed for their specific system or should they just shoulder the charges from sony/microsoft to use bandwidth?
The co-op "multplayer" part demands constant access to the internet even when it does not need to in reality, and that *IS* a very serious concern since with offline mode a snigle player could have accessed the content and with LAN/Direct IP the contect could have been accessed locally or outside the "EA server dependency".
So your concern here is that you think you should not need to go online to play an online multiplayer mode?
Regarding gameplay videos, yes, many review-sites has been able to play (non Bioware employees), and my alarming observations is that Dragon Age: Inquisition is more "forced path" than previously told. And yes, the maps are "big" but DA:I is played more like the 38 Studios (bankrupt company) game called "Kingdoms of Amalur" (and that does not bode well looking on how much THAT concept benefited that game and company).
These gameplay videos are all intended to be teasers, something to get the player interested in the game. Obviously they are not going to let the person who is playing a teaser for the game wander all about the map.
You really do not have to defend the developers of DA:I since they have access to the "source code" and know how to do their job, do not idiot-declare them please! But to answer your first statement: It's quite simple to have questions with corresponding flags, so you don't have to worry the least about errors and things like that on a simple thing like a "questionnaire" that I can promise you! I stand my ground on: Not including "the keep's" questionnaire in DA:I from the start go/or as DLC (as a option to click in for users that so desire) is part of a bigger play that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "complications" in developing the feature in the first place, no no, I bet it's some part in a (for the moment) hidden EA strategy (more on that when it fully unfolds).
Co-op multiplay:
Regarding your words-play, yes, very funny, but if you read my posts in-detail you'll see I represent the users that WANT a feature to play co-op multiplayer ALONE in offline mode. Technically its the same as gamers that run server emulators for the biggest mmorpgs out there, you set it up and then play alone in the world (cant elaborate too much given the nature of this forum)
All boils down to how far you are willing to go to make something "complicated" easy or the other way around. Offline co-op multiplay is a good thing, so why not have in in the game? LAN and Direct Connect (see on most other games with multiplayer support in them) is also a good thing. To *ONLY* have EA server dependent multiplayer is really really REALLY bad (in the long run).
Regarding the maps:
From what I heard when demos was playing out and all that the "entire game was more or less finished", and next thing we hear is that the release date been changed, see where I am going? There is a REASON why the game got it's release date changed. Please understand we have the "KOTOR" effect here (Knights of the Old republic) where both games (especially the last one) where thrown out on the market BEFORE it was finished. I don't want to put EA in a bad light here, but most of the EA games are rushed out the door and developers have to make huge compromises else they literally get fired (its a damn cruel world thats for sure). I dont have the name in my head now as I don't play sports game, but there was one EA game (think it was football) where they put out an EXACT copy of the game sold a earlier year with a minor text and graphic change.
The story to be found here is that ONE mistake is not a issue, not even serveral, BUT this is a company that has a SYSTEM of rushing out UNFINISHED games and including unwanted/needed things just to sell content (don't have me start on The Sims series... don't lol), with DLC's the issue escalated even further where developers got instructions to CUT existing content from games and deliver it as DLC's, and with ONLINE access the situation escalated even further...
Sim City 2013 is a perfect leading example on when the "greed" is over-reaching and there IS serious consequences (feel free to look up EA stock listings and the time of gaming incidents). Sadly most EA games have had to suffer on way or another on the greed-need, and regarding Bioware, just take a look on all titles they have made under the EA brand... If you *LIKE* cut content released as DLC, forced online access (when it's been proved it's not even needed), micro transactions, rushed game endings, worthless quest system/journal (Mass Effect 3) poorly executed decision to make a expansion pack INTO a full fledged lackluster standalone game with recycled content (Dragon Age 2) and things "in that spirit" you are in damn good luck, because as mentioned earlier: there is lots of more (as I would say) "bad things" in store for us.
But people do vote with their wallets, and it's a very well known fact that big companies (no name mentioned lol) is forcing/paying review sites to POST faked reviews of game, for fun look on "metacritic" and the game "Total War: Rome II" then continue with Dragon Age, Mass Effect... see how the scores DIFFER hugely in many cases with the "official review sites consensus" - indeed, they are "bought" and gladly like with the case of Total War: Rome II promote a TERRIBLE product.
My answer to why all "bad changes" can enter into the games is because review-sites post fake reviews, and that the official game forums delete all treads that stand out (still amazed why my account is not deleted over here... well, truth been known I have actually gotten a "multiple posts removed" and a "verbal warning" but I guess that's well deserved since I am quite open minded in pointing out lies and scams when I see them).
Regarding the Mass Effect 3 ending (as a good example) the situation totally went out of control, and you can only close so many treads before "independent" reviewers (feel free to goggle up Angry Joe) and digital newspapers see a "story" in the brewing. I fully understand that it's great to go in defense of very anticipated game like Dragon Age: Inquisition, and rightfully so, many users have very solid arguments against what I bring to the table, but...
Any serious gamer can't go in defense of a company that systematically is known to "rush out" unfinished games onto the market, or implementing "micro transactions" (god how I hate that silly word) to pay-to-play content you already paid for, cutting content from the games later released as dlc's and closing down all online solutions (LAN/Direct Connect) in favor of their own server dependent (often not working) solution, and most importantly "lock out" players that do not meet criteria "X" from content (in this case player no able to go online)
The moral of the story is: with paid reviewers, closed treads, (and its not uncommon with employees trolling/leaking on bogus accounts too in both directions) that many "crappy/buggy/unfinished" games are sold to YOU the consumer. Always take the time to think, and never be afraid to point out if you don't like a feature/game... in todays "digital noise" you have to keep repeating yourself, never giving up, and just like with Mass Effect 3 and its ending you CAN make a difference!
Retour en haut
