similar to Elder scrolls? because outside of the main quest the majority of the quests in dai are mostly fetch quests or for the most part very short quests. Should they add long side quests which play out like a main quest, minus the cinematic etc? Or have factions/guilds that the player can get involved in for added rpg elements?
Though, I guess they dont want to completely rip elder scrolls off.
Guilds in TES games have become meaningless after TES III: Morrowind, so I'd rather not see it unless they do it right. The way it was done in TES IV & V felt utterly wrong as you could become head of every guild, whether it made sense or not.
They don't need to copy TES in every aspect, I already felt the dragons were too much a nod towards Skyrim (without the annoying open world attacks of dragons there). What they should copy (or take inspiration from) is the interactive & reactive world.
Guilds in TES games have become meaningless after TES III: Morrowind, so I'd rather not see it unless they do it right. The way it was done in TES IV & V felt utterly wrong as you could become head of every guild, whether it made sense or not.
They don't need to copy TES in every aspect, I already felt the dragons were too much a nod towards Skyrim (without the annoying open world attacks of dragons there). What they should copy (or take inspiration from) is the interactive & reactive world.
The games called Dragon Age, there have always been Dragons in it.
I already felt the dragons were too much a nod towards Skyrim
I actually, I very much get the impression the dragons were more a nod towards the entire Dragon Age franchise and namesake 
I could be wrong as I only played Oblivion and Skyrim, but I'm pretty certain that Skyrim is the only TES game with dragons in it, so I'd consider it more likely that the dragons in Skyrim were a nod to Dragon Age, rather than the other way around....
I'm guessing this is your first Dragon Age game?
The games called Dragon Age, there have always been Dragons in it.
I'm quite aware of that. It's more the amount of dragons you see compared to the one or two dragons we had in previous games.
I don't think they need guilds, but I definitely do think they need more chained side quests that create a longer and more in depth storyline than "i walked over to the castle and got this guy medicine". I think a lot of the dislike for DA:I sidequesting comes from the lack of depth, which largely comes from quests having different twists and turns that get you immersed, rather than the dislike coming from blatantly bad writing or dry storytelling.
I'm quite aware of that. It's more the amount of dragons you see compared to the one or two dragons we had in previous games.
There are also more resources, more characters, more loots, more sidequests, more everything, because it's a much bigger game than the previous 2. Had they kept to having just a small handful of dragons, they'd become very diluted in the setting.
I actually, I very much get the impression the dragons were more a nod towards the entire Dragon Age franchise and namesake
I could be wrong as I only played Oblivion and Skyrim, but I'm pretty certain that Skyrim is the only TES game with dragons in it, so I'd consider it more likely that the dragons in Skyrim were a nod to Dragon Age, rather than the other way around....
I'm guessing this is your first Dragon Age game?
No, far from it 
Played all of them, though I never finished DA II.
And no, the dragons in Skyrim weren't really a nod towards DA, the TES lore always had dragons (the main god of the imperial pantheon, Akatosh, is known as the dragon god of time), although they were thought to be extinct hence they weren't featured in earlier TES games aside from "dragonlings" in TES II: Daggerfall (which are more like drakes though rather than actual dragons). You also saw a dragon in TES IV: Oblivion when Martyn got turned into the avatar of Akatosh to battle Mehrunes Dagon.
My gripe with the dragons in DA:I is simply that they have become too common (much like how I considered Skyrim's dragons to be the equivalent of cliff racers in TES III: Morrowind due to their frequent appearance).
You also saw a dragon in TES IV: Oblivion when Martyn got turned into the avatar of Akatosh to battle Mehrunes Dagon.
That's right, it's been a long time, so my mistake.
But all dragon age games have had them 'sprinkled around'. I wouldn't be impressed if a game the size of Dragon Age Inquisition only had 2 or 3 dragons, it'd be off scale.
In skyrim, they are infinite, respawning and underpowered (not considering those related to the main quest, which I never finished). I can be wondering around, trip over a dragon, and kill it, all by chance. In Inquisition, there are 10 extremely powerful Dragons that need strategical preparation before I advance. If I find one by change? Maker help me.
I would honestly say there is not a single part of me that truly believes the presence of Dragons in Skyrim influenced the presence of Dragons in DAI in any way.
What they should copy (or take inspiration from) is the interactive & reactive world.
I have yet to play a game with world so static and uninteractive as Skyrim.
You literally cannot change ANYTHING (apart from random lines guards spat at you when you walk near them and said guards' uniform.
I'm quite aware of that. It's more the amount of dragons you see compared to the one or two dragons we had in previous games.
There are lots of Dragons in Origins. You are thinking of the few fully grown High Dragons. Remember that according to the lore, the reason the current Age was named Dragon is because of the reappearance of Dragons after thinking they were extinct.
I have yet to play a game with world so static and uninteractive as Skyrim.
You literally cannot change ANYTHING (apart from random lines guards spat at you when you walk near them and said guards' uniform.
I don't know if we've played the same game, but Skyrim's world wasn't nearly as static as DA:I for me.
It's stuff like people reacting to you stealing stuff, murdering people, breaking into someone's home, but also seeing merchants wander between hubs or patrols attacking a bandit fortress/camp, villages getting wiped out by vampires or dragons, etc. Also, try wearing certain armors when entering some cities... 
As for not being able to change anything in Skyrim... yeah, they don't let you make big decisions. It's just something Bethesda never does and the reason why their stories feel rather bland. But then again, neither did the world visibly change a lot in DA:I (some minor changes, sure. But nothing major).
None of this, however, has anything to do with the OP and the question about guilds. So back on topic:
They aren't really needed. More fleshed out area storylines on the other hand would be nice.
I wouldn't go for guilds as such, as it seems such a cheap way of rogue quests this way, mage quests this way etc.
But as has been said, some longer quest chains would be nice to break up the fetch quests.
I love the guild quests, well in Oblivion; some of Skyrim's were meh, but I'm not sure how well they would fit into a Dragon Age game. I mean, depending on how the Mage-Templar war ends up officially, maybe there could be a Mage's Guild instead of Cirlces. I just don't know if it would "fit" well with this series.
I wouldn't say guilds, that's an unncessary derivative... but non-critical plot arcs that span multiple areas would be good.
As it stands, each DAI zones have their own story arcs, told through non-cinematic dialogue and (especially) through exploration and objects found within the game.
I think it's a logical progression from what we get in DAI.
If it happens and there is a DA4 set up as a open world RPG id see a possibility of choosing a nation a faction and then a guild inside that faction.
Example, choose race and face, choose class, place attributes reflecting your preference, choose starting skills. then by race, class and some attribute choices a number of nations appears to choose from. then a faction like the chantry, the circles or the grey wardens and so on. Then a guild like in the chantry there is the seekers which could be the warriors guild.
-before we hear anything about a DA4 it will take a good five years as its approx the life span of the console market.
Something like guilds or factions might have been nice. Maybe doing certain quests or making certain story choices would increase or decrease your "influence" with certain factions and affected your ability to be allies with them. Maybe having more influence with a certain faction affects the tangible perks that faction could offer to your cause. Doing something like that might have given all the side quests some purpose that affected the main story line.
They need to have smaller quest that actually effect the game. Furthermore they need more npcs travelling the world within the context of what is happening in the world. Someone might point out there is a breach in the sky for this game and people aren't really moving around. I would point out that I've found people camping out in dangerous areas... What Skryim does great is they use these random encounters such as people camping around and make them into mini events. Oh, your camping around? A group of bandits come by or randomly a dragon stops by and wrecks havoc.
Dragon age however does not have these small random events enough. Yea two enemies may fight each other, rarely. We do these requisition missions but they don't affect anything in world really. Power and influence are useless and they could of been much more. Still, I found the game enjoyable, the first step to making this open world idea better is to move away from the last gen consoles.
Dragon Age has always had guilds of a sort. Unfortunately or fortunately, according to how you feel about them, they are almost all crime guilds or mercenary companies. The dwarves have classic guilds. Personally I can live without guilds, but I can live with them as well. If they are well executed and the interaction with the PC is not messed up, it should present no problem. I wouldn't care to have guild quests and interactions dominate the game. I'm one of those guys that will play almost anything once. If you're a designer and want replays, you'll need to keep my interest, however. Having said that, I usually only buy a game once and never throw it away. I've got Secrets Of The Silver Blades and Pools of Radiance, etc. on a hard disk somewhere in my junk. I did buy Balder's Gate Enhanced just to see it at 1440p. What can I say?
Guest_Imanol de Tafalla_*
No.
Bioware should to protagonists who are already members of one faction. Trying to make multiple joinable factions would cost resources that take away from the core experience.
They did kinda in Da2 when we got to kirkwall but it be nice if we had another more personal game in which we could lead or make our own guild
Guilds that oppose between them like Morrowind? fine. Guilds like Skyrim where you can be guildmaster of everything? please no.
Guilds in TES games have become meaningless after TES III: Morrowind, so I'd rather not see it unless they do it right. The way it was done in TES IV & V felt utterly wrong as you could become head of every guild, whether it made sense or not.
They don't need to copy TES in every aspect, I already felt the dragons were too much a nod towards Skyrim (without the annoying open world attacks of dragons there). What they should copy (or take inspiration from) is the interactive & reactive world.
You are aware that the DA franchise has always had dragons in it, yes? As far as I'm aware, Skyrim was the first TES game. DAI's world is far more interactive and reactive than Skyrims rigid world.
To the OP, no. Let Bioware continue their winning formula. If I wanted to play a boring open world game where my choices didn't matter and my dialogue options were linear, I'd play TES games.
Retour en haut