159 réponses à ce sujet

[otis0310]

Umm, no. EA acquired Bioware back in 2007, I think it was. Early enough to have their label on the first Mass Effect. So they surely had some influence on DAO.

 

Yes, you are right, DAO came out two years later.  Still given the development time of DAO and how many things would already be unchangeable by that time, two years  might not be a lot.

 

After all they can hardly say "make it multiplayer"  "Make it more action oriented" if the basic mechanics were already in place.  Even though they could have changed it, they might have decided not to because it was too expensive.

 

Not to mention in fairness to EA most of the problems it has had was in recent years, partly because of concepts like "games are too hard" , "all games should be multiplayer" and the disasterous trilogy (in my mind) that was ME3, Sims 4, and DAI that resulted from it.

 

They had not had those problems then, so maybe the management then was not the same people we know (and for a lot of us hate) right now.

[(Disgusted noise.)]

Because DAO is massively overrated via nostalgia colored glasses and even if they did make DAO2 people would still ****** all the same.

[10K]

I wouldn't mind a Origins 2. But BW stated they have no plans to bring back the warden story, and how can you have Origins 2 without the warden. So I'd say this is a factor in why we're not going to see a Origins 2. Personally I'd be happy if BW would stick to a certain protagonist for a while for the DA series. Because as you said, every game feels new and very inconsistent and I think the different protagonist plays a role in causing that inconsistency. So I wouldn't mind Origins 2, but I know that's not going to happen. So I really would like BW to focus on the inquisitor and a sequel for him. I consider Inquisition a failure, but I think the story had more potential than it showed.   

[AresKeith]

A proper sequel would still have origin stories (or do you really want to say that DA:I's approach was better?) but it would also be a completely new story with new characters etc.

 

This I somewhat agree with and hopefully happens next (though I don't mind returning characters) but it doesn't really have to be an "origin" story, just a playable intro in-general 

 

It would still retain the identity of DA:O while exploring new areas and stories, so no cartoony and rushed DA2 which tried to be ME and also no unnecessary open world like in DA:I 

 

It doesn't need to retain the "identity of Origins" the entire DA series is about events that happen in the Dragon Age, it doesn't have to be like Origins in order to do that just because you don't like how DAI was

 

No need to go all Disney either with DA:I and sanitize everything 

 

Same as my post above this

 

This is why DAO is massively overrated

[otis0310]

You still never addressed what a "proper sequel" to Origins is

 

 

I think this is self explanatory.

 

DAO was deep, rich world that to you could immerse yourslef in.  It did not have the rehashed environments of DA2 or the whole open world filled with fetch quests and randomly spawning monsters like DAI.  Instead it was well crafted with few balance issues, no rehashed maps, and areas that were exciting to explore, not just filler.

 

Also, unlike DA2, and DAI the game revolved around controlling a party in tactical combat.  You could have Alistair run up to the biggest guy and shield bash him and enter a threatening to pose.  You could have Morrigan hit that group of archers with a fireball, have Lelliana shoot the mage in the distance.  You could do this all without  having to pause the game and give orders because the tactics were advanced enough to let you customize the AI.

 

Heck, for PC users there is a mod that makes it even more powerful.  With it you could tell Zevran to flank the big guy Alistair is attacking.

 

A true sequel to Origins would incorprorate these aspects. DA2 does not, the combat is not well done, the maps are reused, and the tactics are almost meaningless.  DAI is worse with combat being incredibly clunky, the maps being of large empty areas containing mostly filler, and the tactics completely removed.

[AresKeith]

I think this is self explanatory.

 

DAO was deep, rich world that to you could immerse yourslef in.  It did not have the rehashed environments of DA2 or the whole open world filled with fetch quests and randomly spawning monsters like DAI.  Instead it was well crafted with few balance issues, no rehashed maps, and areas that were exciting to explore, not just filler.

 

Also, unlike DA2, and DAI the game revolved around controlling a party in tactical combat.  You could have Alistair run up to the biggest guy and shield bash him and enter a threatening to pose.  You could have Morrigan hit that group of archers with a fireball, have Lelliana shoot the mage in the distance.  You could do this all without  having to pause the game and give orders because the tactics were advanced enough to let you customize the AI.

 

Heck, for PC users there is a mod that makes it even more powerful.  With it you could tell Zevran to flank the big guy Alistair is attacking.

 

A true sequel to Origins would incorprorate these aspects. DA2 does not, the combat is not well done, the maps are reused, and the tactics are almost meaningless.  DAI is worse with combat being incredibly clunky, the maps being of large empty areas containing mostly filler, and the tactics completely removed.

 

Really, I found DAI just as immerse as Origins. Sure the world had more fetch quests than usual

 

I honestly thought DAI's combat was better than both Origins and DA2's, Origin's combat was clunky, slow, and more of a chore than DAI's combat claims to be

[otis0310]

 

It doesn't need to retain the "identity of Origins" the entire DA series is about events that happen in the Dragon Age, it doesn't have to be like Origins in order to do that just because you don't like how DAI was

 

 

Actually you are wrong.

 

If the next Call of Duty was point and click adventure game, it would not be Call of Duty anymore.  It would not matter if it was about the same characters in the same era or not.  The entire gameplay changed from an action oriented shooter to a slower paced game.

 

This is the same for Dragon Age.

[AresKeith]

says you I think DA:I is overrated (undeserved GOTY awards) 

opinions..

 

Says practically everyone who doesn't put Origins on a massive pedestal 

 

And I like Origins but jesus...

[otis0310]

says you I think DA:I is overrated (undeserved GOTY awards) 

opinions..

 

A lot of people agree to this, even some professionals in the industry.  However, to be honest, with the exception of Divinity: Original SIn, (which should have won), there was very little competition in 2014.  So it basically won by default.

[AresKeith]

Actually you are wrong.

 

If the next Call of Duty was point and click adventure game, it would not be Call of Duty anymore.  It would not matter if it was about the same characters in the same era or not.  The entire gameplay changed from an action oriented shooter to a slower paced game.

 

This is the same for Dragon Age.

 

Why you keep comparing this to Call of Duty is beyond me and honestly kinda silly because it is not the same for Dragon Age. Since Origins people have been asking for changes in the gameplay

[TheOgre]

Loved DAO

 

Very afraid of what would happen if they did make a DAO:2 :/ after DAI's claim that DAO fans would be pleased with the combat UI, heh...

[Duelist]

I think this is self explanatory.

DAO was deep, rich world that to you could immerse yourslef in. It did not have the rehashed environments of DA2 or the whole open world filled with fetch quests and randomly spawning monsters like DAI. Instead it was well crafted with few balance issues, no rehashed maps, and areas that were exciting to explore, not just filler.

Also, unlike DA2, and DAI the game revolved around controlling a party in tactical combat. You could have Alistair run up to the biggest guy and shield bash him and enter a threatening to pose. You could have Morrigan hit that group of archers with a fireball, have Lelliana shoot the mage in the distance. You could do this all without having to pause the game and give orders because the tactics were advanced enough to let you customize the AI.

Heck, for PC users there is a mod that makes it even more powerful. With it you could tell Zevran to flank the big guy Alistair is attacking.

A true sequel to Origins would incorprorate these aspects. DA2 does not, the combat is not well done, the maps are reused, and the tactics are almost meaningless. DAI is worse with combat being incredibly clunky, the maps being of large empty areas containing mostly filler, and the tactics completely removed.

Tactics were as meaningless in DAO as you claim they are now.

I know because my mage stood way out of range or behind a wall/locked door and cast AOE spells while enemies ran around like headless chickens and died.
My rogue on the other hand waded right into the thick of battle and killed everything while I did something else because no-one could touch him.

Playing on console, even with tactics AI couldn't play a melee rogue (seriously, AI Cole is far superior to AI Zevran) or make proper use of AOE spells.

Slow and clunky does not mean tactical.

[Winged Silver]

Actually you are wrong.

 

If the next Call of Duty was point and click adventure game, it would not be Call of Duty anymore.  It would not matter if it was about the same characters in the same era or not.  The entire gameplay changed from an action oriented shooter to a slower paced game.

 

This is the same for Dragon Age.

 

The game play doesn't make it any more or less Dragon Age...what makes it Dragon Age is the characters, the land, and the lore. Those have been present in each and every game. 

[jds1bio]

...

 

DAO was deep, rich world that to you could immerse yourslef in.  It did not have the rehashed environments of DA2 or the whole open world filled with fetch quests and randomly spawning monsters like DAI.  Instead it was well crafted with few balance issues, no rehashed maps, and areas that were exciting to explore, not just filler.

 

Also, unlike DA2, and DAI the game revolved around controlling a party in tactical combat.

...

 

DAI is worse with combat being incredibly clunky, the maps being of large empty areas containing mostly filler, and the tactics completely removed.

 

DAI is in the same world.  Except that now you can go adventuring in Orlais. 

 

DAO would let you create weak character builds that you were stuck with.  Plus, the circle tower/Fade and Deep Roads sections, while cool, were paced to the point of tedium.  In DAI there is a more steady pace as to which things unlock, and much of it is optional so that you don't have to burn through an entire area to get to the main quest objectives.  Also, aside from the large maps, DAI unlocks a bunch of smaller areas that are interesting to visit.  Plus the fortresses.

 

I think what you really want is to hang out more with Alistair, Leliana, and Morrigan in combat.  Nothing wrong with that, DAO was a great game.

[10K]

The game play doesn't make it any more or less Dragon Age...what makes it Dragon Age is the characters, the land, and the lore. Those have been present in each and every game. 

Well to some extent it does. Think of a game with a sequel that you've played. In most cases since you have played the first games in a particular series you'll easily be able to pick up the controller and know the mechanics as well as the buttons. Because that game has created its own style of play. Tons of games do this. If a game's controls or mechanics keeps revamping after every game in its series; to some players that familiarity can be diminished or enhanced, depending on who you are.   

[Winged Silver]

Well to some extent it does. Think of a game with a sequel that you've played. In most cases since you have played the first games in a particular series you'll easily be able to pick up the controller and know the mechanics as well as the buttons. Because that game has created its own style of play. Tons of games do this. If a game's controls or mechanics keeps revamping after every game in its series; to some players that familiarity can be diminished or enhanced, depending on who you are.   

 

I agree that to an extent, the gameplay ought to retain similarities across games, but I feel that in the sense of Bioware's Dragon Age, the combat has never been a main selling point. Certainly it's important, and most players would wish it to be well designed, but I just find fault in the thinking that the gameplay/combat is what makes a Dragon Age game 'familiar'. But I will admit that that may just be my own bias speaking, as I view Bioware as a game company primarily specializing in story, rather than gameplay. I feel that DA2/DAI had story elements, characters, and lore that existed across the series, and that's what makes a game 'Dragon Age' to me, rather than the old 4 line abilities screen, detailed tactics, and clunky movements.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Because DAO is massively overrated via nostalgia colored glasses and even if they did make DAO2 people would still ****** all the same.

 

Played DAO for the first time in 2012. Thought it was one of the best games ever. What nostalgia are you talking about?

[metatheurgist]

Played DAO for the first time in 2012. Thought it was one of the best games ever. What nostalgia are you talking about?

That's the great thing about English, if enough people misuse a term the new meaning sticks...like RPG.

Nostalgia.
Defn: a game that is awesome.
Usage: DA:O is pure nostalgia.

Learn it, use it, own it.

[Kazehito]

Havent read half the post on this thread but one interesting way to use  the DA:O in multiple titles was to have them focus soley on the blights aka if they make a DA:O 2 then maybe about the earlier blights from the first and the founding of the warders and so on. I would love to see games like that, encounter some gryphons and so on

 

Just a thought as that would follow "a theme" in that the origin series follows the wardens and blights even if it didnt follow the same person in multiple games.

[pdusen]

Because no one can agree on what that is, or if it's even a good thing.

 

Ten thousand times this.

[wolfhowwl]

Unlike DA2 or ME3 which were obviously rushed, DA:O had plenty of time in the oven. The problem with it was that at multiple levels the game ended up being just boring and kind of a chore to complete. No wonder that as of 2012 it had the lowest completion rate of modern BioWare games.

 

It wasn't just some mistakes like forcing the player to slog through far too many repetitive trash mobs or tedious levels like The Fade or infamous Deep Roads (baffling that these would be in a game intended for multiple playthroughs). 

 

The main story was crushingly unoriginal (an ancient evil is overrunning the land...actually **** this, let them) and followed the same old BioWare narrative structure. It felt so generic and tired, a collection of obviously borrowed tropes and ideas in an over-saturated genre. The setting wasn't any better. For some reason the combat speed was set at a snail's pace and also had severe balance issues. Even the muddy art style and dated graphics conspire to bore you. BioWare associated "epic" with "long," and the game just refused to end when it would have been a better experience with tighter pacing and less filler content.

 

Really the best thing it brought to the table were the Origin stories but they needed more reactivity down the line.

 

Also the idea that DA:O was "its own thing" seems a little odd when such an easy criticism against the game can be that it lacks identity. The writing is such an obvious slurry of popular fantasy and the game itself has clear influences like FFXII and MMOs.

 

I'm being harsh here but I don't consider DA:O to be an ideal that should be aspired to. Why aim for blatant mediocrity?

 

Anyways the biggest reason you're not going to get a game that plays like DA:O is that it was a PC game through and through (which was clumsily ported to consoles) and BioWare along with everyone else that makes AAA multiplats has long ago switched to having consoles be the lead platform. Instead of people pining for something that isn't coming back, they should either spare themselves further misery and move on perhaps to something like Pillars of Eternity or accept the new paradigm and offer suggestions on how to make a better game within it.

[otis0310]

Why you keep comparing this to Call of Duty is beyond me and honestly kinda silly because it is not the same for Dragon Age. Since Origins people have been asking for changes in the gameplay

Not Me.

[10K]

Why you keep comparing this to Call of Duty is beyond me and honestly kinda silly because it is not the same for Dragon Age. Since Origins people have been asking for changes in the gameplay

I'll admit mainly as a console user I appreciate the new top down view that Inquisition has. But other than that, the overall gameplay was downgraded compared to both previous titles. Sure many people were asking for more changes to combat and gameplay mechanics, but not what inquisition offers.