I've never played a Dragon Age game (I tried Origins, shelved it in 2 hours) but for those who've played both series, did you notice any progression from ME3 to DA: I that gives you any idea of how Andromeda will turn out?
Any trends that will persist? Any trends that will be reversed?
I know different studios handle the two series but the overarching philosophy of a game development company does get into its games.
I don't expect a Mass Effect game to adopt a whole lot from a Dragon Age title. The thing I'm really hoping they take a close look at is the dialogue system and improving companion interaction, which I felt was always rather anemic compared to its DA counterparts.
Shadooows faaaall and hope has fled.....
*cough*
*cough*
ECHEM!
Yes where was I?
Oh, right; the focus on cinematics and attempts to inspire and move the player in DAI, in comparison to its predecessors gives you an indication of the direction. I think it may have been a tad overdone in, Inquisition by the end.
But overall I enjoyed a more hollywood-esque approach to the soap opera-ish style of ME3. The character interactions seemed more like ME2 in that so much of it was cinematic and auto dialogue was kept to a minimum.
Romance appeared more competitive and character 'loyalty' quests at least now have some substance in DA though they seemed a bit hit and miss. Imaginative as they were.
War table, crafting etc. It all says they're trying to spices things up, I look forward to seeing what they come up with.
DAI felt like a bad offline MMO and was arguably worse than DA2, a game tons of people hated and was made in like 10 months... ME3 was competitive against tv series/movies. I hope pretty everything from DAI gets reversed and we get something else, but I doubt it will happen.
People can say alot about ME3 (and they do) and it certainly isn't without it's faults and areas where it sorely needed improvement, but it really was better than DAI in basically every major way and I find that kind of disturbing, and also feel anticipatory grief that MEA is probably going to be corrupted by it's taint now too, since DAI sold well which translates to it being a "success", despite so many people having huge complaints about it.
DAI felt like a bad offline MMO and was arguably worse than DA2, a game tons of people hated and was made in like 10 months... ME3 was competitive against tv series/movies. I hope pretty everything from DAI gets reversed and we get something else, but I doubt it will happen.
People can say alot about ME3 (and they do) and it certainly isn't without it's faults and areas where it sorely needed improvement, but it really was better than DAI in basically every major way and I find that kind of disturbing, and also feel anticipatory grief that MEA is probably going to be corrupted by it's taint now too, since DAI sold well which translates to it being a "success", despite so many people having huge complaints about it.
I think I said it before but if ME:A takes cues from DA:I, then the game will suck. DA:I is a mediocre experience riddled with MMO style timesinks, a forced narrative, no visible impact and plot problems/holes. I won't even go into the worst MP mode ever. I could complain more but the rest of my issues with the game are subjective.
I hope they learned what -not- to do from DA:I, otherwise they can forget I'll ever buy the game. I certaintly won't pre-order any BioWare game ever again.
For the love of God Bioware do not patterned MEA after DAI. I more or less enjoy the DA universe, but for me Mass Effect is the gold standard...even when it falls short of its own potential.
Progression from ME3 to DA:I:
The progression from ME3 to DA:I was such an evolution.
Ew don't remind me of Mother Ducklips that was torture on the ears!
To the topic at hand: nope. ME3 imo was a better game than Inquisition, despite the notorious endings.
Bioware don't pull off the open world/exploration gig. They are much better with linear, structured story. Their strength shows in that format.
Inquisition had some good moments, don't get me wrong. But the bulk of the game.. Just no.
It's certain that MEA will be another open world, the question is whether it will be an improvement on DAI's blandness. I would think that exploring empty planets in a new galaxy would be a challenge to make an open world map interesting, though. I'm predicting an amalgamation of ME1's planet maps and DAI's zones. I would think that by the time MEA was into development, it was too late in the cycle to incorporate much feedback from DAI; perhaps the reason we've not heard many updates is that Bio is incorporating feedback into the game which is pushing back the development time.
I think I said it before but if ME:A takes cues from DA:I, then the game will suck. DA:I is a mediocre experience riddled with MMO style timesinks, a forced narrative, no visible impact and plot problems/holes. I won't even go into the worst MP mode ever. I could complain more but the rest of my issues with the game are subjective.
I hope they learned what -not- to do from DA:I, otherwise they can forget I'll ever buy the game. I certaintly won't pre-order any BioWare game ever again.
ME3MP was much better than DAMP. I played both on a PS3 and somehow the older game was much more stable for me and I was able to play for more than ten minutes before freezing or being kicked out. I had trouble even connecting to the DAMP servers most of the time.
Now that I am using a PS4, though, I'm probably not going to bother with MP as I don't feel like paying a monthly fee for online access.
Trends that I hope persist:
(1) Dialogue choices that provide numerous options and do not include Paragon/Renegade automatic win options (although I do want some form of interrupts).
(2) War Table style missions that give the impression that more is going on than just the missions the PC is involved in. I hope it is executed better (shorter times – more obvious consequences), but I liked the concept a lot.
(3) Large beautiful environments that allow for exploration and discovery.
(4) Multiple available play styles with different types of builds available for each play style - I liked that there were pretty significant differences in play style depending on the abilities that were chosen as part of the leveling system.
(5) Lore building for all civilizations in the game. Keep it up.
(6) Romance evolution - I'm not commenting on the quality of any single romance. However, I do like that the romances bud before the final mission, seem more consequential to various aspects of many conversations, and that you can go back and "spend time together" later. It's a small thing, but I liked the overall design better - even if few of the individual DA:I romances struck a chord with me.
Trends that I hope do not persist:
(1) Fetch quests and busywork - I would like quest design to be some blend of ME3 and TW3. Allow for exploration and discovery, but please make the quest design much better.
(2) Combat - DA:I was my least favorite bioware game I have played from a pure combat perspective. While the tactical screen is an interesting development that I could continue to live with, the combat itself left a lot to be desired. I don't think this will be a problem due to ME's blend of RPG and shooter, but it needs to be mentioned.
(3) DLC Content - ME3 had much better DLCs in my opinion (for me Citadel >> Trespasser > Leviathan >> Omega > Jaws of Hakkon >> the Descent).
(4) Gear being level dependent - if you get it, you should be able to use it.
(5) I would like ME:A to return to a larger and more engrossing central plot - DA:I was too much side quest, and not enough main quest.
(6) Characters - I felt much more invested in the characters in the ME games than I did with the DA:I characters. Casandra, Solas and Dorian were great characters, but other than that they felt mediocre to good. The ME Trilogy has probably more than a dozen characters I would call great.
Things that both ME and Inquisition do that I would like to change -
(1) Antagonists - with the exceptions of Saren, the Illusive Man and Solas - they're all great. I want like an antagonist who is not evil per se, just an opponent whom circumstances have forced us to be in conflict. Please no antagonists in the spirit of Corephyus or Reapers.
(2) Focus on single player (I know many will disagree with this) and leave multiplayer to other franchises.
(3) Endings - I won't hammer on this point too much, but I would like multiple endings that have significant differences for the payer character’s personal story. I don’t want a widely different end state for the world – which would make sequels incredibly difficult. I want I widely different end to the PCs personal story. This allows for endings that feel very different, but allow the next game to start in a similar place.
Things that neither ME nor Inquisition do that I would like changed:
(1) Customization of Spaces – it’s such a small thing, but I really love being able to make somewhere a home in video games. I’m not asking for Skyrim or FO4 style placement of everything, but more than change the way the banners look, or choose from one of three couches. It really adds to the experience.
(2) Crafting – something like FO4 would be greatly appreciated in this regard for weapons, armor and etc.
They focused on creating a more open world with less focus on what you actually do in it, akin to an AC game or a bethesda title which i didn't like. The scope was bigger and they seemed to flesh out your role as a leader a lot more which i liked but ultimately i think ME 3 is a better game.
DA:I wasn't even open world, strictly speaking. All they did was increase the map size but they still weren't connected or forming a coherent world in any form. Bigger isn't always better though.
Open world also means it's living and breathing. NPCs moving around, going about their business, day/night etc. DA:I had nothing of that. "Open world" was just marketing and we all know how much you can believe that.
I don't -need- open world mechanics in a story-driven game anyway. I'd even say they conflict. There's nothing wrong with a reasonably sized, static map filled with interesting content that is relevant to the story. It would work much better for BioWare than trying to create an open world similiar to Skyrim, Fallout and similiar games. Those never impressed with their story, but that wasn't their goal.
ME:A should be the best looking BioWare game so far, now that they are used to the Frostbite3 engine. I don't think they should take anything else from DA:I.
DAI is without doubt the better game compared to ME3 and even ME2 - especially in terms of the story. Though still DAI isn't perfect it at least made kinda sense what we did and wasn't all for naught. And gave me a sense of accomplishment. If onlythe villain and his incorpration into the story would have been better
Which leads me to the msot important aspect I hope ME will copy from DA - standalone-games that tell a finished, self-contained story. Sure, there will be the overarching theme of colonizing andromeda, and I already see some evil race dominating Andromeda and mankind coming at odds with it in all titles (something like the Dominion in Deep Space Nine maybe). But no more attempts to tell a multi-part connected story over three games please. Doesn't work out as was proven...
Of course the worst aspects of DAI will return as well - with such prominent focus on the new MAKO its clear driving like idiots over the planet surface from generic mini-quests to miniquest is almost a given. Sadly. I'd prefer the tighter story-telling of the original Mass Effect games (even though I later wished that story would never have been told in the first place^^). Cause (pseudo)open world should better be left to Bethesda. Even Witcher 3 sucked at it and should have stayed true to Witcher 2 in that regard...
What MEA can and should have a look at from DAI are some of teh main quests and their emotional payoff - like Haven, or the templar-mage-quests. And those Dragon Fights are fun! Or the entire Crestwood-Area.
DAI was an amazing game experience but if they head the fetch quest route they implemented into DAI with MEA I might just join Cerberus for good. All in all, the DAI final DLC Trespasser (many compare it to the Citadel DLC) showed promise for future DA games, but for Mass Effect, which is not done by the same team, it's hard to say. The graphics will be beautiful though.
DA:I wasn't even open world, strictly speaking. All they did was increase the map size but they still weren't connected or forming a coherent world in any form. Bigger isn't always better though.
Open world also means it's living and breathing. NPCs moving around, going about their business, day/night etc. DA:I had nothing of that. "Open world" was just marketing and we all know how much you can believe that.
I don't -need- open world mechanics in a story-driven game anyway. I'd even say they conflict. There's nothing wrong with a reasonably sized, static map filled with interesting content that is relevant to the story. It would work much better for BioWare than trying to create an open world similiar to Skyrim, Fallout and similiar games. Those never impressed with their story, but that wasn't their goal.
ME:A should be the best looking BioWare game so far, now that they are used to the Frostbite3 engine. I don't think they should take anything else from DA:I.
The open world stuff isn't very important. The core strengths of the game are the same as any other BioWare title: its cast of characters and its dialogue system. By comparison, ME doesn't handle either nearly as well (with the obvious exception of Leliana, who was now finally dealt with). The dialogue is especially poor by comparison, especially with it tied to the P/R mechanic, which I think should go away entirely.
I found it too grindy but a lot of people love that stuff. It was unscaled and massive in scope, there was a huge amount of content, but gameplay became very easy, even on the highest difficulty, after about 10 hours. Because of that I only played through once with another couple of uncompleted playthroughs, and feel I left about 70% of the content completely unexplored. The main storyline lasted about 15 hours and my completed playthrough took just over 20 hours with a number of big regions never even visited. I can imagine it took some people hundreds of hours. It was at least a beautiful looking game, despite being so massive all the environments looked exquisitely crafted.
Personally I don't think I am really going to like the SP part of ME:A all that much. They have said they are bringing back the Mako (which I found mind numbingly boring) and the focus of exploration from ME1. The leak sounded quite similar to the direction DAI went in. It is understandable and I can't complain because it was very popular and a critical success. I hope and do expect the game play to be a bit better though, which it is unlikely to have any similarity to DA. ME3 gameplay, at least the multiplayer stuff, was amazing. It could save the game for me but I am still worried about the amount of tedium I will have to work through to get it.
My biggest concern with the new engine is whether it handles multiplayer netcode worse than the old engine. I'm from NZ so lag can be a concern. ME3 MPer was fine playing anyone with a decent connection hosting from the US, Australia or East Asia. I never got into DAI because the lag seemed a lot worse. My experience was limited to just a few games but they were all laggy messes which is a worry. I spent over 1000 hours playing ME3 MPer so as long as MEA MPer is good and playable I will still like the game even if the SPer aspect is no longer my thing.
Progression from ME3 to DA:I:
- Worse animations
- Terrible sidequests that can be mindlessly completed in a couple of hours -> terrible sidequests that take 60 hours out of 80 in total
- Riveting doomsday plot -> Doomsday plot solved 2 missions into the game
- A completely safe and unengaging story with no stakes
- Loyalty-like missions that take one conversation to complete
- Infuriatingly dumb and depressing -> completely forgettable ending
- 14 -> 7 action packed main plot missions
- Completely linear levels -> completely unfocused and empty open-world areas
- A lot of cinematic and uninteractive dialogue -> a lot of uncinematic interactive dialogue
The progression from ME3 to DA:I was such an evolution.
Sorry, I didn't notice the similar thread you had already started earlier http://forum.bioware...-make-it-great/
The graphics seemed a bit weird in gameplay videos of DA:I, but that may have been because I was watching the console versions and I've always had a prejudice against DA's graphics since playing a bit of Origins. Also, the press-button-to-attack-continuously was ... not good.
Trends that I hope persist:
(1) Dialogue choices that provide numerous options and do not include Paragon/Renegade automatic win options (although I do want some form of interrupts).
(2) War Table style missions that give the impression that more is going on than just the missions the PC is involved in. I hope it is executed better (shorter times – more obvious consequences), but I liked the concept a lot.
(3) Large beautiful environments that allow for exploration and discovery.
(4) Multiple available play styles with different types of builds available for each play style - I liked that there were pretty significant differences in play style depending on the abilities that were chosen as part of the leveling system.
(5) Lore building for all civilizations in the game. Keep it up.
(6) Romance evolution - I'm not commenting on the quality of any single romance. However, I do like that the romances bud before the final mission, seem more consequential to various aspects of many conversations, and that you can go back and "spend time together" later. It's a small thing, but I liked the overall design better - even if few of the individual DA:I romances struck a chord with me.
Trends that I hope do not persist:
(1) Fetch quests and busywork - I would like quest design to be some blend of ME3 and TW3. Allow for exploration and discovery, but please make the quest design much better.
(2) Combat - DA:I was my least favorite bioware game I have played from a pure combat perspective. While the tactical screen is an interesting development that I could continue to live with, the combat itself left a lot to be desired. I don't think this will be a problem due to ME's blend of RPG and shooter, but it needs to be mentioned.
(3) DLC Content - ME3 had much better DLCs in my opinion (for me Citadel >> Trespasser > Leviathan >> Omega > Jaws of Hakkon >> the Descent).
(4) Gear being level dependent - if you get it, you should be able to use it.
(5) I would like ME:A to return to a larger and more engrossing central plot - DA:I was too much side quest, and not enough main quest.
(6) Characters - I felt much more invested in the characters in the ME games than I did with the DA:I characters. Casandra, Solas and Dorian were great characters, but other than that they felt mediocre to good. The ME Trilogy has probably more than a dozen characters I would call great.
Things that both ME and Inquisition do that I would like to change -
(1) Antagonists - with the exceptions of Saren, the Illusive Man and Solas - they're all great. I want like an antagonist who is not evil per se, just an opponent whom circumstances have forced us to be in conflict. Please no antagonists in the spirit of Corephyus or Reapers.
(2) Focus on single player (I know many will disagree with this) and leave multiplayer to other franchises.
(3) Endings - I won't hammer on this point too much, but I would like multiple endings that have significant differences for the payer character’s personal story. I don’t want a widely different end state for the world – which would make sequels incredibly difficult. I want I widely different end to the PCs personal story. This allows for endings that feel very different, but allow the next game to start in a similar place.
Things that neither ME nor Inquisition do that I would like changed:
(1) Customization of Spaces – it’s such a small thing, but I really love being able to make somewhere a home in video games. I’m not asking for Skyrim or FO4 style placement of everything, but more than change the way the banners look, or choose from one of three couches. It really adds to the experience.
(2) Crafting – something like FO4 would be greatly appreciated in this regard for weapons, armor and etc.
I really like this post. Very comprehensive. BTW, you mean Saren and Illusive Man were good antagonists, right? TIM was, until he became head of universally-evil-and-capable-super-organization in ME3.
DAI is without doubt the better game compared to ME3 and even ME2 - especially in terms of the story. Though still DAI isn't perfect it at least made kinda sense what we did and wasn't all for naught. And gave me a sense of accomplishment. If onlythe villain and his incorpration into the story would have been better
Which leads me to the msot important aspect I hope ME will copy from DA - standalone-games that tell a finished, self-contained story. Sure, there will be the overarching theme of colonizing andromeda, and I already see some evil race dominating Andromeda and mankind coming at odds with it in all titles (something like the Dominion in Deep Space Nine maybe). But no more attempts to tell a multi-part connected story over three games please. Doesn't work out as was proven...
Of course the worst aspects of DAI will return as well - with such prominent focus on the new MAKO its clear driving like idiots over the planet surface from generic mini-quests to miniquest is almost a given. Sadly. I'd prefer the tighter story-telling of the original Mass Effect games (even though I later wished that story would never have been told in the first place^^). Cause (pseudo)open world should better be left to Bethesda. Even Witcher 3 sucked at it and should have stayed true to Witcher 2 in that regard...
What MEA can and should have a look at from DAI are some of teh main quests and their emotional payoff - like Haven, or the templar-mage-quests. And those Dragon Fights are fun! Or the entire Crestwood-Area.
I totally agree with you on each game being capable of standing alone. The ME series shows well enough that Bioware don't have the chops to have the preceding game influence later ones at all. The clusterfuck of having Shepard choose everything even if he has got nothing to do with anything ... Destiny Ascension, Rachni, Councilor decisions, Geth rewrites/destroy, Genophage and the legendary RGB endings needs to go. Let's stop pretending choice matters in world events and just let it matter more in personal matters like ME2 did. And if they're courageous enough, they might look at Witcher 2 and think about what branching storylines actually mean.
Speaking of which, I am partial to the Witcher and the third one wasn't too tedious with the '?' marks and side quests. It gets tiring if you're a completionist but I'm going to stop doing that in this era of Ubisofty open world quest padding.
I found it too grindy but a lot of people love that stuff. It was unscaled and massive in scope, there was a huge amount of content, but gameplay became very easy, even on the highest difficulty, after about 10 hours. Because of that I only played through once with another couple of uncompleted playthroughs, and feel I left about 70% of the content completely unexplored. The main storyline lasted about 15 hours and my completed playthrough took just over 20 hours with a number of big regions never even visited. I can imagine it took some people hundreds of hours. It was at least a beautiful looking game, despite being so massive all the environments looked exquisitely crafted.
Personally I don't think I am really going to like the SP part of ME:A all that much. They have said they are bringing back the Mako (which I found mind numbingly boring) and the focus of exploration from ME1. The leak sounded quite similar to the direction DAI went in. It is understandable and I can't complain because it was very popular and a critical success. I hope and do expect the game play to be a bit better though, which it is unlikely to have any similarity to DA. ME3 gameplay, at least the multiplayer stuff, was amazing. It could save the game for me but I am still worried about the amount of tedium I will have to work through to get it.
My biggest concern with the new engine is whether it handles multiplayer netcode worse than the old engine. I'm from NZ so lag can be a concern. ME3 MPer was fine playing anyone with a decent connection hosting from the US, Australia or East Asia. I never got into DAI because the lag seemed a lot worse. My experience was limited to just a few games but they were all laggy messes which is a worry. I spent over 1000 hours playing ME3 MPer so as long as MEA MPer is good and playable I will still like the game even if the SPer aspect is no longer my thing.
Yeah, I agree. The best thing about ME3 was the combat mechanics and the multiplayer. The reason I say mechanics rather than gameplay is because the campaign is littered with un-emotional firefights. Something about the combat, atmosphere, dialogue and scenery inspired urgency in ME1 and ME2. I didn't find that in ME3. It's hard to describe.
I was drinking a nice cold cup of chocolate milk and had this reaction when I read thisI've never played a Dragon Age game (I tried Origins, shelved it in 2 hours).
Should've said 'never completed' I guess. I don't count playing for 2 hours as actually playing for a game of that size. It's like saying I played Metal Gear Rising if I only fought the first three enemies.
Personally I don't think I am really going to like the SP part of ME:A all that much. They have said they are bringing back the Mako (which I found mind numbingly boring) and the focus of exploration from ME1. The leak sounded quite similar to the direction DAI went in.
I dunno if BioWare can ever really do right here. People go on about how great ME1 is, but if the game goes back in that direction, it becomes a problem. Of course, if they go in the direction ME2 or 3 did, they'd face the same criticism.
Retour en haut