Dragon Age 3

The combat for DAO was ridiculously clunky. The animations were slow, the allies were idiots, mage normal attacks were worthless, the accuracy system was idiotic, and you had to wait for an awkward shuffle to complete before you could do anything.

While I agree that the classes were a bit more limited than I would like, I enjoyed the fact that all three played differently. In Origins the only difference between playing a Warrior or Rogue without going into stats was that one got weaker armor. Mages who didn't go Arcane Warrior were every bit the squishy stereotype as ever unless you intentionally gimped yourself to get some half-decent armor. That's not even getting into the terribly awkward mage standard attacks where mages without mana were stuck flinging magic spitballs at there enemies with ridiculous animations.

Personally I think that they should lean closer to DAII than Origins in their future designs, but still need some work. Especially for encounters with mages (whoever decided to give enemy mages instant death field spells, teleportation, shields, and massive hp bars can go to hell) and the parachuting mobs.

Above all, they need to work on plotting. DAO had some intrigue, but it was very generic and treated the main character and his/her origins (the biggest attraction of the game) as an after-thought. Thanks to poor planning of the Origins, you could replace the Warden with mannequin and it'd make no difference. The ending titles, while interesting, were both weak attempts to enlarge the illusion of choice and so divergent that it was difficult to include any of them in a sequel's story. DAII tried something different, but suffered from pacing, overuse of "dark" setting and characters, and lack of choice that stemmed from the game existing to set the stage for the sequel.

edited 25th Aug '11 11:11:27 AM by Geostomp

Uh... don't we have a general Dragon Age thread?

As for what I meant by balance:

In Origins, Sword and Board Warriors were meant to be tanks. However, they were completely useless compared to Arcane Warriors. By removing Arcane Warriors, actual Warriors are now the best tanks.

Likewise, two-handed swords were so slow, that they were only more effective than one-handers against the really tough enemies. Even then, dual wielding was far superior. In DA2, two-handers are faster and hit more than one enemy, making them ideal for killing large groups of trash mobs while your dual wielders and archers kill the more specialized mobs.

Finally, Origins rogues were just warriors with light armor and a better choice of specializations. The only benefits to playing a rogue compared to a warrior were lock-picking (which is essential, but I always got the impression that Leliana and Nathaniel were the least effective members of my parties) and backstabbing (which requires micromanagement). While a lot of people gripe about weapons becoming class-restricted, this helped to give rogues and warriors different roles: damage dealing and threat management respectively.

Backstabbing is ridicilously easy to pull off, since you want to be stunning everything in sight anyway. Especially with dual-wielding the raw ST DPS of a rogue is just unmatched. I went through the game as both aa dual-wielding rogue and a dual-wielding warrior, and they play very differently.

I'd say the primary problem with Rogues in DAO wasn't the character class itself, but the fact that both of your rogues were kind of crappily built. Now, two-handed weapons and blood-mage/arcane warrior... those where actually problematic. But DA 2 makes up for the difference with an almost complete lack of manuevering. (Seriously, between the fact that 90% of fights are in confined spaces and the entire charge/leap animation thing your characters do there's basically no reason to ever worry about positioning)

Slow animations were counteracted by less HP for enemies: There wasn't the same kind of "beat on an infinite bag of HP" that DA 2 devolved into, and it meant each attack/ability was more important. It also looked at least slightly more realistic. Than DA 2's ninja-antics.

Mage normal attacks worthless? They did a fair bit of damage (especially with Staff Mastery) and most importantly *never missed* honestly I felt they were way less useful in DA 2 (again, due to the range issue).

My problem was that in DA 2 I felt like the classes all played basically the same, spamming your respective basic skills. There was no sense of variety in the types of abilities you could use, and none of the nice combos you could set up in DAO. (despite the cross-class combo thing they had).

Mage combats were the worst thing in DA 2, because it was quite obvious they weren't even CLOSE to playing by the same rules as you do. They have weird spells that you don't, and they are absolutely stupid and annoying to fight. But then again, they haven't done a really good mage-fight system since BG 2.

EDIT: Most importantly, they need to let their silly pseudo-3rd. person camera go and give us the top-down one back. SO much clearer.

edited 25th Aug '11 1:10:59 PM by Arilou

Unless the enemy moved at all. Then you have to sllloooowwwlllyy shuffle after them, wait for them to stop, plant your feet and play Rock-Em-Sock-Em robots until the game decides that you actually did hit them long enough to get them to fall down. No reaction to attacks, no way for you efficiently break off from who you're currently fighting, constant stun lock against large targets, and inability to actually hit someone standing right in front of you for no real reason.

For all your talk, the only real difference between the three classes of Origins was stats. Rogues with two blades functioned exactly like Warriors with two blades who acted exactly like Mages with two blades. Everybody attacked just as awkwardly as everyone else, reacted to damage as anybody else, and could use the same weapons (barring staves) as anybody else with the same stats. Let's not even get into how little difference there was between the fighting of elves, humans, dwarves, and qunari.

Origin's combat was horrible for anybody except PC players, which I've gathered that you are based on your responses. It was primitive for 2004, let alone 2009. DAII, for all the flaws of its engine gives a much better experience in-battle than its predecessor. Yeah, the animations can get over-the-top, but I actually like the idea that the three classes move and attack differently than each other and that mages might actually be competent fighters even without casting spells every second.

How about a third option: bring back arcane warriors, but only the focus on swordplay and not the ability to tank better than anyone else in the game (just better than your average mage)? Have unique armors, and not just give them armor meant for tank warriors. That way, mages can get rid of the staff&robes cliche and be less squishy.

Also, did it bother anyone that, in the vanilla game, your mage companions are missing entire trees of spells? Bethany can't use rock armor, Merrill can't heal, and Anders can't use entropy magic.

Also, I want to know how so many enemy mages are able to vanish and reappear somewhere else on the battlefield. I want that power.

As for DAO's primitive combat: Good Old Ways

edited 25th Aug '11 2:25:56 PM by CrimsonZephyr

That's a bit of a topsy-turvy twist from the SOP, innit? Wink wink.

Edit: As an afterthought that's relevant to the actual discussion... What seems to be going on here is a typical issue re: game series where the earlier installments had issues and were clunky, but also had ambition and charm... and the devs react in the sequel by streamlining all the clunkiness by just taking out features that weren't easily streamlined, instead of trying to fix them. That's always going to give you a pretty big division in the fanbase, and in that division there's no 'right' side, it's just a matter of how different people weigh different feature benefits and drawbacks.

edited 25th Aug '11 2:49:01 PM by Karkadinn

True. No matter how good or bad, a game element will always have fans. It's just a matter of learning how to juggle them into something that will appeal to the broadest market.

I already mentioned what I thought about the ridiculous power of enemy mages. Let them be strong. I can accept them being the biggest threats on the battlefield. I can't accept that them being ridiculously resilient, random teleportation, using gigantic shockwave blasts, and especially those damned field spells that can wipe out a party in three seconds with no warning. That's just irritating.

They'd have to do something different with Arcane Warriors to keep interesting and stop them from dominating the game with the newer system. I loved the class in Origins (Daylen Amell 4 Life!!), but it would either be painfully boring or make every encounter trivial if it stayed as it was back then. I would take your idea, but add one or two direct attack spells to add some flair.

Ultimately, I think that what they really need to focus on is the next game's narrative. They have to figure out how to pull the more "epic" (I'm really getting to hate that word) fantasy feel that was lacking from DAII, but not fall into the same traps of generic scenarios as Origins. Most importantly, they have to make sure that the main character is actually involved in what happens. Instead of the mostly passive Hawke and cardboard cut-out Warden, the new main will need to be deeply rooted in what's happening and actually driving or following in a clear plot. That's why I'm personally against the return of the Origins. Instead of expanding the narrative, they severely limited it. They should also make the individual classes important to the plot. If I'm a mage during the mage/templar war, I want people to actually notice. If I'm a rogue, I want to be able to sneak around the guards in a cutscene instead of fight head-on. DAII took some steps towards that goal, but there's still a ways to go.

Finally, I want my party to be a bit less screwed up and antagonistic. I thought that the DAII group was very well written, but I still wanted to strangle some of them. At very least give them some mission to focus on so that we don't have to constantly deal with the neurosis.

What? There was absolutely no problem with hitting a moving enemy. I'm honestly confused abou what you're talking about.

Or did you play it on console or something? (in which case it's not strange, the game uses an RTS interface, and those always suck on consoles, just like FPS interfaces)

edited 25th Aug '11 4:46:21 PM by Arilou

Geostomp, on your last point, I totally agree. With Origins, it was still present, but less of a problem because it was more understated. But with DA 2, they ratcheted up the angst in every party member, save Bethany (except on the Warden path) and Varric, to unimaginable extremes. Fenris is broody, Anders is bipolar, Aveline is self-righteous, Merrill is naive, Sebastian is pious, Carver is resentful, etc etc. At least Carver has some goddamn Character Development, but it still doesn't prevent me from wanting to murder half the party on various occasions. Ever had a person talk to you repeatedly about one issue until your ears are numb? It's like that, except these people bitch about their woes and doubts to Hawke for seven years. Anders doesn't have anything else to talk to Hawke about besides mage rights? Ditto Fenris, with slavery, or Merrill with the Eluvian? In real life, you would tire of these people after an hour. You would have long since killed these people in frustration after seven years.

Merrill actually does have some other things to talk about, at least with everybody else. Even Fenris, posterboy for ANGST actually switches topics once in a blue moon. Anders, however, will not shut up about mage rights. He's obsessive, I get it, but he could, at least once an act talk about something that he won't get all self righteous about. He doesn't even make good points that might indicate a plan for social reform: he just goes on an on with "Freedom NAO!!" At very least he could change up his argument a bit, like Fenris does. It's still weak, biased nonsense that anybody here could tear apart in seconds, at least it's not as repetitive.

I went through the game begging that at least one sidequest would finally get everyone's attention so we could stop exploring angst for a bit. Nope. It's Blood Magic this, Templars that, "I had a traumatic past" 24/7. Would it kill them to lighten up for a while and at least tease each other with less venom? Morrigan and Alistair hated each other with a passion, but they didn't do it with so much unnecessary anger. They were actually funny instead of obnoxious. Tone down the inter-party squabbling a bit so we can relax some more.

The game in general suffers from "Can't argue with extremists." Meredith, Anders, and Fenris can make retarded, shallow arguments in favor of their position with little elaboration, and Hawke is left with three equally vapid possible responses that make it almost impossible to say "You have a point, but maybe you should go about it a different way." It's either, "I agree," "Heh, you're funny," and "Fuck you, go die!" Maybe its because Hawke's dialogue is merely the stitching between massive tracts, but I felt like my character had a painfully low level of intelligence the whole way through.

Agreed. It's like the writers never bothered to do any basic debate work, so Hawke's left either being extreme, irreverent, or wishy-washy.

Everybody goes for the most extreme measure or arguments possible and refuses to listen to any reason. Every fugitive goes off the deep end, nearly every authority figure is ready to damn the world, and everybody you meet is out for blood. Anybody not extreme is killed off to make room for even more extremists. It makes me wonder if Kirkwall itself is just crazy.

edited 25th Aug '11 5:57:45 PM by Geostomp

Actually, it is.

Take the conflict that eventually sparks the battle with the Qunari. Both the Arishok and Aveline make good arguments in support of their positions, which are defensible enough. Unfortunately, this moment is quickly devolves into more strawmen killing each other.

Which kind of undermines the "gritty, human conflict" angle when all the major conflicts are caused because the location is a supernatural hellmouth. It seems like Bio Ware couldn't decide whether they wanted a supernatural basis or a more grounded one, and ended up going for both.

edited 25th Aug '11 7:18:42 PM by CrimsonZephyr

Dragon Age III will have you save the world from HELL ITSELF.

I saw no mention of hell in that article.

"In story terms the crew commented on how Dragon Age III will shift gears yet again, saying that while Dragon Age: Origins was about stopping the Darkspawn and the Blight and Dragon Age II was about creating a new conflict, Dragon Age III will tell the story of the conflict created by the story of Dragon Age II and will give players the goal of "saving the world from itself.""

Still no mention of hell.

That's "saving the world from itself," not "hell itself," just "itself"

To-may-to, To-mah-to.

Hell is, after all, other people.

Why would we ever want to save Thedas? If the rest of Thedas is anything like Kirkwall, we might as well go on a killing spree.

By same logic we should destroy earth

Not really. Earth has a breadth of nuanced people whereas Kirkwall and Thedas do not. Everyone is a Complete Monster or an idiot, and the people that aren't are background scenery.

If it's a Crapsack World, you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to save it.