Dragon Age VI: Siege Harder

[Ronnoc]

And it's a bloody shame because they're description of Joplin sounds awesome.

[Zevox]

I've seen this brought up on Reddit and I thought I might as well spread the flames to GitP.

https://kotaku.com/the-past-and-pres...e-4-1833913351

This was Jason Schreier's follow-up to the expose he published roughly a week ago about the state of Anthem. Here are some select excerpts:



Not entirely disheartening, but not very hopeful either.

How is that not entirely disheartening? About the only good thing I see in there is that they had a decent-sounding idea for what to do with DA4 - but that got canned. And now all we know about it is that it's being forced to fit EA's "games as a service" nonsense, which bodes ill.

Maybe if we're lucky it'll just be another normal Bioware game with a tacked-on multiplayer you can play if you like it and ignore if you don't, like ME3 and Inquisition, in which case, fine I guess. But after all the problems we've been hearing about Bioware's last few games having, I wouldn't bet on it. And if DA4 gets announced and it's another weird pseudo-MMO thing like Anthem, my interest will just as DOA as it was with that game.

[Morty]

I try not to fall into the kind of doom and gloom that gamers are prone to, but this does not look good. I'm totally open to a Dragon Age game that doesn't follow the well-trod route of a single exceptional hero (that is us) and their band of armed lunatics friends and allies. But... not like this. The scrapped project looked ambitious but promising. Then it got canned because it didn't offer enough multiplayer and monetization potential.

It's not impossible that the "live service" component won't ruin the whole thing, but given the references to Anthem... well. And while we've always known that EA was bad, those reports don't make BioWare look very good, either.

[Giggling Ghast]

It really is a shame that Joplin died, as the concept did sound intriguing.

How is that not entirely disheartening?

I suppose the one hopeful note I took from the article was that DA4 wouldn't be "Anthem with Dragons." Otherwise, I agree with you, Zevox. Live service games have been a plague on modern gaming, and I see no reason to believe that DA4 will somehow get it right.

Maybe if we're lucky it'll just be another normal Bioware game with a tacked-on multiplayer you can play if you like it and ignore if you don't, like ME3 and Inquisition, in which case, fine I guess. But after all the problems we've been hearing about Bioware's last few games having, I wouldn't bet on it.

I also don't believe that will be the case, as DAI's multiplayer was not terrifically popular.

[Morty]

I know I'm alone in thinking this, but DAI's multiplayer had some good ideas hidden in it. Mostly character kits that broke the warrior/mage/rogue mould and introduced new mechanics. It wasn't nearly enough to make it fun and exciting of course, so it was moot.

[Giggling Ghast]

I know I'm alone in thinking this, but DAI's multiplayer had some good ideas hidden in it. Mostly character kits that broke the warrior/mage/rogue mould and introduced new mechanics. It wasn't nearly enough to make it fun and exciting of course, so it was moot.

I don't think it was bad, Morty, it just didn't draw in huge numbers. EA is set on making ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, and DAI's MP just wasn't up to the task.

[Zevox]

I suppose the one hopeful note I took from the article was that DA4 wouldn't be "Anthem with Dragons." Otherwise, I agree with you, Zevox. Live service games have been a plague on modern gaming, and I see no reason to believe that DA4 will somehow get it right.

That is something I suppose, true. There's a lot of ground between "Anthem with Dragons" and a game I'd be excited to play, though, and it sounds quite a bit like EA is going to make them skew more in the direction of the former than the latter.

I also don't believe that will be the case, as DAI's multiplayer was not terrifically popular.

That doesn't surprise me. I recall trying it once and never wanting to go back to it again after that. Quite the contrast to ME3's, which was actually rather fun and got me to play a fair amount of it for a little while there (though I never spent any extra money on it, hated the whole booster pack system for its power-ups and refused to give them a cent for that).

[Morty]

I don't think it was bad, Morty, it just didn't draw in huge numbers. EA is set on making ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, and DAI's MP just wasn't up to the task.

Perhaps it wasn't bad, no. But there's a reason it didn't draw people. My point was more that despite its overall lukewarm quality it had some good elements.

[Lethologica]

For all of the bad stuff that went down in that article, at least a Bioware dev team will be (re)starting with a substantial asset base for the first time in several years.

[Dienekes]

That doesn't surprise me. I recall trying it once and never wanting to go back to it again after that. Quite the contrast to ME3's, which was actually rather fun and got me to play a fair amount of it for a little while there (though I never spent any extra money on it, hated the whole booster pack system for its power-ups and refused to give them a cent for that).

Not surprising. ME3 was a passable cover shooter with abilities that were usually pretty engaging.

I don't play Dragon Age because I enjoy the combat systems. Honestly, I think every DA game's combat mechanics have been mediocre at best. So creating a game completely focusing on the worst part of the Dragon Age experience seems like a bad move. Adding in having to deal with other people as well, and you got yourself a game mode I don't remember ever trying.

[Zevox]

Not surprising. ME3 was a passable cover shooter with abilities that were usually pretty engaging.

I don't play Dragon Age because I enjoy the combat systems. Honestly, I think every DA game's combat mechanics have been mediocre at best. So creating a game completely focusing on the worst part of the Dragon Age experience since a bad move. Adding in having to deal with other people as well, and you got yourself a game mode I don't remember ever trying.

Fair. As time has gone on I've started to feel like Dragon Age has an issue not unlike what I've felt most Final Fantasy games have with gameplay: trying to blend real-time and turn-based combat elements in ways that just diminish both. It'd be nice if they decided to veer fully in one direction or the other, either making a full-blown action RPG or a fully turn-based, D&D-esque one. But they'll likely never do that, since this gameplay style is thoroughly baked in to what people expect of the series at this point.

[Inarius]

Fair. As time has gone on I've started to feel like Dragon Age has an issue not unlike what I've felt most Final Fantasy games have with gameplay: trying to blend real-time and turn-based combat elements in ways that just diminish both. It'd be nice if they decided to veer fully in one direction or the other, either making a full-blown action RPG or a fully turn-based, D&D-esque one. But they'll likely never do that, since this gameplay style is thoroughly baked in to what people expect of the series at this point.

I definitely agree that the gameplay of Dragon age suffers from trying to be two things at once. I dont really agree that the issue is real time vrs turn based so much as it is tactical party based vrs action with limited party inputs. There are some great real time tactical party based rpg combat systems out there for instance so it is doable.

Mass Effect for instance went action based and its gameplay is easily the best part of ME3 and Andromeda. It seemed like DA was moving more towards action with DA2 but when DAI came out they back pedaled and tried really hard to bring in a pseudo isometric perspective which honestly just doesn't work. It was probably more than they should of bitten off with the Frostbite Engine considering all the issues the engine has doing stuff outside of FPS games.

[Dienekes]

Fair. As time has gone on I've started to feel like Dragon Age has an issue not unlike what I've felt most Final Fantasy games have with gameplay: trying to blend real-time and turn-based combat elements in ways that just diminish both. It'd be nice if they decided to veer fully in one direction or the other, either making a full-blown action RPG or a fully turn-based, D&D-esque one. But they'll likely never do that, since this gameplay style is thoroughly baked in to what people expect of the series at this point.

Yeah, I think I made a similar case a few months back. The design goal of DA2 was that the combat system could be played as both an action game and a tactics game.

And it's bad at both.

Personally, I'd rather just have XCom: Dragon Age Edition, or Sekiro/Dark Souls with Squadmates.

It'll never happen though. Unless I somehow become super rich to fund my own game, learn to code, create a game studio, learn how to manage a team, etc.

[Zevox]

I definitely agree that the gameplay of Dragon age suffers from trying to be two things at once. I dont really agree that the issue is real time vrs turn based so much as it is tactical party based vrs action with limited party inputs. There are some great real time tactical party based rpg combat systems out there for instance so it is doable.

We mean the same thing there - more tactical gameplay being what turn-based gameplay elements are good for, while real-time gameplay progression is about the only element of action games that the series has had, aside from arguably the more flashy animations.

Personally, I'd rather just have XCom: Dragon Age Edition, or Sekiro/Dark Souls with Squadmates.

It'll never happen though.

I'd rather something closer to Devil May Cry or Dragon's Dogma than the Souls series if we're picking action games to copy, personally, but yeah, definitely agree with the sentiment. And agree that it won't happen, sadly.

[Dienekes]

I'd rather something closer to Devil May Cry or Dragon's Dogma than the Souls series if we're picking action games to copy, personally, but yeah, definitely agree with the sentiment. And agree that it won't happen, sadly.

To each their own. DMC is a solid action game, and Dogma has some neat ideas even if I found the healing system pretty broken. I just prefer Souls because I prefer the timing/patience over flash style gameplay. And honesty of all these games, Sekiro is the only one I think does swordsmanship right. And since I’m primarily a warrior player that’s what I’m most interested in seeing done.

[factotum]

Add me to the list of those thinking that article has no "heartening" content of any kind. They canned the decent DA4 and are going to produce a "live services" version instead? I don't think it's possible for me to be less interested in the game after hearing that. Maybe if they said it would cost £50k and I'd have to sacrifice a puppy daily in order to play the game, although I'm not sure even that would be enough.

[Anteros]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but apparently it'll be the team that made Jade Empire making this. I didn't particularly care for Jade Empire's gameplay, or the way they handled the morality system, but surely they've evolved since that game came out.

I definitely agree that the gameplay of Dragon age suffers from trying to be two things at once. I dont really agree that the issue is real time vrs turn based so much as it is tactical party based vrs action with limited party inputs. There are some great real time tactical party based rpg combat systems out there for instance so it is doable.

Mass Effect for instance went action based and its gameplay is easily the best part of ME3 and Andromeda. It seemed like DA was moving more towards action with DA2 but when DAI came out they back pedaled and tried really hard to bring in a pseudo isometric perspective which honestly just doesn't work. It was probably more than they should of bitten off with the Frostbite Engine considering all the issues the engine has doing stuff outside of FPS games.

I'm interested in what games you think do a good job with real time party rpg combat. The Tales games system is awful, and so was FFXV. Even Mass Effect. They all share the same problem where your party members are almost useless and only there for decoration and the occasional ability. I've never played a live action party RPG that I thought did a good job at the combat.

To each their own. DMC is a solid action game, and Dogma has some neat ideas even if I found the healing system pretty broken. I just prefer Souls because I prefer the timing/patience over flash style gameplay. And honesty of all these games, Sekiro is the only one I think does swordsmanship right. And since I’m primarily a warrior player that’s what I’m most interested in seeing done.

I'm loving combat in Sekiro, but it's so based on learning enemy movements and timings. It's basically a rhythm game disguised as an action game. I don't see how you could ever change it to a party system in a satisfying way.

[Psyren]

Personally, I'd rather just have XCom: Dragon Age Edition, or Sekiro/Dark Souls with Squadmates.

It'll never happen though.

X-Com Dragon Age is basically just Divinity OS2, definitely play that if you haven't yet. (In fact, their upcoming spinoff - Divinity Fallen Heroes - is leaning into that concept even more.) And wonder of wonders, it's a true turn-based CRPG, none of this real-time-with-pause nonsense that flows like a river of bricks.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but apparently it'll be the team that made Jade Empire making this.

Can it really be "the Jade Empire team" with no Mike Laidlaw, Kevin Martens or David Gaider? Color me very skeptical.

I'm interested in what games you think do a good job with real time party rpg combat. The Tales games system is awful, and so was FFXV. Even Mass Effect. They all share the same problem where your party members are almost useless and only there for decoration and the occasional ability. I've never played a live action party RPG that I thought did a good job at the combat.

Honestly, if the controllable character's combat is good enough I don't really care what the squad is doing. Jade Empire, ME2 and ME3 all exemplified this.

Dragon Age's big failure is requiring the party in order to do anything - you have the holy trinity of roles, and that horribly unintuitive combo system (which reached peak bad in DAI) that required you to cooperate with an AI that wanted to do anything but. Note that both Mass Effect and Jade Empire let you do combos solo, and the combat was miles better because of it.

[Anteros]

X-Com Dragon Age is basically just Divinity OS2, definitely play that if you haven't yet. (In fact, their upcoming spinoff - Divinity Fallen Heroes - is leaning into that concept even more.) And wonder of wonders, it's a true turn-based CRPG, none of this real-time-with-pause nonsense that flows like a river of bricks.



Can it really be "the Jade Empire team" with no Mike Laidlaw, Kevin Martens or David Gaider? Color me very skeptical.



Honestly, if the controllable character's combat is good enough I don't really care what the squad is doing. Jade Empire, ME2 and ME3 all exemplified this.

Dragon Age's big failure is requiring the party in order to do anything - you have the holy trinity of roles, and that horribly unintuitive combo system (which reached peak bad in DAI) that required you to cooperate with an AI that wanted to do anything but. Note that both Mass Effect and Jade Empire let you do combos solo, and the combat was miles better because of it.

I'm not familiar enough with who those people are to comment.

I sorta agree about the combat. Mass Effect's combat is good, but it's not a party RPG. I feel like something like Dragon Age should be. Party based RPG combat is almost a genre by itself and it would be a shame for it to disappear.

[Morty]

Mass Effect for instance went action based and its gameplay is easily the best part of ME3 and Andromeda. It seemed like DA was moving more towards action with DA2 but when DAI came out they back pedaled and tried really hard to bring in a pseudo isometric perspective which honestly just doesn't work. It was probably more than they should of bitten off with the Frostbite Engine considering all the issues the engine has doing stuff outside of FPS games.

I don't know if I'd say that DA:I backpedalled. It straddled the fence between action and tactics even harder than DA2. It was very clearly designed to be a multiplayer game at first, then the direction changed. So you had a whole party, but the controls were geared towards controlling your own character.

To be honest, I've grown a little disillusioned with real time with a pause games as well. It kind of struck me when Deadfire introduced its optional turn-based mode - everything felt so much more clear and easy to keep track of. I agree that party dynamics are such a big part of the series that they can't be discarded, but I don't know how to make such combat satisfying in real time. I think the baseline "three classes and MMO-lite mechanics" concept of DA:O just doesn't have a whole lot of room.

I could see something like Jade Empire, which is an action game that doesn't pretend your friends use the same mechanics as you - but JE only gives you one companion at a time. And IIRC the best way is usually to take Dawn Star and have her regenerate your chi, so that's not ideal either.

[Inarius]

I'm interested in what games you think do a good job with real time party rpg combat. The Tales games system is awful, and so was FFXV. Even Mass Effect. They all share the same problem where your party members are almost useless and only there for decoration and the occasional ability. I've never played a live action party RPG that I thought did a good job at the combat.

Tower of Time and Pyre off the top of my head. Granted Pyre isn't really a traditional RPG, but Tower of Time is a fairly standard dungeon crawler that uses real time combat with the option to slow time. Granted its more of an exception than anything else, usually you wind up with something like Tales or Mass Effect where your played character does 90% of the damage and your companions are basically just there as cannon fodder.

The thing is its typically indie games that are better at experimenting so we'll most likely never see a AAA rpg that attempts to do anything outside the norm for real time party based combat. I'd personally prefer they just do turn based if they want to play it safe.

Dragon Age's big failure is requiring the party in order to do anything - you have the holy trinity of roles, and that horribly unintuitive combo system (which reached peak bad in DAI) that required you to cooperate with an AI that wanted to do anything but. Note that both Mass Effect and Jade Empire let you do combos solo, and the combat was miles better because of it.

Setting up combos wasn't really that bad in DA2, but they added to the tactics system which really helped to get your companions not to waste combo abilities at the wrong moments. Its when they removed tactics from DAI that things got really akward, and thats probably because they couldn't replicate the system in frostbite which is a shame.

I sorta agree about the combat. Mass Effect's combat is good, but it's not a party RPG. I feel like something like Dragon Age should be. Party based RPG combat is almost a genre by itself and it would be a shame for it to disappear.

I do agree that DA should probably stick more to the party based side of the equation since we've already got Mass Effect and Anthem for the more solo actiony based side of it. Luckily it seems like western party based RPGs are making a resurgence, it's just Bioware doesn't seem to be a part of the crowd keeping it alive these days.

[Zevox]

To each their own. DMC is a solid action game, and Dogma has some neat ideas even if I found the healing system pretty broken. I just prefer Souls because I prefer the timing/patience over flash style gameplay. And honesty of all these games, Sekiro is the only one I think does swordsmanship right. And since I’m primarily a warrior player that’s what I’m most interested in seeing done.

Personally, I see the Souls games' gameplay as the same style as DMC's in essence, but slower, clunkier, and more mechanically restricted. Still good, because that style of gameplay is strong enough that it can still be fun even weighed down like that, but ultimately, IMO, inferior.

I also use those examples partially because between them they have the best boss fights I've ever seen for action games. Devil May Cry for humanoid opponents (the Vergil fights of 3 and 5), and Dragon's Dogma for large monstrous ones.

For a Warrior character, I think my ideal would be to hand them things like Dante gets from his Royal Guard and Swordmaster styles. A wipe variety of attack options, coupled with defense options that are functional at a base level but strongly reward precise timing.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but apparently it'll be the team that made Jade Empire making this. I didn't particularly care for Jade Empire's gameplay, or the way they handled the morality system, but surely they've evolved since that game came out.

I liked the gameplay in Jade Empire well enough, but that was a long time ago now, and does nothing to allay my existing concerns. Especially since, honestly, it gives me no more reason to believe the new game will change its gameplay up than I had previously.

I'm interested in what games you think do a good job with real time party rpg combat. The Tales games system is awful, and so was FFXV. Even Mass Effect. They all share the same problem where your party members are almost useless and only there for decoration and the occasional ability. I've never played a live action party RPG that I thought did a good job at the combat.

Honestly, if the controllable character's combat is good enough I don't really care what the squad is doing. Jade Empire, ME2 and ME3 all exemplified this.

I agree with Psyren. "Party real-time RPG" to me just means, at most, that you have an action RPG where you can change which party member you're controlling if you want, and otherwise that you have AI party members helping you. The Tales of franchise and Mass Effect both do that pretty well.

[Beleriphon]

ragon Age's big failure is requiring the party in order to do anything - you have the holy trinity of roles, and that horribly unintuitive combo system (which reached peak bad in DAI) that required you to cooperate with an AI that wanted to do anything but. Note that both Mass Effect and Jade Empire let you do combos solo, and the combat was miles better because of it.

ME:A Was great for combos because 1) the AI would do its own combos and 2) you could tell your AI buddy "Hey biotic dude make that guy float" and then peg him with a grenade or whatever. You could also the opposite and have the AI do the combo. It wasn't perfect, but it did work.

[OlegRU]

Miss Dragon Age, beat Origins, trying to pick up where I left off in Awakening a few years ago and just can't get back into it.... maybe I should just play the next DA and not try to play everything up to it...

[Anteros]

Miss Dragon Age, beat Origins, trying to pick up where I left off in Awakening a few years ago and just can't get back into it.... maybe I should just play the next DA and not try to play everything up to it...

It's honestly aged pretty poorly. The only one that I'd consider a decent game compared to modern stuff is Inquisition (for obvious reasons.) I'd probably just read a plot synopsis of the things you missed and jump into DAI personally.

[Zevox]

It's honestly aged pretty poorly. The only one that I'd consider a decent game compared to modern stuff is Inquisition (for obvious reasons.) I'd probably just read a plot synopsis of the things you missed and jump into DAI personally.

Ironically, I'd do the opposite. If I were going to re-play a Dragon Age game today, it'd be either Origins or 2. I couldn't even finish a second run of Inquisition shortly after it came out, the oversized maps and all of the junk spread across them just made everything too tedious.

[Lord Raziere]

Ironically, I'd do the opposite. If I were going to re-play a Dragon Age game today, it'd be either Origins or 2. I couldn't even finish a second run of Inquisition shortly after it came out, the oversized maps and all of the junk spread across them just made everything too tedious.

Agreed. Origins and 2 are the better ones. I legit tried Inquisition, but between its tedious over padding and bigness for no reason combined with its underwhelming story and the fact that the Origin client kept screwing me over and making me have to rechange my password constantly and go through a stupid test to prove I'm not a bot, it just wasn't worth completing. I've seen the ending to Inquisition on youtube, its nothing worth talking about.

[Inarius]

Honestly I like all 3 of the games but for different reasons. The biggest gripe I have about Origins and Awakening though is that they are hands down the buggiest games Bioware has ever released. So many ways to cause the game to crash, so many broken quests and so many minor talent line bugs it makes me wonder if they were channeling their inner Bethesda for the game.

[Anteros]

I understand the complaint with the padding in Inquisition but I think it's a non-factor. All of the optional stuff people complain about is completely optional. There's still a decent game underneath if you ignore all of that and just play the parts that interest you.

The plot itself of Inquisition is basically "Generic fantasy plot number 3" but honestly, if that's something that bothers you I don't know why you'd be looking at Bioware games at all. The plots and characters of every single game they make is basically pulled directly off a tvtropes page.

[Lord Raziere]

The plot itself of Inquisition is basically "Generic fantasy plot number 3" but honestly, if that's something that bothers you I don't know why you'd be looking at Bioware games at all. The plots and characters of every single game they make is basically pulled directly off a tvtropes page.

Inquisition's plot isn't about falling in love with someone you can't have then getting them anyways, what are you talking about?

also, only as optional as the need to get all the power to advance the plot, which basically translates to required sidequesting. so not optional at all.