Dragon Age: Origins?

[Lord Raziere]

I'm fairly certain it's a bug and I sincerely doubt it's any kind of statement about the Qun, barring a quote from one of the devs/writers on the subject.

Considering that a big chunk of the plot of Dragon Age 2 would not have happened if the Qunari were able to good at anything outside their specialization, I think that is much more than a quote....

[Morty]

Officially? No.

Unofficially I remember hearing a story awhile back that it's kinda a holdover from some odd design decisions. Essentially, originally every specialization was going to have a companion attached to it. There was going to be way more companions, including an Avvar Barbarian Reaver character. Many of them were dropped and didn't actually get fleshed out all that much. Anyway, the end result was they had this Qunari companion who was developed enough, interesting enough, and gives a more relevant view of an important culture than the Avvar. But he does not fit the Reaver specialization at all. And the other Warrior specializations were already given to the other warrior companions. So he gets shipped with nothing.

Wouldn't surprise me, really. There's more that was cut from Origins at some point, like lyrium potions causing addiction and the player's companions becoming corrupted. A design holdover would explain it.

Considering that a big chunk of the plot of Dragon Age 2 would not have happened if the Qunari were able to good at anything outside their specialization, I think that is much more than a quote....

I don't see anyone questioning that Qunari society is divided into strict roles; what is being questioned is that Sten's lack of specialization has anything to do with it.

[Giggling Ghast]

Hey, while there's a Dragon Age thread up, I might as well mention that there's a new book coming out. This one's an anthology called Tevinter Nights, featuring stories by the various BioWare writers. It's set to be released on March 10, 2020.

Ancient horrors. Marauding invaders. Powerful mages. And a world that refuses to stay fixed.

Welcome to Thedas.

From the stoic Grey Wardens to the otherworldly Mortalitasi necromancers, from the proud Dalish elves to the underhanded Antivan Crow assassins, Dragon Age is filled with monsters, magic, and memorable characters making their way through dangerous world whose only constant is change. Tevinter Nights brings you fifteen tales of adventure, featuring faces new and old, including:

Three Trees to Midnight by Patrick Weekes
Down Among the Dead Men by Sylvia Feketekuty
The Horror of Hormak by John Epler
Callback by Lukas Kristjanson
Luck in the Gardens by Sylvia Feketekuty
Hunger by Brianne Battye
Murder by Death Mages by Caitlin Sullivan Kelly
The Streets of Minrathous by Brianne Battye
The Wigmaker by Courtney Woods
Genitivi Dies in the End by Lukas Kristjanson
Herold Had the Plan by Ryan Cormier
An Old Crow's Old Tricks by Arone Le Bray
Eight Little Talons by Courtney Woods
Half Up Front by John Epler
Dread Wolf Take You by Patrick Weekes

[Dienekes]

Hey, while there's a Dragon Age thread up, I might as well mention that there's a new book coming out. This one's an anthology called Tevinter Nights, featuring stories by the various BioWare writers. It's set to be released on March 10, 2020.

[I]Ancient horrors. Marauding invaders. Powerful mages. And a world that refuses to stay fixed.

Hmm, haven't read any of the DA stuff outside the games. But I'd be surprised if they're releasing something like this without plans to use it to drum up attention for the next in the series. i could be wrong of course. But I am curious to see if they keep Tevinter as absolutely horrible as it's been consistently depicted in the games, or if they soften it up some as we get characters and storylines centered on it.

[Morty]

I've read some of the comics for the purpose of some lore-dissecting articles about Qunari and Dragons I was writing. They were... alright. Had some interesting world-building tidbits and a look at some characters before they appeared in the game (Bianca Davri), as well as some I expect to show up (Maevaris Tilani). Never read any novels, though.

[Giggling Ghast]

The Stolen Throne - average
The Calling - getting better

The Silent Grove/Those Who Speak/Until We Sleep - OK, but a bit unsatisfying

Asunder- Good
The Masked Empire - Good
Last Flight - Divisive, but I quite enjoyed it

Magekiller - Boring dreck
Knight Errant - Actually quite fun
Deception- Not as good as KE, but still fun

There still needs to be another comic to wrap up the story arc started by Knight Errant and Deception, and of course we have this anthology. That's not counting the lorebooks, the anime movie or that Felicia Day web series.

[JadedDM]

It's pretty common for them to introduce elements and characters in the books that later show up in the games. Cole, for instance, started as a book character before Inquisition came out. So I wouldn't be surprised if this new book has a lot of stuff that will turn up in the next game.

[Winthur]

So I wouldn't be surprised if this new book has a lot of stuff that will turn up in the next game.

I would be surprised if they actually manage to pump out the next game at this rate.

[factotum]

I would be surprised if they actually manage to pump out the next game at this rate.

It's not like Anthem has been so popular that they need to be spending all their time on it!

[Psyren]

My Dalish Elf was a rogue (archer, naturally) and I honestly can't remember any early quests I had to skip. This was years ago though.

Why would you need to have two Rogues in the party?

To hear their banter, of course.

YouTube

It's not like Anthem has been so popular that they need to be spending all their time on it!

They've cut Anthem's "roadmap" short but claim to still be supporting it. I'm hoping for a No Man's Sky-style comeback but have moved on to Remnant FTA in the meantime.

[Celticbear]

I would be surprised if they actually manage to pump out the next game at this rate.

Don't jynx it, love of the Maker, friend, don't jynx it!

[Morty]

I've seen so many rumors and speculation about DA4 and whether or not it'll come out that I've resolved to just sit back and see what happens. Maybe it'll come out, maybe it won't.

[Giggling Ghast]

Don't jynx it, love of the Maker, friend, don't jynx it!

I know that’s the name of the Pokémon, but that’s not how ‘jinx’ is spelled.

Anyways, according to Casey Hudson’s blog post on Sept. 5, DA4 is in pre-production.

[LibraryOgre]

I know that’s the name of the Pokémon, but that’s not how ‘jinx’ is spelled.

Anyways, according to Casey Hudson’s blog post on Sept. 5, DA4 is in pre-production.

...it might be a technical term, but, ya know, technically, DA1000 is also in "pre-production"

[Celticbear]

I know that’s the name of the Pokémon, but that’s not how ‘jinx’ is spelled.

It's so much more schwifty though, "Sometimes y" ys on the ryse

[Giggling Ghast]

Technically, no. Pre-production means there are people working on the game, they just haven’t reached the level of having a playable demo. Dragon Age 1000 is purely theoretical and no one is working on it.

It's so much more schwifty though, "Sometimes y" ys on the ryse

Be careful with those Xtreme Kool Spellingz. They can backfyre.

[Dienekes]

They've cut Anthem's "roadmap" short but claim to still be supporting it. I'm hoping for a No Man's Sky-style comeback but have moved on to Remnant FTA in the meantime.

Is that even possible? Mind you I didn’t play either game, so take everything I say with nothing but salt. But my understanding was NMS is essentially a low graphic complexity mostly storyless sandbox that mostly ran on an algorithm for its engagement. Fixing it was basically about adding more types of things to interact with to work with those algorithms.

Anthem is trying to be a highly graphical, with in depth story, and more complicated character action and multiplayer interaction.

Seems like it would take a lot more work to fix Anthem. You just needed to add stuff to fix NMS, Anthem would need to be leveled and built again.

Mind you, after Anthem and Andromeda I’m pretty skeptical of BioWare in general. I enjoyed DA:I for what it was. But it already was showing problems with its random crap filled maps, pretty weak sidequests, and general pointless meandering.

I swear if when it comes out, it starts boasting about the maps being even bigger than the Hinterlands with more collectibles I might drop it entirely.

[Giggling Ghast]

I heard a rumour that DA4 will feature all new rendering, lighting and landscape technology that will allow them to deliver a game that's 16 times the detail of DAI. You'll even be able to view distant weather systems across the map!

(I'm personally bailing if they pull that "Other gamers will be your party members" bullcrap.)

[Psyren]

Anthem is trying to be a highly graphical, with in depth story, and more complicated character action and multiplayer interaction.

None of these were actually Anthem's problem - the biggest problem by far was the loot. And for a looter-shooter that's pretty damning, but it is fixable.

The other problems were the bugs (fixable) and the staleness of the content - the latter of which needs time that the devs didn't have because they were caught up with the first two.

The core combat is amazing - it's by far the best Iron Man fantasy we've ever gotten in a game - and the story, while meh, is no worse than the likes of Destiny or Division. About the only looter shooter that bothers with story is Warframe anyway.

[Zevox]

I swear if when it [DA4] comes out, it starts boasting about the maps being even bigger than the Hinterlands with more collectibles I might drop it entirely.

If that happens, I'll definitely drop it entirely (if by that you mean never buy it in the first place). At this point I no longer trust that games Bioware makes will be worth my money, as I once could. I want it to be, but they'll have to convince me that it is first - and just like with Andromeda, that would convince me of the opposite pretty fast.

[Dienekes]

None of these were actually Anthem's problem - the biggest problem by far was the loot. And for a looter-shooter that's pretty damning, but it is fixable.

The other problems were the bugs (fixable) and the staleness of the content - the latter of which needs time that the devs didn't have because they were caught up with the first two.

The core combat is amazing - it's by far the best Iron Man fantasy we've ever gotten in a game - and the story, while meh, is no worse than the likes of Destiny or Division. About the only looter shooter that bothers with story is Warframe anyway.

Fair enough. I don't play looters, I bow to your superior knowledge. Most the criticism I've heard about the game involves missions being completely repetitive, the characters being bland, the world empty, and one story section literally locked around grindy fetch quests. Though that might be because the reviewers were judging the game as a BioWare game, and not as a looter shooter.

Though, selfish of me as it is, I kinda hope Anthem falling on its face makes BioWare refocus toward story driven single-player experiences.

If that happens, I'll definitely drop it entirely (if by that you mean never buy it in the first place). At this point I no longer trust that games Bioware makes will be worth my money, as I once could. I want it to be, but they'll have to convince me that it is first - and just like with Andromeda, that would convince me of the opposite pretty fast.

Yeah, I didn't buy Andromeda right off the bat because of the reported emphasis on the Mako 2.0. Though, to be clear, if I had heard that the story was good I would have bought it on sale at some time and see how much I could enjoy while avoiding driving around completely. But since I heard basically nothing but mediocrity from it I never got around to it. And honestly, have no real desire to look at it at all anymore. I loved Mass Effect (even the 3rd), but I'm pretty tied to my decisions about the Rachni, the Genophage, the Geth/Quarian war. I just don't have much motivation to look at a galaxy thousands of lightyears away that happens to have the same trappings without Garrus, Wrex, Mordin, and the rest.

[Psyren]

Fair enough. I don't play looters, I bow to your superior knowledge. Most the criticism I've heard about the game involves missions being completely repetitive, the characters being bland, the world empty, and one story section literally locked around grindy fetch quests. Though that might be because the reviewers were judging the game as a BioWare game, and not as a looter shooter.

That criticism isn't false per se, but it's also not that important; a strong endgame would have obviated all of it. I mean, Warframe has basically all of these flaws too (including locking the story missions away behind a wall of grind and RNG) but people love it because it actually has loot and progression. (Being F2P certainly doesn't hurt either, and I expect Anthem to go this route if/when it re-emerges.)

Though, selfish of me as it is, I kinda hope Anthem falling on its face makes BioWare refocus toward story driven single-player experiences.

I don't understand this mindset at all myself. Devs like Larian (Divinity, and now Baldur's Gate 3) and Obsidian (NWN, PF: Kingmaker) prove that multiplayer doesn't have to be a dirty word in a story-focused RPG. Hell, it's not like it got in the way of DAI winning a bunch of awards either. And yes, Andromeda and Anthem had many problems, but I don't think the multiplayer can be blamed for all or even most of them.

[factotum]

Yeah, I didn't buy Andromeda right off the bat because of the reported emphasis on the Mako 2.0.

I didn't get it because of the reported terrible animations. Am I the only one who actually liked the Mako sections in the first game? Sure, the vehicle itself handled like a shopping trolley with springs instead of wheels, but it did far more for immersion than the God-awful planet scanning game from ME2--it actually felt like you were visiting alien planets rather than going through a starry loading screen.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't understand this mindset at all myself. Devs like Larian (Divinity, and now Baldur's Gate 3) and Obsidian (NWN, PF: Kingmaker) prove that multiplayer doesn't have to be a dirty word in a story-focused RPG. Hell, it's not like it got in the way of DAI winning a bunch of awards either. And yes, Andromeda and Anthem had many problems, but I don't think the multiplayer can be blamed for all or even most of them.

What EA wants from multiplayer and what Larian or Obsidian want from multiplayer are different things.

EA considers multiplayer games a way to produce endless "live service" experiences where they can hook in and perpetually retain players whilst continuing to monetise them.

So you can't go around offering people a compelling and satisfying single player experience because if a player is satisfied they might stop and then you have to make a whole other product to get more money out of them.

[Zombimode]

Am I the only one who actually liked the Mako sections in the first game?

Nope, I like them as well.

[Dienekes]

That criticism isn't false per se, but it's also not that important; a strong endgame would have obviated all of it. I mean, Warframe has basically all of these flaws too (including locking the story missions away behind a wall of grind and RNG) but people love it because it actually has loot and progression. (Being F2P certainly doesn't hurt either, and I expect Anthem to go this route if/when it re-emerges.)



I don't understand this mindset at all myself. Devs like Larian (Divinity, and now Baldur's Gate 3) and Obsidian (NWN, PF: Kingmaker) prove that multiplayer doesn't have to be a dirty word in a story-focused RPG. Hell, it's not like it got in the way of DAI winning a bunch of awards either. And yes, Andromeda and Anthem had many problems, but I don't think the multiplayer can be blamed for all or even most of them.

That depends what you consider a problem. If the main goal of a game is playing the same missions to grind loot. Well that’s the biggest problem of all. If you like it cool. That sounds utterly dull to me.

As for multiplayer, it most certainly can be a problem. It doesn’t have to be, of course. Of the games you’ve listed Divinity 2 is the only one I’ve played. And from what I can tell it does multiplayer right. In that as far as I can tell nothing in the game requires me to ever have to interact with another human at all. The perfect amount of multiplayer, really. And the game itself seems directly catered to a single player experience. Is the game set up for me to pause and walk away at any time? Yes. Can I choose to sit and contemplate my next move for 10 minutes? Yes. Slowly deliberate over every dialogue option? Totally cool. It’s so single player focused that I’m not really sure playing multiplayer even gives you much of an advantage to beat the game. They essentially just play as one of your companions, right?

If BioWare made a game that was totally a single player experience first then threw up their hands and said “I guess someone could play as a squadmate so long as they’re cool waiting for player 1 to make all the decisions.” Fine. I have no problem.

But creating a massive open world where I have to see other humans jumping around standing on each other’s heads. Or if the game streamlines the rpg or story aspects to get the player back into the multiplayer action quicker. Other players randomly pop in when I attempt a mission as the default player experience m. And without other player help all the enemies become annoying damage sponges. Well, all of that is the bad way to do multiplayer. At least in my extremely biased eyes.

Or create an entirely separate multiplayer experience, like ME3 or DA:I had. So long as it actually is completely separate. None of that “you need to play the multiplayer to get the best ending” crap. Looking at you, released version of ME3. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I didn't get it because of the reported terrible animations. Am I the only one who actually liked the Mako sections in the first game? Sure, the vehicle itself handled like a shopping trolley with springs instead of wheels, but it did far more for immersion than the God-awful planet scanning game from ME2--it actually felt like you were visiting alien planets rather than going through a starry loading screen.

Well, glad you liked it. But I didn’t. I didn’t actually care all that much about exploring far off planets just to pick up a chunk of space rock. Which isn’t to say planet scanning was in any way good. But it was quicker. I remember playing ME1 after exploring one planet, every one after that, I just looked up where the important stuff was online. Set a marker. Angled my car appropriately, then just moved forward and read a book until I got there. And that’s really as bad as I can talk about a game. When I find it so tedious I purposely find enjoyment elsewhere while trying to play your game.

Honestly, I think the only games I can think of where exploring the map was actually fun are the Souls games. But I think that has more to do with how those games design maps. DS1 is technically an open world. But instead of moving through vast plains of nothingness it’s really just a set of rooms each with a unique combat encounter or puzzle. But I somehow doubt they’d go that route if the goal is big maps and a vehicle.

[Psyren]

That depends what you consider a problem. If the main goal of a game is playing the same missions to grind loot. Well that’s the biggest problem of all. If you like it cool. That sounds utterly dull to me.

It's a looter-shooter, so... yes, that's absolutely the goal. This genre has been popular since Borderlands (and Diablo if we really want to trace the roots) with no signs of slowing down its momentum. I agree it's definitely not for everyone.

Though I would argue that "same missions" is a bit of a misnomer if you've got random enemy and map generation keeping the engagements fresh.

As for multiplayer, it most certainly can be a problem. It doesn’t have to be, of course. Of the games you’ve listed Divinity 2 is the only one I’ve played. And from what I can tell it does multiplayer right. In that as far as I can tell nothing in the game requires me to ever have to interact with another human at all. The perfect amount of multiplayer, really. And the game itself seems directly catered to a single player experience. Is the game set up for me to pause and walk away at any time? Yes. Can I choose to sit and contemplate my next move for 10 minutes? Yes. Slowly deliberate over every dialogue option? Totally cool. It’s so single player focused that I’m not really sure playing multiplayer even gives you much of an advantage to beat the game. They essentially just play as one of your companions, right?

1) I'm not seeing how any of that doesn't apply to Dragon Age Inquisition, and I'd be surprised if they make major shifts here for DA4 either.

2) Actually Divinity 2 multiplayer does allow other characters to initiate conversations and the like, just as if you were playing solo and walked that character up to an NPC instead of your main one, with commensurate change in dialogue options or success at conversation rolls etc. And out of combat you can be in completely different parts of the map, or even have part of the party in combat while the rest explore. I've only ever played with friends though so these never became issues.

Or create an entirely separate multiplayer experience, like ME3 or DA:I had. So long as it actually is completely separate. None of that “you need to play the multiplayer to get the best ending” crap. Looking at you, released version of ME3. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes yes, and they acknowledged that was a mistake, and even fixed it. It's been 7 years, you've ground that axe down to a nub at this point

What EA wants from multiplayer and what Larian or Obsidian want from multiplayer are different things.

EA considers multiplayer games a way to produce endless "live service" experiences where they can hook in and perpetually retain players whilst continuing to monetise them.

So you can't go around offering people a compelling and satisfying single player experience because if a player is satisfied they might stop and then you have to make a whole other product to get more money out of them.

As earth-shattering a revelation as "EA bad" might be, it doesn't change my underlying point at all. That point being, multiplayer modes in story-focused RPGs don't have to be automatically bad. That EA can make them awful only proves that they are EA, but they're more than capable of making the game awful with no multiplayer at all anyway.

[Giggling Ghast]

Coincidentally, Dark Horse just announced a new three-issue comic book is coming out in 2020, which I believe will wrap up the story arc that began in Knight Errant and continued in Deception. This one is called "Dragon Age: Blue Wraith."

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/09...is-dark-horse/

[Zevox]

Yeah, I didn't buy Andromeda right off the bat because of the reported emphasis on the Mako 2.0. Though, to be clear, if I had heard that the story was good I would have bought it on sale at some time and see how much I could enjoy while avoiding driving around completely. But since I heard basically nothing but mediocrity from it I never got around to it. And honestly, have no real desire to look at it at all anymore. I loved Mass Effect (even the 3rd), but I'm pretty tied to my decisions about the Rachni, the Genophage, the Geth/Quarian war. I just don't have much motivation to look at a galaxy thousands of lightyears away that happens to have the same trappings without Garrus, Wrex, Mordin, and the rest.

I'm in a similar place, though honestly I'm not super tied to the story of the original trilogy of games. You could totally get me on board with the premise of something like Andromeda for sure - but the way to do it was not bringing back the worst part of the first game and put extra emphasis on it. Especially after I had already given them the benefit of the doubt with Inquisition, because at the time I still wanted to believe in Bioware's ability to consistently make games that I really enjoyed, and still found that IMO the whole open-world thing was not handled well and worked out to that game's detriment. Even though I got through Inquisition once, the fact that it's the only Bioware game I've played that I haven't finished multiple times (despite repeated attempts at additional play-throughs) says a lot. Once it became clear that they were putting the same emphasis on making maps in Andromeda huge and open-worldy as they had with Inquisition, my interest in it dropped like a rock, and it became the first Bioware game since I was able to buy games for myself that I didn't buy on release. Or at all, at this point.

(Anthem is the second, but that's because it's a game I have zero interest in all around. Which is fine, I don't begrudge Bioware deciding to also make a series in a style I don't like - I'm just disappointed when they take series I have liked and turn them into something I don't.)

Am I the only one who actually liked the Mako sections in the first game? Sure, the vehicle itself handled like a shopping trolley with springs instead of wheels, but it did far more for immersion than the God-awful planet scanning game from ME2--it actually felt like you were visiting alien planets rather than going through a starry loading screen.

Objectively, no, you're not, other people have said they did as well. I'm very much not one of them. As mentioned above, I think the Mako was the worst part of ME1 - not only did it handle like crap, but the areas it was stuck trekking through were unnecessarily huge and empty, sometimes awful to find your way around at all due to steep mountainsides blocking your way, and just in general it was all-around boring and tedious to play. Planet Scanning may have sucked, but it still sucked less than that, if only due to being less necessary, less time consuming, and very easy.

[Dienekes]

1) I'm not seeing how any of that doesn't apply to Dragon Age Inquisition, and I'd be surprised if they make major shifts here for DA4 either.

2) Actually Divinity 2 multiplayer does allow other characters to initiate conversations and the like, just as if you were playing solo and walked that character up to an NPC instead of your main one, with commensurate change in dialogue options or success at conversation rolls etc. And out of combat you can be in completely different parts of the map, or even have part of the party in combat while the rest explore. I've only ever played with friends though so these never became issues.

Ahh so Div2's multiplayer is actually worse than I thought. Slightly disappointing, but still, I'll never interact with it and it still seems like the least amount of resources were put into the system.

Yes yes, and they acknowledged that was a mistake, and even fixed it. It's been 7 years, you've ground that axe down to a nub at this point

Well here's the thing. ME3 will keep being brought up about it, because it is the point where the emphasis on the multiplayer is most blatantly obvious on how it effected the production of the game. I may have my suspicions that the pointless grind, lackluster questlines, and time filling collectibles of DA:I were implemented to pad out the run time and make the game seem to be in the same style as Origin, while putting more resources into the multiplayer. But I have no proof. Theoretically anyway. It's pretty obvious to say "Game makers have this amount of money, what percentage was put into the main game and what into the multiplayer" and then compare to the total and percentage put in a game with 0 multiplayer. But I don't have those numbers.

But for ME3 I can just point to the forced attempt to get players to engage with the multiplayer and show how that interfered with the game directly. From multiplayer maps being shoved into the main campaign where they don't really fit. To the implementation of a war assets system in general to show progress instead of the more direct cause and effects systems that ME1 and 2 had. All of that is done to cater to the multiplayer game. And since it was a rush job with assets being divided between the modes we got the gameplay streamlined so that Shepard had fewer dialogue choices consistently throughout the game. And the handwave from the developers that "Shepard is more focused with the Reaper threat" is pretty obviously just that, a handwave.

Now like I said, I still love ME3 because the moments of actual roleplay and cause and effect when done were fantastic. But even without the lackluster final, I think it would have been a worse game for what I enjoy than ME2. And a lot of that can be put indirectly at the feet of needing to cater to the potential multiplayer fans.