Link to the announcement on Bioware's forum; if "verbatim" confirmation is needed, dig through several pages. I had a feeling this was coming--either that, or a surprise Dragon Age 3 trailer/promo material.
Was that whole Felicia Day expansion pack considered a success? I didn't enjoy the game enough to ever bother checking it out myself.
Given I still enjoy playing DA:O over DA2, I'm not overly surprised.
ME TOO!
Was that whole Felicia Day expansion pack considered a success? I didn't enjoy the game enough to ever bother checking it out myself.
I liked it; I'll rate the DLCs with 1 being the best and 3 being the worst:
1 - Mark of the Assassin
2 - Legacy
50 - The Exiled Prince
Yup, DRAGON AGE III will almost certainly be BioWare's next project (though there are mutterings that they may return to the JADE EMPIRE world, which would be great as well).
Here's hoping they are given a decent amount of time to develop it. It'd also be nice if they got DA:O's main designer back on board (he quit in disgust over their orders for DA2, including rushing it like lunatics) so they can retain a unified creative vision for the series (the changes in the ME team hurt that franchise and led to the current ending controversy). I very much doubt this will happen though.
|
As a huge fan of Biowere games (Knights of the Old Republic was good, DA:O was awesome, ME1 and ME2 were the best (didn't play ME3 yet)) I have to say DA2 was their worst game so far and it felt rush, hollow, and not nearly as inspired as other games they did in the past.
I was wandering: is the game considerd a success or a failure? ( I mean both by the public and by Biowere themeselves). Hopefully they recognized all the weakspots and will be doing something better with DA3.
Also while the DLC for the ME games was solid or better so far, the DA DLC I found rather lacking.
Dragon Age: Origins has my favorite DLC to date: Shale! (seriously, that golem is hilarious)
Though the Shadow Broker DLC for Mass Effect 2 is a near second.
While I agree DA2 felt rushed and a bit sloppy (for instance, it *really* bothered me for some reason that the animation for Hawke taking a drink at the tavern was the exact same animation of Shepard doing the same from ME2), I think there are two primary reasons it didn't resonate with me NEARLY as much as Origins.
1) I never cared about Kirkwall, so becoming its champion was kind of meh. All of Ferelden, on the other hand, the slaughter at Ostagar hooked me good.
2) I only liked Varric and Fenris as far as the companions went. With Origins, the only companion I didn't enjoy having in my party was... wait, I liked them ALL and always had a hard time choosing who to bring with me whenever I left camp.
All that said, I have high hopes that DA3 will swing back around to be more like Origins and less like a hollow, fantasy reskinning of a different game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I preferred Dragon Age 2 by a country mile. I found the plot in Dragon Age Origins to be a total cliche and frankly I prefer Varric, Isabella and Merrill to Alistair, Morrigan and Leliana.
For me DA:O was your standard "Big Monster force invading- deal with it" and DA2 was "This is someone's life." To me that was far more fascinating and nuanced than DA:O.
Sure it had issues but I cared far more in DA2 than DA:O.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's hoping they are given a decent amount of time to develop it. It'd also be nice if they got DA:O's main designer back on board (he quit in disgust over their orders for DA2, including rushing it like lunatics) so they can retain a unified creative vision for the series (the changes in the ME team hurt that franchise and led to the current ending controversy). I very much doubt this will happen though.
Many, many people blame Mike Laidlaw for changing Bioware's focus from "let's make a fun RPG and tell an awesome story" to "let's draw non-RPG fans by remaking our RPG title into an action title with a customizable main character".
Also I'm not buying ME3, mainly because I hate saving things and because I loved how ME2 ended (all companions alive, destroyed base, paragon). Long before ME3 released, I knew that playing another installment would likely ruin the series' appeal for me.
I preferred Dragon Age 2 by a country mile. I found the plot in Dragon Age Origins to be a total cliche and frankly I prefer Varric, Isabella and Merrill to Alistair, Morrigan and Leliana.
For me DA:O was your standard "Big Monster force invading- deal with it" and DA2 was "This is someone's life." To me that was far more fascinating and nuanced than DA:O.
Sure it had issues but I cared far more in DA2 than DA:O.
I agree. I feel like many people found what I would term superficial issues with DA:2, while ignoring the deep improvements to the series that it made. Dragon Age was great, but I hope they continue to move forward rather than feel like they have to backpedal in a vain attempt to satisfy their loudest "fans".
I was intrigued by that prospect of DA;2 being the story of Hawke's rise from the get go, but what I found was that DA:O was a well executed cliche while DA:2 was a poorly executed attempt at innovation.
I really wanted to like DA:2 and Hawke, but there just wasn't enough going on in Kirkwall and the writing to grab me and make me overlook the continuous stream of problems I had with the game mechanics. That and the sense of plot-disempowerment from the ending really turned me off the whole game.
Good idea marred by lazy game design which led to one step forward, two steps back in my opinion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong - the concept of DA:2 was awesome, but the execution was painfuly lacking:
1) in DA we got to see the world - the characters traveled from place to place which made the game feel big and varied. in DA:2 we only have kirkwal. That means the they literarily only have, like, 5 maps that are reused shamelessly over and over again. You tell me that it didn't bug you to raid the same dockside warehouse ten times in a row...
I read an interview with a developer of the game who said that in DA:2 they decided to focus the "movment" and "journey" espects of the game to time instead of space. so instead of romping through an entire continent you get to watch the years go by. Cool idea! except it was never put to use. more than 10 years pass during the game, and not a damned thing can even hint about it except the story teller who simply says time passed. Not only do the characters all like precisley the same, not having aged a single friggin' minute, the city is always the same too. Evrey bagger is still standing where you first met him, hack, they even say the same lines!
2) The main plot revolved around the civil rights of the oppressed mages of Kirkwal. I don't know why exactly but that premise seemed a little silly to me. How many mages could there possibly be? why is this such a burning concern to evreyone? shouldn't we be worried more about, I don't know, poor people or something? you know, a class of people who unarguably deserve more than they get and (this is a real bonus) have no chance of transforming into demons and devour evreyone around them. What I am saying is that I feel that mages shouldn't be so central in the day to day debate. they are, after all, nothing but a tiny fregment of society.
3) The game is extremly unfocused. Your character is someone who is supposed to have a huge influence on the entire world. such people should be real "pushers" - always working to get what they want, relentless... purpose driven. However, I always felt that Hawk was more of a "drifter". You spend the game just sort of... doing stuff. nearly nothing to hold the entire thing togather. In the first game you were saving the world from an evil horde. This time around you get no actual motivation or reason why your character should be important to what's going on.
I guess not evreyone is as bothered by those things as I am, but for me it really killed the game. Combat was fun though :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One big difference (and disappointment) for me was I felt Dragon Age was 'my' character. I could/can pick several origins for him, and it's hard coded in that the other options died in 'my' life. Whereas in DA:2 I'm playing Hawke, someone else's life.
Small quibble, I know, but it really made an impact on my enjoyment.
I've been thinking about this all weekend and I really think it all boils down to the game failing to make me care at all about Kirkwall or the people who lived there.
And I'll heartily agree with Dies Irae, the whole
None of that really ruined the game for me. I still enjoyed it for the most part, just not nearly as much as I enjoyed Origins.
Given you couldn't go five feet without tripping over an apostate or an abomination, I'd have to admit, I was far more inclined to look the other way regarding the Templar treatment of Mages.
Seriously.
Mechanics wise, they were an annoying enough opponent as it stood, but "Meh, we'll cover the map in them." has unfortunate implications regarding the plot, given that so much of it revolved around the idea of uncontrolled magic.