Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General After Seeing the new Dragon Age Trailer so glad BioWare didn't get to make Bg3

Honestly, after DA:O, the series sort of went downhill for me. Was never a fan of the mage/templar conflict, and it seems like that's all the series is now. the trailer look awful, the gameplay clip might as well have been any random 3rd person action game with constant talking/jokes/quips with bland action combat. The only reason people are "waiting and seeing" is because it's Dragon Age. Any other IP attached to it and it'd be a "eh, that's a gamepass release for sure".

The mage/templar conflict was a big plot point in DA:2 (a game I'm a big fan of) But it was pretty inelegantly sidelined in Inquisition. The
thing that disappointed me most about the trailer, is how uninteresting Tevinter seems. With the complex political landscape already riven and pigeoned holed into crazy cult like bad guys. It was lame in Inquisition and it looks like it'll be the same here.

I'm looking forward to the Dragon age Origins - Next gen RPG thread being resurrected :p

The characters are all pansexual too, another regression, but that's probably more of my personal pet peeve.

You mean the same DA fans who complained about DA2 being too linear?

DAI being open world is likely a direct result of the massive number of complaints about DA2's linearity.

Any dislike from DA fans about DAI as such is not due to them being some sort of linear game afficionados, but from DAI's poor implementation of an open world.

I've never been exceedingly in love with the original, either, if I have to be honest.

While I was glad of its existence since it was the only moment in the entire Bioware's downward trajectory that they attempted to recapture the "Baldur's Gate- style" of RPG, even that game had countless mechanical flaws, like a shallow ruleset that didn't differentiate its bestiary anywhere near enough and made the same exact strategies work without flaw regardless of who you were facing (i.e. it was a game where fear and other mental status effects worked on Undead too, for instance).
In its favor, unlike the console version, the PC version also had a very competent use of the isometric camera/UI during tactical combat. And while the game's visuals were... uneven in general, when it worked it was a looker from the top down perspective for a RPG of its genre. A bit less flattering watched in third person, but you can't have everything...

Putting that aside, I do think most of the games in the series so far have had some redeeming qualities, but it's always been a matter of finding them in the middle of a lot of mediocrity.
For example even Dragon Age 2 (aka "Revenge of the shit mountain") despise its notorious recycle of assets and locations and overall incredibly scarce variety had some decent parts, like some likable character arcs (and a couple of stinkers too, but hey...) and the idea to fragment the adventure over the arc of several years with occasional time skips in the middle was at least interesting, even if it could have been executed better. The combat system also wasn't too bad on a mechanical level and it was mostly the scarce variety of enemy types and the constant use of "spawning waves" that harmed it.
The ending on the other hand was aggressively mediocre, and that's being charitable.

Inquisition is a game that attempted to over-correct some of the flaws of DA2 (great production value, better overall art and character design, a large variety of assets and some stunning scenarios) but conversely it's also the one that fell short the most when it comes to its pure gameplay.
The combat system was ATROCIOUS (spam-centric, confusing in the least flattering way, deeply unsatisfying, poorly balanced, etc... and the quest design in general felt like something out of a MMO forced in "offline mode". Even some of the major companion quests in practical terms resolved as "wander through a few regions and click on these four spots to read a pop-up text and progress the story".

___

When it comes to this last upcoming one, it's been a rollercoaster between lows and lowers so far.
The first trailer released few days ago was tonally deaf and a source of vicarious embarrassment. Then the gameplay demonstration came and for few minutes I was tentatively forgiving toward it ("The art style isn't really my thing, but watching the whole thing in movement it doesn't look too bad").
All my optimism died the moment the combat started, though.

It's not just that it's action combat with hardly any resemblance of tactics (not my preference, I'll tell you that) but it doesn't really seem to be the GOOD TYPE of action combat. Everything about it seems off. I don't like these floaty animations, I don't like its "button mashing" vibe, I don't like the hyperbolic/hyperkinetic feel of these movements nor the color-coded enemies. I can tell you that even if you are into action combat (and while not my first preference I'm absolutely open to it, for the record) this is not going to be this year's Sekiro, that's for sure.

The melee action in the gameplay trailer actually looks pretty neat. A bit sluggish, but otherwise it might be similarly dynamic as god of war. The comments by companions are annoying, though. Overconfidently throwing insults.

It looks passable.

Though, the key question is always how's the skill trees going to be like. They've never been particularly good in Dragon Age games in terms of either customization or options (Especially for non-mages where you got far less "Combo" skills... Or skills at all)

Since the trailer only shows early game footage, we only see the bare bones combat (Spamming attack and having 1 skill available). We don't know much like, could we spec this Rogue into melee or ranged? Poisons and stealth? Any cool Prestige classes to unlock? etc. With also how does this compare with companions? (All the companions in this game have unique titles, does that mean they'll have unique skill trees? Or will they all have the same generic ones the player has?)

To say nothing about other classes, like the Warrior and Mage archetypes (Will there be any others?) as well as how overall combat will feel like when it comes to making a party, especially with the 2 companion limitation (Used to be you could bring a Warrior, Rogue and Mage with you to create a balanced team and then your PC will be a second of one of the archetypes. Now will you be forced to get the 3 different archetypes with your 2 party members and your own character to create a balanced team? What's the difficulty like? Will you need a Tank built Warrior and a heal focused Mage like in prior titles?)

Also, what will the non-combat gameplay be like? Is there much to explore? Is there reasons to explore? Can you talk to people? Are people worth talking to? What is equipment like? Is there much variety? Enchantment? etc.

There's a lot of concerns I have about gameplay. But I guess time will tell once more information is released.

I posted a couple of pages ago a link about an interview where the director talked a bit about the skills and the way it is supposed to work. Another link where they talk more about the mission based aspect. They elaborated a bit on some things in a Discord Q&A yesterday.

There are still the three archetypes/classes. Warrior, rogue, and mage. The companions will have things that pertain to the archetype/class that is theirs, but they will have their specific skills too. In the Q&A they explained that they wanted to reflect their history and personality in that way too. To maybe add to that, I don't know exactly how it works, but, for example, Bellara (the Veil Jumper) is in fact a mage, yet in the trailer we saw her using a bow. Neve (the detective from the Shadow Dragons) is also a mage, but she appears much more classic, and she's really specialized in ice magic.

For the protagonist rogue and the melee or ranged thing. Well, in the gameplay reveal we can already see that the rogue is sometimes able to use a bow here and there, while primarily using daggers. Rogue specializations are supposedly Duelist, Saboteur, and Veil Ranger. I'd say that Duelist might maybe go well for melee, and Veil Ranger for ranged. I don't know about poisons or stealth, or what Saboteur might entail. Edit : Yeah, after taking another look at some notes from the Q&A, there was a question about being an archer, and they answered that there was one skill tree for ranged combat for rogues, and that it would be totally viable.

For the two companions thing, they said they had tested a lot of things, and just concluded that, to them, it was the right number. So the companions could also have more visibility and presence, and so that it was not too overwhelming. There's supposed to be synergies possible in between the protagonist and the companions at certain moments too (edit : they gave an example where Bellara would cast her ability Gravity Well, with another mage’s Time Stop, and your character going for damages, possibly with something that works well on the weaknesses of the enemies).

Again, it's supposed to be mission based. They explained a bit more, that the start is pretty linear, and then it opens up more. It starts in Minrathous, in the Tevinter Imperium, but it expands to Northern Thedas more generally. From a hub, called The Lighthouse, a little bit like Skyhold in Inquisition. In the Q&A they repeated that they wanted things to be really tied to the story, even when you can explore more, return somewhere, or get to some side content. I think I remember that they also joked along the lines of "no more shards in the Hinterlands". And, from what I've heard, they have taken feedback and inputs from a lot of people while working on the game. Edit : To add that they mentioned that some locations might see changes depending on choices.

I don't remember everything. But I think they intend to divulge more (character creator, more about combat, and a few other things) in the future.

It really doesn't.

The whole premise of this thread makes no sense to me. The Bioware that made BG1 and BG2 simply doesnt exist anymore. Thus it couldnt have made BG3 either way. Or any other game.

More specifically the Bioware that made BG1 and BG2, or for that matter Knights of the Old Republic and the original Mass Effect triology, was sold to EA, and really only exist in name ever since. So, sure, EA could have made BG3 and put the "Bioware" label on it, because they own that name. But its not the same people, its not in any way the same kind or even just a related kind of company.

Just one example, the original Bioware's motto was "its done when its done". They would make great games because they would make games they themselves would like to play, and they would finish them properly. And especially in BG1 and BG2 there is some storytelling of a quality that is hard to find in games.

EA has no official motto but their maxime is clearly just capitalist profit maximization. Thats why they published money grabs like Dragon Age 2 or worse absolute trash like Mass Effect Andromeda. They arent Bioware and they destroyed what that company was. Many of the people that actually worked at Bioware left pretty quickly, especially also the founders of Bioware. The company is gone, and so is its spirit.

---

About Dragon Age, even the original game was finished only a good while after EA had already acquired Bioware, and even this original game was already deeply tainted by EA. Bioware originally wanted to make it a game that would be PC only and offered multiplayer, and certainly they didnt want to have a "free" DLC that would force you to give your private data to EA either.

Pretty much the same things happened to Mass Effect, by the way. Even if those games still turned out relatively okay, for whatever reason.

---

But I cant say that I care too much about Dragon Age either way, even if Bioware would have finished their original vision.

I havent played any other game but the original DA:O. I havent gotten the addon for DA:O, and I didnt bothered about the later games. So I dont know if it got worse after. I think I saw that the third game was supposed to be sort of okay. It still looked very much like they used the same bad rulesystem, though.

Still even the first game was already really bad.

The rulesystem designed for Dragon Age is frankly one of the competitiors for the worst rulesystem ever, with absolutely riddiculous design failures in really every area. How they designed classes was horrible. The subclass concept is nothing short retarded. The skills are godawful. The only area in which I actually liked the rulesystem was Mages. You actually got a nice variability in how to build those. So whoever designed this mess clearly had not spent much thought on how to design good rulesystems. It only doesnt get my price for worst rulesystem ever because other people have fucked up even worse.

And I also didnt like the world setting much. This whole Darkspawn thing, the other countries, none of this had much appeal. Dwarves cant be mages, oh how original. Yada yada nothing actually interesting. And dont even get me started on the weird stance on magic, was that even supposed to make any sense ?

I wasnt fan of the characters either. More tiresome stereotypes.

---

Would the original Bioware have made BG3 in the quality we've seen from Larian ? I dont think so. The passion Larian showed about BG2 is really only possible if you have great financial independence. Bioware was great, but they never became have been this great. For some reason they never archieved the degree of liberty that Larian seems to have archieved now.

Either way yes I'd love to see a BG3 from the original Bioware. Or a BG4 now. For example I'm sure they would have given us levels beyond 12 no problem. But thats of the past.

---

The trailer is dumb. Nuff said.

Origins also wasn't open world. Didn't hurt it much. Bioware adjusting for Inquisition is mainly the result of Bioware checking what's most popular, and adjusting accordingly. E.g. chasing market trends. As it's always been (even before EA). The only ever exception from that was arguably Origins -- meant to be a throwback and "back to the roots" to Baldur's Gate, including it's more tactical form of party-based combat.



https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news...cking-out-skyrim-for-dragon-age-iii.aspx


Skyrim was the biggest kid on the gaming block when they sat down for Inquisition. That's it.

And I never said it was.


No. It didn't. It also wasn't as linear as DA2. So what's your point?


I'm sure literally the most common complaint about DA2 being it is "Too linear" had zero impact on their decision...


I mean, in the quote you mention it literally states "Bioware hasn't turned a deaf ear to the criticisms players had for Dragon Age 2"

Seemingly, they wanted to get away from the linearity of DA2 because that's what all the criticisms was about and they did so by looking at Skyrim and seeing how well received an open world game was and figured "Hey lets make an open world" because that's literally the furthest thing you can get from a linear game.

Thanks for this summation. Very informative, and personally interesting.

This, Dark and gritty?? I mean...sure if your under 12 years old.
Take a look at Path of Exile 2, Bloodborn...
I was thinking the total opposite. It now has a more Disney, Larian, purple everywhere, flashing eyes, comedy comic Overwatch look to it.
Plus I think the game looks REALLY bad for a latest AAA offering. Like mobile phone blend and bad. Very blurry details and effects.

And gone is the argument...but, wait till the game release!! 99% of games nowdays you get a good idea of what your getting with their trailers/ first gameplay videos.

Try to read again what I wrote: darker and grittier than DAI, which for me was pretty Disney.
Plus I said, that it looked better than that first trailer, not that it looks great.
I said it a few times already: I will only play that game, if reviews are good. Right now , I'm still sceptical.

Srsly?

I had feeling that rogue were runing around like Chihuahua on cocaine. O_o

Maybe that's me that's just plain stupid, but, again, I don't mind the art style I saw in the trailer and/or the gameplay reveal. What matters to me is that the dark fantasy elements were still there. And, to me, knowing that there seems to be a real continuity with Tevinter Nights (published in 2020), that was more important too. Maybe I'll be disappointed, a risk with many things, but it makes me think that they might have had a rather cohesive story in mind for a while. The snippets from all over Northern Thedas and that start to the game certainly have me curious.

@kanisatha No problem.

There's nothing stupid about feeling a certain way about a subjective artstyle!
Personally I think the art style itself in its most technical form is fine, I don't see the problem there. I think it could age pretty quickly, though. In my case, like I've said before, it's the whole aesthetic/costume and exterior design they've gone with that I don't really vibe with.

Yes, you're very right. I guess it's just that I feel a bit at a loss in that department, games and their art styles. First, because that's not necessarily what I focus on the most. Second, because I don't play a lot of games, I just play them a lot, so I lack a lot of references sometimes.

the hair physics looks pretty good though

I’m comparing it against God of War and genuine beat'm'ups, and compared to those many movements in the gameplay example seem delayed, as if they had to gather strength before moving. There is a lot of jumping (which could feel great to play), but the blade movements feel like they have to cut through thick honey in the beginning.