First off, I love Role playing games, probably my favorite Genre. I was super excited about Dragon Age 3, the next Mass Effect and Fallout games (whenever they would be announced) and even liked a few of the smaller, less known RPGs like Mount and Blade and Kingdoms of Amalur.

However, this game has completely spoiled me with how good it is. MY friend and I were actually talking about Dragon Age and I just said "huh, no matter how good it is I probably won't enjoy it because I've been spoiled."

Dragon Age: Origins is really good though if you're talking about that on your last sentence.

Lol, talking about the newest one, Inquisition. But that is a great game though.

Dragon Age: Inquisition caught my attention when they announced that they were bringing back Tactical view. I'm very hesitant about buying new or preordering it though, Dragons Age 2 was an insult to PC gaming. Bioware have changed a lot over the last few years , especially since EA got their grubby fingers in the pie, and I for one can no longer trust in their product until they can prove otherwise.

Larian Studios on the other hand, have nailed it. Through their transparency during development, to their mediation with the community, they have created a product that represents almost exactly what I want in an RPG. There are a few things that I would prefer to be different in the game, but they are minor irritations compared to what they did right.

Here is the thing. You weren't really playing RPGs as much as you were playing wannabe action games with shallow RPG features. This is how RPGs used to be. Here is to hoping more are made again!

Don't do it... Seriously... don't!!!!

If you have to, wait about 6-12 months after release and pick it up out of a junk bin sale for dirt cheap. Don't enable EA, let them die out like they should.

What features, specifically, does D:OS have that these "wannabe action games with shallow RPG features" don't have that makes it not shallow?

With the tactical view back, Inquisition does look more like Baldur's Gate and Origins again.







All that I'm worried about is choices not having consequences, Bioware messed up big time here with DA2 and ME3.

Not a question of have/don't have exactly, it is an issue of focus. The focus of the games he listed are cheap story interaction (BioRomance, or action play, etc...) Not on detailed character development and its interaction within the game.

Well, I don't consider RTwP to be a shining example of tactical play. Baldurs gate while entertaining was not my generation of cRPG, the gold box and similar style games were which each had true turn based play.

I can understand how you want dialog choices to have consequences, that is one element of tactical play in an RPG, but I also like combat to have many consequences as well. When a player is forced to consider each stage of their approach, to account for it by the round, you get much more interesting gameplay imo. Which is why I think D:OS is doing so well.

Removing the radial wheel or not voice-acting all dialogue doesn't change the content of the dialogue. This "detailed character development and its interaction within the game" is something that D:OS lacks just as much as the aforementioned titles.

Unless you can be more specific than that I'm not seeing the difference.

Mount and Blade actually has a focus on kingdom building and is more of a sandbox RPG where you go out and make your own character's story.

If Dragon Age 3 is anything like Origins then we can expect detailed character development and its interaction within the game. It already has the tactical camera back so it's possible to play it like Origins again.

Kingdoms of Amalur, Mass Effect and Fallout I've give you though. Those are actiony RPG's and out of them, IMO, only the first two Mass Effects are any good as RPG's (the third one felt like nothing more than a shooter with RPG elements). Kingdoms of Amalur had horrible combat and felt like a clone of Fable and TES. Fallout 3 played like a terrible shooter with RPG elements.



I agree on that. One of the reasons why I'm enjoying Original Sin.

I'm loving Original Sin as well (in fact I think it's a 10/10), but I haven't found it to ruin any other RPGs for me.

Story interaction is merely one component of an RPG.

To me a good game is a good game, I have high hopes for both Witcher and Dragon Age, what excites me most by far with DA is they are using the Frostbite engine, this will be a first in Bioware history having an engine that doesn't need to load a new area ever couple city blocks. It's hard for me to get a great sense of adventure when the areas are small and the loads are long. If they nail the tactics and their action method is as good as DA2 (no matter how many people want to pan DA2, there are a lot of people that never paused it and played it as an action game) if they nail both sides, there is going to be a lot of happy players.

How high has D:OS raised the bar for Wasteland 2? Torment? & Pillars? There is your competition, having mods and coop are huge beni's to D:OS.

Sorry but the UI alone is enough to make me wanna puke - also even tough they said that its gonna be more tactical - everything they showed off made me think they finally gone all the way to a hack and slash.

I mean just look at that ugly awful UI - looks like they stole the Sci-Fi- Theme from Mass Effect ...


Not to mention the stupid character voice-system which simply doesnt work since you pretty much never are in control of how and what your char actually says.

Nothing bioware has done so fare convinced me that they are on track again ...

Tbh divinity is a big deal for me no question. But before i give it the title "Holy Grail of Rpgs" i would have to forget all the stuff which are totally crap in this game. Maybe the fanboys are too blind to realize:

- Amateur written Story in General
- Amateur written Conversations
- no real Depth in the Gameworld
- Very linear Gamedesign, my second playthrough will exactly be the same, even if i change some directions, it will be the exact same outcome
- Very small World
- No full voice acting
- no "real" freedom in the world ( well how if its so small lol )

You cant just ignore these stuff. It is good 100% but its not the Holy grail, and its definitly NOT an overall awesome RPG even if oyu wish that. Try to be mature and look at it with a clear and sane mind.

Give your feedback in that way and you can help them either improve it to be the game you wish, or to create a better one. But dont be silly lol.

.. and just to make clear that im no hater or troll, the positives totally outweight the downsides.

- very good Character development system ( with some imbalances )
- Perfect choosen Artstyle ( terrain, colours, textures, effects )
- Very impressive Music which i might never forget lol
- Pretty good amount of content playtime ( even on a smallscale world )
- most of all the flawless combatsystem, better then everything i saw till now. Works perfect, is most of the time logic, very innovative and excellent executed. ( sometimes imbalance )

Planescape was the king of tactical combat, to the point where there are only perhaps 5 mandatory fights in the whole game. This is a great game for what it is, which is a tight mechanical RPG. The story is okay, but I like the voice work and the animations as well as the ability to chat with silly animals.

I have not enjoyed any free roaming world since Fallout 2.

This game is 100% on the mechanics, the art and general animation and ambiance but the story could have been improved, and branching could have been introduced, but the latter is quite difficult to get right, so I don't miss it. I have played Syberia 1 & 2 four or five times and you can't change anything, so whatever.

Well, that is fine. I like playing many types of games as well, but when I feel like eating beef, I want beef, not chicken smothered in beef sauce.

Thing is... it is EA. They will screw it up, guaranteed. Their problems with game design runs extremely deep in the company. Short of EA breaking up and studios going rogue, It is almost certain to be another DA2 garbage gimmick release. These guys can't make good games to save their lives anymore.

Pretty much. What makes this game amazing is the mechanics. As you said, its story is okay, but it is the systems that make it a winner. That is to be expected though, Larians games were never super strong on story. They have a light hearted feel to them and that works.

what

Everything I have seen on Dragon Age Inquisitions and The Witcher 3 looks fantastic. I think they will both nail it. Of course EA is terrible but they have an amazing engine in Frostbite 3 and gave a lot of freedom to the team for Dragon Age this time. So much from E3 seemed to be what they learned from DA1 (good) and DA2 (bad).

I believe the only reason DA1 was greaet was that bioware was acquired by EA during development. Probably >80% of development have been done already before EA had a significant influence over it. I did not remember any DLC at all from that game, but an expansion which did make an overhaul on the story.

DLCs became common with some games. You could thank the ex-CEO of EA who resigned after being voted as one of the worse companies in two consecutive years or voting season.

Bioware that made DA1 does not exist anymore. It is just a name now that EA markets off of. The games are going to be hard gimmicks, massively hyped and will end up again with angry players. It is a circle of behavior that is all too common now and one you see with the MMOs out there. People keep coming back though, which is why I linked the "EA in a Nutshell" Youtube video.

Yep, what an outcome. I could go in detail and write an roman about these points, but i dont want to spoil anyone. You will see yourself, or let ignorance take the upper hand...

Dragon Age's strength doesn't lie in the gameplay, area design, story or anything that's related to general gameplay.

Dragon Age: Origins would be an average to crappy RPG in my eyes, if not for the incredible work they put into the characters, voice acting, character progression (I mean what they learn as persons, not the levelling process) and their relationships with each other.
Just listening to Alistair and Morrigan barking at each other, entertained me for hours.

I would've probably cried or at the very least been very sad if any of the characters died during the story.

Can't say that about any game and in that regard, DAO is exceptional and has an area where it excels over DOS.

Which is why some refer to it as a relationship simulator and an extremely weak RPG in terms of mechanics and development. Nothing wrong with people liking the games, to each their own, but the problem is with people calling it a quality RPG and then expecting everything else to mimic it.

Cool story bro.

I second your 'what' with another. What?

I... just... okay....

EA has nothing to do with the failing of DA2 or ME3. Bioware is to blame for everything but they have listened to fan feedback for Inquisition and that shows with the reintroduction of multiple player races, the return of the tactical camera and customizable companions again.



Just out of curiosity...

Did you play Origins at all?

In terms of mechanics and development, it's just as hardcore as Original Sin. I have no idea what that poster up above is going on about.

-Three different races which influence statistics.
-Three different classes.
-Six different origins which impact the story and character development.
-Armor and weapons require certain statistics to wield.
-Six specializations for each class.
-Skill system.
-Crafting system.
-AI companion management (i.e setting their scripts).
-Tactical and strategic combat based on skills and statistics.
-You only level up to LV 20-25 in the main campaign. The game doesn't feel like action-RPG dungeon crawling romp where it's all about gaining levels and looting.

That's not to mention how you have dialogue skills (i.e intermediate, persuade etc) that are based on statistics unlike Original Sin's minigame persuasion system.

The role-playing is far superior to Original Sin too thanks to character interaction which Divinity: Original Sin lacks with its companions.

Dragon Age: Origins was never called a relationship simulator. That's Dragon Age 2 and even with that, the romances and companion interaction were all optional. "Relationship simulator" just an insult used against recent Bioware games because of how Bioware talk a lot about the romances nowadays as opposed to traditional RPG elements. It doesn't help that half the writers also talk about the romances on twitter.

But yeah, Dragon Age: Origins was as traditional as an RPG got. It's emphasis was on questing, role-playing choices, statistic combat, talking and most importantly, role-playing a character (the freedom you had was amazing as you could make anything from a ruthless anti-hero to a religious knight).



Mass Effect 2 was developed when Bioware was under E.A and it turned out pretty good.

Dragon Age 2 was a flop because Bioware rushed it and took away features which made the original one great. It was Bioware's decision to take the combat and turn it into an action mess.

Mass Effect 3 was a flop because they took even more RPG elements away (you only get two dialogue choices most times) and ending the series with a poor ending. Bioware's poor writing there had nothing to do with E.A.

I hate E.A as much as the next guy but they have nothing to do with development.

Remember why Larian decided to go independent?

It was basically because of publisher pressure. Bioware is not independent, so it's not all about them. How much their overlord butts in DOES matter.

Yeah, I have no desire to get into a long detailed discussion about why DA is what it is. I can already see that you won't accept my discussion as you are already excusing publishers involvement in the process.


Answer to one of your questions though. Yes, I did play all of Origins, even did the expansion. I disagree greatly, but getting into that isn't going to matter.

ME2 was fun, no doubt, but it was disappointing because they stripped all the RPG elements (albeit however minor they were) from the first game. I can't fathom how you could actually believe that EA had no say whatsoever in the development of DA2, ME2/3, etc. Bioware exists in name only. They are wholly owned by EA. It's like Eidos Montreal and Square Enix. When EM was bought out by SE, the former effectively ceased to exist (and they've stated as such on the EM forums), except in name only.

By the way, I do want to specifically address one comment, as it directly corresponds to my point.



Just as it was Larian's decision to make DD a real-time action RPG? Just as it was Larian's decision to make D2 a third person action RPG? And Larian wasn't even owned by the publisher, just funded by them. How much more control do you think EA exerts, as owner of the Bioware brand?

If you really believe EA had no say in any of those development decisions, you're just deluding yourself.

And I can argue you're biased as well judging by all your previous negative posts on Bioware.

But you seem to forget that different people have different opinions and I was merely disagreeing with yours.

I'm aware publishers can be involved (i.e development time, release dates, marketing, shooting down ideas etc) but it was Bioware's choice to make DA2 what it was just as it was their choice to write those endings for ME3.



ME2 hadn't stripped many RPG elements out. In fact it was deeper as it replaced armor sets with individual armor pieces with their own benefits and statistics. Skill trees were numbered down but you were given a choice to evolve an ability at the end. Most of the skill trees in the original simply consisted of weapon skills anyway (i.e assault rifle, pistol) and ME2 replaced them with more abilities.

ME1 gave the illusion of choice but none of your choices in the story mattered or had any impact (other than the choice to save either Kaiden or Ashley). ME2 on the otherhand had choices that had impact and you could even end up with everyone dying in the end.

ME2 was the perfect mix between action and RPG. It was a proper action-RPG with gameplay far superior to the first. ME3 steered completely towards action shooter territory.

I'm on the Bioware forums so I read all the developer blogs, the developer comments on the forums and their twitter posts where they go into detail why they're going their route and why they genuinely think it's for the best. I'm not denying EA doesn't have a say in things but half the stuff is also Bioware's decisions (i.e romances, story, writing) and I just find it funny when fans say EA made the ending of ME3.

And Divine Divinity originally started as The Lady, the Mage and the Knight, a real time action-RPG.

I'll have to find the quote, but I'm certain I read (or perhaps it was in one of the videos) where Swen stated that DD was originally planned as a turn-based game, but their publisher insisted on real time.

Lets be fair to EA though they are the ones who green-lit Dragon Age. No doubt the reason most Bioware "RPGs" have been declining in quality has something to do with EA but I can safely assume Bioware are also the issue.

I may be in the minority but I didnt think Mass Effect 2 was a good RPG at all other than the writting and some of the environments but other than that it was just an average shooter and then Mass Effect 3 came along and was so uninspired and dull that its frustrating because I loved ME1 to bits and was hoping they would expand on the RPG elements but clearly they decided not to.

Then there is DA2 which is an awful game. Though DA:I is looking better but I will probably get it on Xbox One because I got DA2 on PC and was stuck with it and couldnt get rid of it, so if DA:I is bad then I can just trade it in.

Never said it wasn't Bioware's fault, but lets be honest, how many of the original Bioware people are still working for Bioware now that EA owns them? My point is, Bioware is not Bioware, it is EA games with EA hires making games using Biowares name.

It is the same thing with Blizzard. When they bought out by the big companies, all of the original staff moved on. Blizzard isn't Blizzard anymore, the talent left the building, all that is left is the name.

That is correct. None of their titles were conceptualized to be action games. That was due to the publishers demands. I don't know why Demonic is claiming the Action RPG thing. Swen stated exactly the opposite many times when it concerned the divinity games and what they always dreamed of making.

I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact i have this same debate constantly with people. I nearly got killed in work when I said Mass Effect 3 was an awful game! But then ofcouse the usual "oh its just the ending" and I have to constantly explain myself that the ending isn't the issue with that game, regardless of how bad it was.

If you're referring to Origins, most of the work had already been done by Bioware (proper), prior to the sale to EA. It would have been a waste of money to leave the game unfinished. And we all know EA doesn't like to waste money. If you're referring to DA2, then *hurk*SPIT*. If you're referring to Inquisition, then we'll just have to see if EAWare truly learned their lesson.

Oh, I completely understand, which is why I am not willing to get into it with Demonic. It would be a long drawn out battle to get my points understood. Different strokes I guess, I am a Gold Box era gamer, so I often have extreme clashes with this generations ideal RPG. Heck, I even clash with the 2000 Era RPG fans from time to time. I did a lot back then as well, which is funny because I get to see them lament over the way the games have turned out since their Golden Age.

EA are no stranger to cancelling games they could of easily made them work on something else but we can both agree that DA2 was truly a bad game.

Again I understand completely, Jito463. Skyrim too is another "RPG" that has gotten so much buzz and the amount it sold will give Bethesda the excuse it needs to either make every Elder Scrolls game something akin to Skyrim instead of atleast trying to make it anything like Morrowind or Daggerfall.

The days of the kind of RPGs you and I seem to be referring to are over and we will only get something once in a blue moon. Still to this day I play Daggerfall, such a great game.

Mass Effect 3 isn't exactly an awful game but I don't really look at it as a role playing game either. I look at ME3, DA, etc as adapting the idea of a RPG to a control scheme suited for a console. You lose a lot of the spirit of the genre in that translation.

Not completely just because its on console doesn't mean it can't be adapted to that control scheme. To me there is a difference between adapting how the game works and then there is just watering down and I may be going against the grain but consoles aren't necessarily the problem with RPGs getting watered down.

Morrowind was on the original Xbox and thats how I played it back in the day because between 2001 - 2005/6 I was on a "break" with PC gaming but the original Xbox was a good middle ground. Its just they go for the masses who are both on Console and PC and not to sound elitist and maybe what I'm going to say is all in my head but I belived PC gamers in the 90s were alot more mature than they are now since we have a "new wave" of PC gamers who have came in and are coming in who think they are Gods gift because they now play on PC.

There are people around my age (23) who have come into PC gaming recently and they think they are King Dick, the whole "PC Master Race" just rubs me the wrong way and its funny at the same time.