Dragon Age 4 - Rumors of its Existence

[Dasale]

Criticism of a game helps people think about the game differently.

Sure but stick to negativity and ingore the good aspects is pointless. Say to someone all he does is wrong has no effect, he thinks he does some stuff well and some not as well, it makes your opinion tiresome and hard to be credible.

That's why positive criticism is important. But it's also important not ignore the good aspects and I see that ignored too often again and again.

Where led all the whining about DA2 and ME3, to DAI and MEA, I doubt whiners felt they get listened. So what it used to? Let say the crowd funding Rpg, almost sure and a great effect, but most of their bigger flaws come from such whining.

I'll take the ridiculous design choice of DOS to spend half of budget to ensure you can kill everybody and finish the game, that is for 0.001% of players killing most of them, and 5% doing some boring pointless killing.

 

[Dasale]

Gameplaywise, the philosophies behind an open world and a level based world are different.

In the past, the difference was marked by technolog, so much that, in the same vein as the tale of the RPG elements, people were inclined to tell that loading screens between areas was the determining factor to tell about open world and non open world.

These days, though, with the advance of technology, loading an area can be handled no matter what.
A level based world can be loaded seamlessly. Nevertheless, the philosophical difference remain. The technological marker has disappeared.

Bioware products fall in the category.

Without a translation I won't be able to answer. I tried Google Translate but failed find what language to choose.

How about write for commoners with only 10 years of studies, certainly awfully bad studies but still.

Well ok, why not, so I understood Bioware last products fall in same category than Bethesda products. Yep agree oki doc.

 

[azarhal]

I don't get what's this " old game design", there's nothing of BG1&2 in DAI or MEA, perhaps you evoke Citadel and MEA?

Old game design => "RPG with large areas you can freely explore with a party, some of them optional, with none-linear progression for most of the game". That was in every BioWare games but JE, DA2, ME2 and ME3…and technically DA2/ME2 were slightly none-linear with the way you got multiple priority/main missions at the same time between choke plot point that you could do in the order that you wanted (the choke points are just totally blatant which makes the design fail).

DAI war table (and MEA Apex HQ) were inspired by a feature in Assassin's Creed series. The collectibles from Batman Arkham games (and probably others I didn't play). MEA "random encounter at point X with tasks" is similar to Batman City "random encounters" as you move through the City and stumble on "phone calls trails" and stuff like that. MEA scanner has more in common with Batman batvision than all the other clones in other franchises.

 

[zahratustra]

Old game design => "RPG with large areas you can freely explore with a party, some of them optional, with none-linear progression for most of the game". That was in every BioWare games but JE, DA2, ME2 and ME3…and technically DA2/ME2 were slightly none-linear with the way you got multiple priority/main missions at the same time between choke plot point that you could do in the order that you wanted (the choke points are just totally blatant which makes the design fail)

Stuff "old game design". Gimmie "new game design" like TW3

 

[Dasale]

Old game design => "RPG with large areas you can freely explore with a party, some of them optional, with none-linear progression for most of the game". That was in every BioWare games but JE, DA2, ME2 and ME3.

I didn't noticed large areas in DAO only few medium size, Citadel in ME1, first town in BG2. DAI, MEA, TW3, any Elder Scroll, some more, have areas width that offer totally different possibilities and difficulties than other DA, ME first trilogy, even BG2. For BG1 it's another approach.

DAI war table (and MEA Apex HQ) were inspired by a feature in Assassin's Creed series. The collectibles from Batman Arkham games (and probably others I didn't play). MEA "random encounter at point X with tasks" is similar to Batman City "random encounters" as you move through the City and stumble on "phone calls trails" and stuff like that. MEA scanner has more in common with Batman batvision than all the other clones in other franchises.

Ha that's why you listed WB and Ubi. Good to know, I never played much those games and even couldn't bear AC series.

So The Witcher 3 was influenced by Warner Bross games, I didn't knew, that's an interesting detail.

Anyway I don' think MEA nor DAI tried go back to any old school gameplay, nor to DAO/ME1/BG2, blueprints are too different, and they tried even less to target older RPG.

For me it's Elder Scroll, Gothic 1-3 series, FO new series, Far Cry 2+ and other very open games. But ok to manage it, on some points it's an approach inspired from some modern Ubi and WB games. The Witcher 3 is certainly a lot closer to Elder Scroll than either DAi or MEA. But MEA and DAI are less far to Skyrim than are DAO and ME1. Well that's how I see it.

 

[wolfing]

Loved the first one.
Liked the second one even with the known problems.
Hated the third one.

Not really liking the trend.

 

[Elel]

Nice. Waiting. I care mostly for what they do with the plot. Hopefully there'll be a lot more of it than in DA:I.

DA:I was a great game if you just ignore the open-world part of it, even though I'm not a big fan of BW's combat mechanics these days. Still, there's too much hatred for them, and they still tell the best stories and create the best characters, hands down - and without stupid character restrictions (like locked class (!) and gender a la Witcher franchise).

It's sad that BW is mostly disliked here. Their pluses more than make up for their minuses. There are so many mediocre games that I'm tired of this type of extreme thinking which ignores the pluses. These days I'm fine with a game failing in one or two aspects if it does something else great.

 

[Deleted User]

When Age of Decadence was released it was marketed as a completely different type of rpg. There's even a blurb about it when you first start the game.

However, Steam forums were full of people complaining about not being able to do some of the same things they can do in mainstream RGPs (mainly power fantasies where choices in character creation are largely irrelevant due to not being able to fail) even thought that is exactly what that game is about.

There was one particular interaction with Vault_Dweller (the AoD dev) and a steam user. The user basically made the same complaints as above, and VD responded by saying it's a completely different type of rpg with different goals and different types of experiences. The user was basically completely confused with this kind of response and basically called VD arrogant for ignoring decades of modern game design. As if this is now the default design for all RPGs to come forever and ever.

My long winded point is that games that market themselves as RPGs but are nothing more than action/visual novels/fantasy games with RPG elements does a disservice for people who want more focus on systems and combat. DA:I might very well be an enjoyable action fantasy game with interesting dialogue and characters, but as a fan of more old school turn-based RPGs, its involvement in the RPG universe does nothing but harm the genre that I love in the form I love it. What AAA rpgs have turned into are basically HL1 with more story and some rpg elements.

Of course, this might just be a "get off my lawn you damn kids" moment, but let's not pretend developing ANY game doesn't have consequences. They most certainly do.

-Bioware and its IE games popularized RTwP as a mechanic for mainstream rpgs
-Action based Diablo popularized action in RPGs in general and gave birth to the ARPG genre (which is really how I'd classify all AAA rpgs made in recent years)
-Bethesda's games popularized the FPS viewpoint in an actioney way (ass opposed to blobber FP), amid horrible combat, and gave us FO3 and FO4, which are miles away from the originals.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that a game being released has much bigger consequences than a group of people enjoying it in their own little corner of the world. Also, it's a slow Friday

There's some truth in this, and I find myself agreeing with the idea behind some of these points and have for awhile. But, IMO, your focus is misdirected.

It's not that these huge AAA RPGs "hurt" anything. They actually turn people on to RPGs, so at the very least they are bringing people into the fold, not the other way around. These are more often than not casual gamers or younger gamers, not necessarily the type who are going to be on GOG playing Wizardry 6 or something anyway, but those who just want a romp through a fantasy RPG with a good story. (I would argue that getting into RPGs in general could lead to a player eventually playing Wizardry 6, just like I did. My path to CRPGs started with mainstream RPGs.)

I do think developers have approached development in the wrong way when it comes to appealing to casual gamers. Basically, I feel that instead of casualizing the entire experience, the devs should give options to turn on or turn off casual or hardcore features in the game. So, Skyrim for example. Rather than just the default game mode being "Quest Markers = On, Magic Compass = On, Magic Map = On", these would be options in-game for people to tailor the game they want it. This would mean, and this is important, that the base game would already be made with these options in mind. I.e., the game would be playable without quest markers, as Morrowind was, and so on.

The reason I say they approached the development wrong is that they basically casualized the game and forced everyone to accept it without giving much in the way of options. In Morrowind, there should be an option to turn on quest markers, but the base game still gives you directions in the journal and NPCs are looked to for directions as well, so it would be playable both ways. It would be up to the player to choose which way they wanted to play. Thus the casual player can have a modern experience while the old skool player can have theirs as well, without negatively impacting each others' experience.

I think more options like this going forward would be great for all parties. There's nothing wrong with casual gamers wanting to play RPGs, I think it's great. I was a kid once and was turned on to RPGs, so I'm thankful for stuff like RPGs on consoles and what not. Had the entry level been too high growing up I may not have been able to start playing the games that changed my life in such a beautiful way. But I think there should be options to appeal to the casual players as well as the hardcore players who want the old skool RPG options as well. I believe it's possible if enough people ask for it. Already we see games like Pillars of Eternity that have many small options that tweak the experience and challenge, as well as having both Story Mode and Path of the Damned (and other options in-between.)

 

[JDR13]

Still, there's too much hatred for them, and they still tell the best stories and create the best characters, hands down

I don't think Bioware's stories are even close to the best, but we're all welcome to an opinion.

 

[zahratustra]

I could mention a game or two (or three, or four) where stories wipe the floor with Bioware's but I wont

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Outside of Dead or Alive girls, they pretty much are...I know zahratustra agrees with me on this.

 

[JDR13]

Outside of Dead or Alive girls, they pretty much are…I know zahratustra agrees with me on this.

Maybe HuniePop.

 

[purpleblob]

DA:I was a great game if you just ignore the open-world part of it, even though I'm not a big fan of BW's combat mechanics these days. Still, there's too much hatred for them, and they still tell the best stories and create the best characters, hands down - and without stupid character restrictions (like locked class (!) and gender a la Witcher franchise).

It's sad that BW is mostly disliked here. Their pluses more than make up for their minuses. There are so many mediocre games that I'm tired of this type of extreme thinking which ignores the pluses. These days I'm fine with a game failing in one or two aspects if it does something else great.

It's a bit hard to ignore open world bit when it's rather mandatory for whatever's power thing you need to progress story etc (from my knowledge, could be wrong).

I found Witcher 3's story and characters are much more superior than DA:I even if I couldn't relate to Geralt most of the time.

Doesn't mean I don't enjoy BW games - I find their games light hearted and fun, as long as they don't go overly dramatic emotional fest in ME3. Most importantly, BW is one of the very few companies producing party based rpg with lots of npc interactions. That's good enough reason for me to buy their game - but only when it's on sale. I find their newer games really lack replayability and quality overall compared to their previous titles.

 

[Deleted User]

How's the character building and ruleset in the DA games nowadays? I thought Origins was a good game, even if the ruleset and world were a bit "D&D-lite."

 

[Stingray]

How's the character building and ruleset in the DA games nowadays?

Don't remember DA2 too well at this point, but as far as DA:I goes, nearly non-existent really. Your character has 6 stats but you don't customize them (there is no character creation other than selecting one of the 3 classes) and don't ever increase them manually, only gear (or special game events) affects them. Beyond that you just have a simplistic skill tree, and most of the skills are active abilities/spells, the rest are largely extremely simplistic passives. Your single hotbar doesn't even provide enough space to actually make use of all of the active abilities/spells that you'll acquire during a full play-through (at least with the DLCs). As with most RPG-lites, "character building" is largely about acquiring (or crafting) gear and choosing which you want to use.

 

[purpleblob]

How's the character building and ruleset in the DA games nowadays? I thought Origins was a good game, even if the ruleset and world were a bit "D&D-lite."

Just in case you have forgotten, DA games is not just DA:O. There are DA2 and DA:I which happens to be more recent ones in the series.

 

[Deleted User]

Yeah blobby, I'm aware, just haven't played the DA games past Origins yet. That's why I was curious was the RPG mechanics looked like in the other 2 DA games.

Thanks for the info, Stingray.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Maybe HuniePop.

Now you're talking. Good to see another fan here.

 

[luj1]

Criticism of a game helps people think about the game differently.

Sure but stick to negativity and ingore the good aspects is pointless.

No it isn't, it's the only thing that's pushing us forward.

That's why positive criticism is important.

Positive criticism sounds retarded, you probably meant constructive criticism.

Harsh critique is 10x more constructive than faggoty fanboyism you're enforcing. It makes devs tremble in fear and give you interviews.

 

[Arkadia7]

Jesus, had no idea the Dragon Age series was that bad now, in terms of the rpg mechanics. The rpg mechanic parts seem to be getting more and more superfluous for the series, maybe they should drop stats altogether, too complex for the mass market these days, and concentrate on their famous social justice-y game elements…As I once jokingly stated, I would like to see the next Dragon Age game have all characters be transgender and/or gay, at least that would be humorous to talk about. They can lead the charge in gaming of a non gender-binary agenda! And stop this ongoing oppression... (I made that joke when David Gaider was writing the games though, and as I know, he left the company, so my "dream" may go unrealized…)