Dragon Age - Sequel Dated?
 

VG247 (via 1Up) has an interesting discovery. Apparently retail copies of Dragon Age: Awakening contain a teaser card with an image of the Dragon Age blood dragon - and a date of February 1st, 2011. We already know a sequel is expected around that time, according to a recent EA financial conference call. Is this the specific release date for a sequel?
Thanks, Lemonhead.
More information.

Dragon Age 2 in less than a year from now?

I'll believe it when it happens.

I have my doubts as well.

If it's true I will bet at best for another expansion, like Awakening.

It could very well be, they did something similiar with Baldurs Gate I and II, they can use the same engine and everything with same minor tweaks and just provide a new story.

Anyway… I don't care much for DA… EA completely ruined it (exactly as they did with almost every past game franchise they acquired… hello Ultima?) with their mainstrean approach, filling it with blood, sex and arcadeish elements like auto heal or resurrect.

I understand how you feel. I was crushed when I found out what Dragon Age was going to be like. I was hoping for it to look something like what Diablo III is looking now with the sharp graphics with the isometric view, and a combat system similiar to Dungeons & Dragons working in the background. Maybe a modern version of The Temple of Elemental Evil is what I feel Dragon Age should have been. The only roots Dragon Age shows from the Baldurs Gate series is you kill monsters… However, I still bought it and think it's a decent game. I like it mostly because there really isnt much out there thats is as polished and well thoguht out as DAO. I still boot my Temple of Elemental Evil to get my computer D&D fix from time to time.

Sure, it's still a decent game and in fact I bought it too, some of the game aspects rock, but far from being the Baldurs Gate sequel I have always been waiting.

It would have been nice if at least EA kept away from the PC all those console elements that, in my opinion, completely ruin the experience. Well.. I guess it was too much to ask.

Probably one of ea's biggest successes, they probably have at least two teams, plus 3 times the normal contractors working, to get another cash cow out the door.

EA did all that? Really? How do you know?

Also, this could well be Dragon Age 2. There should be no surprise there; BioWare's stipulations under EA put them at a very high output of millions-selling AAA titles, so expect their output to be much higher than it was pre-EA.

I hope it's DA2. I don't want to play with my level 30+ characters. My experience of 'epic levels' in all games is … cheese.

My thoughts too. Bioware have long showed a tendency to use auto-heal / resurrection after battles… all the way back to KotOR if I remember rightly, through NWN and then Mass Effect.

Every single PC game franchise buoght by EA is either DEAD or CONSOLIZED, this is a fact. DA is no different.

We actually do no know that the sequel is expected around that time, we know a Dragon Age title is expected around then. Which could be an expansion, sequel, unrelated game, ect. This is just more confirmation that a Dragon Age title is coming out around that time. Anything further is just speculation and conjecture.

I enjoy Dragon Age; however I am scared that EA will eventually do to Bioware what they did to Westwood, Bullfrog, Maxis, ect

Hey! It's EA! They gotta make $$$ somehow when about all else they've got is their very tired sports games, but I guess it's hard to make a new version every year that's actually worth it any longer. In the 90s they could get away doing major gfx updates every year and implementing more new features. Now it feel more like they should just release roster/stat updates as DLC but I guess that wouldn't make them nearly as much $$$.

Anyways, they'll run DA into ground before long. Spewing out DLC on release was disgusting(wonder where that DLC came from… hmm… cut maybe?), and then IIRC an expansion pack due soon that costs about the same as the original game while not being as large?

Usual EA behavior. I figure that Bioware's got about 5y left… one expensive BW release that tanks and they'll be on the cost cutting floor. (And I remember EA when they were decent. Shame what they've turned into.)

Yeah, I have many great videogames on my shelf released in the 90s by the "old" EA… but at some point they turned into this money hungry powerhouse.
They ruined great companies like Origin, Westwood, Bulfrong, Maxis… and these are just the first that came into my mind, I fear for Bioware.

I guess we can't blame them… as long as people keep buying their games they will feel no need to change. That's why I stopped to support this crap a while ago and stopped buying EA stuff unless I'm really forced to (couldn't resist and had to buy DA).

Absolutely correct - that was an error and the newsbit has been edited. That said, this will be a sequel.

You COMPLETELY discredit yourself by mentioning Diablo 3 as the pinnacle of RPG.
On the PC, you can get the iso view very easily. Have you actually played it?

It seems some of you guys have been living under a rock for the past 7 years or so.
EA has stopped being the "evil empire" about 3-4 years ago. Activision is the new EA.

As for Bioware making DA console friendly… what are you smoking? Auto Res. has been
the standard long before EA entered the picture. Bioware seems almost completely unchanged
from how they've always been. IN FACT, there are running jokes how all their games are
the same. You guys need to wake up.

Yeah, I can't agree with too much there. DA looked pretty good in "iso" mode to me. And as much as I liked ToEE, it's a pretty limited design with little in common with BG/BG2, other than the D&D rules. BioWare has *always* done character-centric games - why would you expect anything like ToEE?

He was just talking about the graphical presentation, so that's a bit unfair.

Of course, EA was behind the vapid 'New Shit' campaign…a cynical attempt to reel in an action-based/FPS audience who, in my mind, would find very little to enjoy in a story driven RPG. I assume that's ethical?

If you're going to take issue with a company marketing to new audiences, then you're calling into question marketing as a whole. Not that I have a problem with that but laying it at EA's feet as "unethical" seems over the top to me.

I also haven't seen any signs of a backlash against DA (well, perhaps apart from here). Several mainstream sites declared it GotY (not just RPG of the year) and Metacritic scores are solid. Perhaps mainstream gamers enjoyed it?

Regarding EA: Yes, there has been a change for the better. They do produce games of overall higher quality now than before (an example is how the FIFA games bounced back, and can now rival PES even on gameplay).

If I recall correctly, there was a change in management a few years ago. Ever since, they've been more aware of their quality, and seems to be more patient when developing new games (instead of pushing them out the door as soon as possible).

That being said, I still don't trust them, as it takes more than a few good titles to make up for all the rubbish ones they've made in the past, and all the companies they more or less shut down after buying them (though that trend seems to have turned as well - BioWare is still intact, as is Phenomenic I think).

Edit: I still feel DAs marketing campaign was horrible though. Targeting a new audience is not a bad thing, but in my opinion they seemed to target an audience that will simply not enjoy DA at all - the game is represented in a way that makes it look like an action game, designed for an action crowd.

EA may be better but they did quietly (at least, as far as I can tell it was done quietly) close down BioWare's old partner, Pandemic.

Yes, they did (and not so quietly, apparently). From day one Pandemic was a problematic studio for EA. They only bought it, because it came packaged with Bioware, when Elevation Partners chose to leave the gaming market for good. EA was in a dire situation on the RPG market and were totally in awe about the millions of bucks Zenimax/Bethesda (and their publishers) made with Oblivion - they just needed to have a AAA RPG studio, and so they bought the Bioware / Pandemic package.

Pandemic's products for EA were all terrible: Mercenaries 2 - World in Flames was a bug ridden rehash of the first game for LucasArts 4 years ago. LotR- Conquest was just SW: Battlefront with new objects and heavy pacing and balancing problems. Both games tanked. The Dark Knight Tie-In didn't even made the quality cut in midst of production.

Most of the former Pandemic employees don't put the blame on EA but on the Pandemic management. The cost for the below average games they delivered were just too high.

If you want the story from the horses mouth just read it here
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost…&postcount=309

Ironically Saboteur is said to be a decent game - a good swan song for pandemic. I cannot say something about the game itself because it's STEAM only, and I don't have that customer enslaving product installed.

I don't think their games were too bad. I liked Mercs 2, it was great for co-op and it wasn't "bug ridden". Also, yeah, Saboteur was a solid, fun game.

GameSpot: "Broken, buggy, and boring gameplay leaves Mercenaries 2's world in flames." "Dozens upon dozens of bugs and glitches Heinous visuals Awful AI "

GamePlanet: "PC version is a major let-down" " launch-day issues faced by a multitude of gamers (referenced in many online forums) - surely it would have been preferable to delay the game by a couple of weeks"

and so on.

Maybe it was buggy for the PC, I don't know, but it was fine on the 360.

Was it?
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/acti…es/review.html

Yes, it was. I played it from start to finish. I don't need a review to tell me whether I ran into bugs or not.

The only bug that I came across was in a cutscene at the end. If you play co-op, only one person sees that cutscene, the other just watches it from their perspective. I'd say that isn't a game breaker.

I wasn't following the development actively, but I was under the impression that it would be a very gory BG's spiritual successor. So I think they did all right, at least to some degree.

Saboteur got very mixed reviews, was unplayable at release by a large number of people, is available at retail (they have copies in my local JB Hifi for the ridiculous price of $105), and not available on Steam.

As if that weren't already a record number of falsehods in a two sentence paragraph - Steam does the opposite of enslave the customer. It frees the customer from having to pay whatever exorbitant retail price EB games decide to charge, frees the customer from having to worry about losing or damaging the disk, or needing it in the drive, and often frees the customer from the disk-based DRM that many publishers like to force on us.

Via Blue's:

The closure of Pandemic Studios by EA is also discussed from a first-hand perspective, as Carey Chico, formerly of the studio, describes their downfall as a lack of discipline following their capital influx from merging with BioWare: "When you have your own money, what happens is that you have to maintain your own accountability internally, and if you don't have that, you just f**k everything up.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/cr…semble-studios

Sorry, my information was outdated in this regard. It was slated for a STEAM only release early on (and confirmed by the EA/Pandemic PR manager for STEAM in November 09) and so I lost interest. I only read about it in German print mags that awarded 80% scores. The game's Metacritic average is 76% AFAIK, which is generally positive. You can actually buy the PC retail in Germany for 38€.

STEAM frees anyone? If you see it this way, then even Microsoft EULAs free you from something, e.g. the burden of owning anything. No, STEAM is a DRM system in itself, it's invasive, tries to bind the customer with draconic measures and is a plan from Valve to control the DD market.

I am only able to play The Last Remnant because some good folks spread the STEAM registration data and some hackers provided a working exe. STEAM forces the customer to install a software that is unnecessary for the game to work. It just makes the DRM system work.

So I am free when I am forced to install an unwanted software to be allowed to install a software I want and that I payed for? That does seem to be a version of freedom that Stalin would've agreed to, doesn't it?

No, you're free to choose retail products - or whatever you like for that matter, just as some of us choose Steam because we find it does provides advantages. Save the Stalinist crap for people who need such rhetoric in place of thinking for themselves.

There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that EA would develop anything for exclusive Steam release, by the way. Either a magazine or website misquoted or you misread.

Well that's not entirely true either. Some games require steam even if you buy the retail version (e.g. Total War).

My The Last Remnant retail box sits right next to me. It won't install if you don't install (and update) STEAM beforehand. I had no choice.

And since when, Dhruin, is the use of rhetoric similars forbidden around the Watch? That probably will make the Codex regulars unable to post around here…

Silly of you to buy it then, no? I don't own an Android phone in part because I don't like the local carrier choices. Life is full of choices - you apparently made an uninformed one.

And where did I say rhetoric was forbidden? I suggested you drop the rhetoric because I can think for myself and the propaganda is unnecessary here.

And some Steam games have the retail DRM forced onto them by the publisher. That doesn't preclude you exercising a choice, even if the choice is not to buy.

I think people have the right to be upset if they really want a certain title and are forced to deal with the aforementioned issues due to DRM. If their only "choice" is to not buy it, that's not really much of a choice at all.