Dragon Age: Inquisition Inquire-All - THE BREACH HAS OPENED

For reals, I love the world and am curious to see how it goes.

That video really has a lot going on, can't wait to see more of it.

That dragon was badass. This makes me want to go back and finish DA2.

Is it confirmed what platform this title is releasing on? (other than PC) Next gen (though shortly current gen) or all gens?

You know what impressed me most? Their art director used the whole color palette.

TheGameguru wrote:

Is it confirmed what platform this title is releasing on? (other than PC) Next gen (though shortly current gen) or all gens?

Last I saw it was PC, PS3, PS4, 360, and Xbox One.

TheGameguru wrote:

Is it confirmed what platform this title is releasing on? (other than PC) Next gen (though shortly current gen) or all gens?

When I saw the video I looked up the release date. This article came up, where it states it will be on PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360 and Xbox One.

Poor WiiU.

Taking a look at the video... Cassandra seems kinda ugly. Wonder why the change.
-Edit for more stuff
Looks like there's a sneak function? Looked like the character was moving quietly sometimes.
Loved how when the dragon landed it kinda bounced a bit.

So I always wondered if Scabbards are just that damn difficult to code...

TheGameguru wrote:

So I always wondered if Scabbards are just that damn difficult to code...

This made me laugh harder than it should have.

TheGameguru wrote:

So I always wondered if Scabbards are just that damn difficult to code...

They require hand done animation to get them right, and that's expensive. At least that's my best guess, because the few times I've seen them tried (Mitsurugi in Soul Calibur has a victory animation where he sheathes his sword) there are clipping issues.

I still haven't played DA2 (I'm kind of at an "only buy things on Steam" place lately). Think it's worth doing before this comes out? I love story in games, so if there's stuff from it that will be build on here, I might be convinced.

StaggerLee wrote:

I still haven't played DA2 (I'm kind of at an "only buy things on Steam" place lately). Think it's worth doing before this comes out? I love story in games, so if there's stuff from it that will be build on here, I might be convinced.

Absolutely.

Yeah, going into with some awareness of what its issues are does allow for the things that do work to shine a little. It isn't a total train wreck, its just seriously flawed on a variety of fronts. I actually finished it up a few weeks ago and don't regret playing it. The whole thing can be done in about 20 hours, so it isn't nearly the time commitment Origins was.

For some quick opinions to get the most out of it, I found the voice actor for the female Hawke more interesting than the voice actor for the male Hawke. Additionally, the story works a little better if Hawke is a mage.

Enjoy!

I actually really liked DA2, but I'm in something of a minority there. It was obviously rushed, and they had just a horrible, horrible habit of re-using dungeon areas... they would add and subtract doors, so you'd be crossing the same spaces again and again and again. That was super frustrating, especially early on, when I didn't realize that the blocked-off doors were actually blocked, and not secret entrances to something.

And the plot has some really glaring holes.

But I liked it a lot, anyway. I particularly liked the smaller scale of the quest: you weren't trying to be the Big Damn Hero, you were a refugee, and you were trying to provide for your family in a strange city. You weren't out saving the world, you were saving your mom. That motivated me quite strongly, actually.

One thing I thought was super-clever about the game was something that you wouldn't even be aware of until your second or later playthroughs. All the characters around you invisibly bend to suit the character type you're playing. My first playthrough was as Boy Scout Hawke (Hawke is the protagonist), and my second was Snarky Hawke, and the conversations were often completely different. The game didn't jump up and down about this, but the differences were major, and subtle, in the sense that you had no idea things were changing on your first play. Anyone who played it only once would have no idea just how much was changing to match their decisions. It feels rather linear, even though there's (apparently) a great deal of branching going on that you can't see.

I think EA grievously mismanaged Bioware for DA2, but the team was sufficiently brilliant to put together a pretty darn good game anyway, even being incredibly rushed, and starved for development cash.

Inquisition looks awesome, but I'm just morally certain EA will take that great work, and hopelessly foul it up. That's what the modern EA does.

Malor's in depth analysis is spot on in my book. I'd recommend getting it, turning down the combat difficulty to easy and just enjoying the story and characters. There was indeed a lot going on, the Flemmeth arc, the Qunari arc come to mind. Just know that some of the dungeons and areas get tedious (playing on easy just make them shorter). I also really enjoyed the smaller scold of the story. Sure, you aren't out to save the world, you're just trying to save yourself and your family, maybe your friends, but gosh, did it make for a compelling narrative.
A lot of people didn't like it, but at this juncture, it's gotta be cheap. Just give it a try and see for yourself.

I'm told the DLC was top notch with new environments, but I never got them.

As a huge fan of Thedas and the stories they've been telling in that world (well, from the books and games fronts anyway)... I'd say it's worth it for at least one run-through just to have an idea what's going on in the world...

Then again, I'd still recommend everyone read the third book too to get an introduction to the world of Inquisition pre-sh*tstorm that is unleashed on the world in the game.

Dragon Age 2 was great, despite the flaws it surely also had.
Combat can be pretty good as well, but that probably requires higher difficulty, not lower.

And as Malor says the game changes in some subtle ways in new playthroughs. A bit funny actually, we tend to complain when RPGs make choices between Blue/Good and Red/I'll eat your children. Then when they offer some subtle changes, we are unhappy because we dont notice them

Shadout wrote:

A bit funny actually, we tend to complain when RPGs make choices between Blue/Good and Red/I drink your milkshake. Then when they offer some subtle changes, we are unhappy because we dont notice them :D

FTFY

People want both subtle and overt changes in games that purport to be about choice. Personally, I'd love for there to be echoes of subtle changes throughout, like in DAII, but I also want things to happen the make for a different experience / story. If all roads lead to Rome, it think it makes the subtle changes feel underwhelming... Weirldy, I'm reminded of the original Wing Commander game, where losing missions early on sets up a whole new endgame, with a vastly different set of missions / story arc. I know that wasn't an RPG, and the story change came from how successful or unsuccessful you were, but there's something in that that a lot of RPGs could learn from. And, actually, DA:II is occasionally willing to shut off content based on your choices, it just could have been a little ballsier about it, I think :).

Overall, I feel like RPGs are moving in the direction of bringing the subtle and overt together for an experience that hews closer the experience of playing a pen and paper game. I hope Dragon Age III isn't afraid of being even more reactive, and having the story be a little more flexible on the macro as well as micro.

Weirldy, I'm reminded of the original Wing Commander game, where losing missions early on sets up a whole new endgame, with a vastly different set of missions / story arc.

The problem was that they put a ton of dev time into the various story branches, but then nobody saw any of them, because they played their missions over and over and over until they won. Only a tiny minority of players ever saw the losing branches.

WC still made oodles of cash, but the industry learned a lesson from that: offer too much choice, and you'll have to do a ton more development work for users to feel satisfied, and a lot of that work may be outright wasted.

Keep them mostly on rails, and you can entertain them with a much lower development budget.

I thought DA2 handled this really well, just about as well as you could.... except they've got the problem that users are getting semi-unique content to their playthrough, but they don't know it until at least the second time they play.

I prefer if the main story is mostly linear, with the big changes being in the side stories. At least when we are talking game series.
If the big changes are in the main story, you end up with a mess of a story you can't build on.
Like the choice at the end of Mass Effect 1 between saving the council or not. Big change right there. Which only meant they had to do their best to ignore it ever after.
Also seems much easier to tell a decent story when it is linear.

I think it kind of helps if you have a clearly defined goal to work towards. Rubberbanding is much easier to swallow when you have a clear idea of what the destination is. Dragon Age 2 doesn't have one for most of its running time. Once the expedition is over, you're mostly hanging out and reacting to what other people are doing.

That's actually one thing I like about DA2. There's no overarching quest to save the world or whatever. You're mostly trying to make a home for your family and stuff happens along the way.

I hate to be that guy, but isn't there another thread for DA2?

Malor wrote:

But I liked it a lot, anyway. I particularly liked the smaller scale of the quest: you weren't trying to be the Big Damn Hero, you were a refugee, and you were trying to provide for your family in a strange city. You weren't out saving the world, you were saving your mom. That motivated me quite strongly, actually.

Yes, this. For my money, this was the best part of DA2. The game left a very sour taste in my mouth as a whole, but I always liked what Bioware was trying to do with it. DA3, obviously, isn't going that way. A lot of what Bioware has shown so far has had a not very subtle subtext of, "Remember that small scope thing we did and you hated? Yeah, we're going bigger and badder, full speed all the time, because... duuuude." Hopefully I'm wrong about that, not to imply that an epic story can't be great, but it's the wrong lesson for Bioware to take away from what didn't work about DA2.

Malor wrote:
Weirldy, I'm reminded of the original Wing Commander game, where losing missions early on sets up a whole new endgame, with a vastly different set of missions / story arc.

The problem was that they put a ton of dev time into the various story branches, but then nobody saw any of them, because they played their missions over and over and over until they won. Only a tiny minority of players ever saw the losing branches.

WC still made oodles of cash, but the industry learned a lesson from that: offer too much choice, and you'll have to do a ton more development work for users to feel satisfied, and a lot of that work may be outright wasted.

Keep them mostly on rails, and you can entertain them with a much lower development budget.

I thought DA2 handled this really well, just about as well as you could.... except they've got the problem that users are getting semi-unique content to their playthrough, but they don't know it until at least the second time they play.

Yeah, its kind of a shame. I actually replayed and found that I enjoyed the "losing" branch a lot more.

I think you get around that by not making it as binary as "winning" or "losing." IE, do you defend Castle A or Fortress B? Whichever you choose you end up losing the other - including any NPCs, side quests, etc. that could be there. Then, much later in the game, you get something else that happens as a result of your choice.

By virtue of increased complexity it is easier to have a "messy" story this way, but I also think that you can solve that problem. I'd rather something be messy but ambitious than something be derivative and feel boxed in. But that's just me. DA2 was a small step in the right direction, and for all its faults it did get some of that right. I really hope Inquisition takes more chances. At the same time it is a big budget AAA game, and creating content that not everyone will see is hard to pull off. Though, like you said, people missed the subtle stuff just as much as they missed the overt stuff in Wing Commander.

juv3nal wrote:

I hate to be that guy, but isn't there another thread for DA2?

People are tempting fate:

Certis wrote:

STOP TALKING ABOUT DA 2 OR ORIGINS IN THIS THREAD.

You won't like Certis when he's angry!

Redwing wrote:
juv3nal wrote:

I hate to be that guy, but isn't there another thread for DA2?

People are tempting fate:

Certis wrote:

STOP TALKING ABOUT DA 2 OR ORIGINS IN THIS THREAD.

You won't like Certis when he's angry!

As I am working becoming the source of all knowledge for questions on Dragon Age and Thedas, I tell you that I will launch an exalted march on anyone who mentions 2 in this thread.

Is there a release date?

Vector wrote:

Is there a release date?

Q3 2014, but nothing solid as of yet.