Google+

Topics

Bioware

We Recommend By ZergNet

36 comments

  • Broddeb - September 25, 2012 4:20 a.m.

    They should bring back the option to choose a differant race again ala DA:O. Granted, it may be a bit harder to do these days due to all the charecters being voiced but it would still be nice. Also, bring Morrigan back in to it, I need to know what happened to her and my demon seed!!!! Maybe with the story revolving around the templars and the mages she will pop back up again, helping one of the sides defeat the other for her own purposes. Unless it's set a few years after DA2 and you are the demon baby!!! Either way, it will hopefully be good, if not *looks at Obsidians Project Eternity*.....there are other options.....
  • CitizenThom - September 25, 2012 12:41 a.m.

    I think the combat was improved in DA2, but it can be improved further. The waves of enemies somewhat ruined the immersion that the more action-rpg combat would have otherwise created in my opinion. Sure there are some situations where waves in a fight might be appropriate (blood mage summoning monsters is one that comes to mind) but it shouldn't be something that occurs in every fight. I also liked the approach to the Story in regards to not being the figure that the world revolves around so much as one of many prominent figures in a small pond. The main character was a witness to the gameworld's history more than they were a direct shot caller. It was a refreshing change, in most of the better fantasy tales it isn't usually the main character alone who determines how things will turn out. That said, the ending, and to some degree the course of the game, needs to reflect in some part the actions of the player, otherwise it ceases to be an RPG of any sort. Act 3 of DA2 was a little on the rails in this regard, everything was happening the same exact way regardless of what had happened in Act 1 or Act 2. That shouldn't be repeated. Also, DA3's ending had better not be in any way reminiscent of the Catalyst ending, and if there is any effective military strength number, it had better mean something at the end of the game.
  • Fox_Mulder - September 23, 2012 11:48 p.m.

    DA3 needs to implement all of the great things about the first game and the few good elements of the second.
  • robotdickens - September 23, 2012 9:06 p.m.

    I have so many things for this third installment to take to heart. Better storyline, better combat system, less type cast characters (ie. "The silent sensitive elven mage", "the sultry/slutty rouge with a sarcastic attitude", "tough as nails, good and righteous, straight arrow knight"). Dragon Age 2 wasn't bad but it was too safe. Sink or swim I say. Go all out or don't go at all.
  • Viron - September 23, 2012 7:01 p.m.

    Dragon Age shouldn't take anything from Mass Effect, they are two separate franchises that happen to be made by the same developer. And as far as DA:O and DA2 are concerned, I am torn. On the one hand I liked the story of Origins over 2, but Origins combat and the MC's observed muteness made it feel like I was an observer, and not a participant. Sure DA2's combat was hack and slash, but it made me pay attention, spell casting was too passive and sword play just felt weird. In the end I liked them both, so I guess that's all that really matters. Although I really wish there was a new game plus system in place for 2 so I could keep my kick ass armor.
  • Travia220 - September 23, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    The lessons Dragon Age needs to take from Mass Effect is nothing. Mass Effect is a mediocre Action game masquerading as a RPG. The last thing I want it to do is pretend to do anything like Mass Effect. This includes story. DAII took a lot from Mass Effect franchise already and look at it now. A garbage RPG that nobody likes except for your "Youth" Gamers who have no idea what a good RPG is. Want to know what Dragon Age can do to be good? Look at their past work. Look at Baldurs Gate and Neverwinter Nights. Games with a famous legacy that know what it's like to tell a great story and have amazing mechanics. Unfortunately with their lead writer that has left and so many others.. well BioWare can do shit but make RPG for the mainstream audience that have no idea what a RPG is and instead think clicking colour coded plot devices is how a RPG should be.
  • ZeeCaptain - September 25, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    I agree, Mass Effect really let me down, I followed it for a while before the first one came out, and I swear that they showed pictures of a 3rd-person view of the player controlling the companions similar to KOTOR, I know bio wanted to try something new but sometimes you should stick to what works, I mean a little more strategy and some tweaks to the combat and it would have been a good rpg.
  • freeden - September 23, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    I think I may be the only person who preferred DAII over Origins. Why? For one, I found the story in DA:O dreadfully dull. Maybe I'm just tired of the ol' "let's get the gang together and kill the big, bad monster" storyline, but I got so bored I quit the game 3/4's the way through. With DAII, I found the progression of the lives of this family interesting. I enjoyed playing as my character and seeing them grow over time, as well as the city, and all those living within. It was far more interesting than the cliche story that DA:O had. I was never all that thrilled about combat in DA, but for some reason DA:II was more interesting. Part of what I don't want to do in these games is micromanage my team, which is essentially what the games make you do. I would like to see the next game take some story elements from both games. And I greatly disagree with the idea that this game needs another recycled story like what ME used. While ME3 was great, it wasn't the overall story that made it so, it was the details, and that's what DA needs, details like it's second game and an interesting story that doesn't just recycle the everyone fighting a giant bad guy storyline. We've seen enough of that and it's boring.
  • zombi3grim - September 23, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    I HATED the combat system on DA:0. The spells sucked, clicking an enemy and watching your character auto attack sucked. The skills sucked. The story was amazing. The characters were good. They do NOT need to go back to DA:0s horrible mix of strategy and whatever else the fuck it was combat system....
  • DictatorStan - September 23, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    So you'd rather just smash on the attack button until something dies, throwing in one or two special attacks that have no real lasting effects or strategic advantage? Not trying to sound condescending, but the best part of the DA:O combat system is that at higher difficulties, you actually had to be SMART to play the game. And not just beat your face against the controller until one of four soldier character models explodes into unrealistic FUCK YEAH VIOLENCE gore.
  • zombi3grim - September 23, 2012 6:03 p.m.

    Lol, first of all I dont equate playing a video game to intelligence. Im a surgical tech in real life. I dont think I need to validate myself when I sit down for an hour to relax with a game. Secondly, I like it when I press a button, something happens. Unless its straight turn based, which DA:O isnt. Either make it turn based or make it real time action. Dont try to do some fucked up hybrid of both. Another reason why I didnt like it was because I played it on the console and not the PC. I typically play PC games that are exclusive to that platform and get console games for everything else. So, if you pay attention, alot of gamers already recognized that they made DA:O primarily FOR PC and basically just ported over the combat system from that. Which did NOT work on consoles.
  • yonderTheGreat - September 23, 2012 8:31 p.m.

    So, to be clear, you hated KOTOR's combat as well? And yes, you most definitely played it on the wrong platform. Sorry, but you've got no one to blame but yourself for that. It was well-known that the PC version was superior (as you acknowledge, while saying "alot"). Don't judge the awesome DA:O combat system because you chose to play the crappy port (actually it was a decent port, just missed quite a bit in terms of combat).
  • zombi3grim - September 23, 2012 8:38 p.m.

    Never played KOTOR. I dont like Star Wars. And while Im sure I would have liked the PC versions combat better, it wouldnt have been that different. It didnt work well on consoles because of the controles, but its still pretty much the same system. I DO like the game, I like the story and I like the characters. But if their making a third game and they want to appeal to console gamers, they dont need to go back to that combat system. They need to build it FOR consoles.
  • slayer00 - September 24, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    I dont understand why you think that bioware and EA need to build the new dragon age 3 game "FOR CONSOLES". Of course i dont mean to say they should not make it for consoles, but they dont need to keep just the console as their objective. They need to just widen their gaze, for i am very much sure they could make the combat system work for the PC as well as Consoles at the same time. I just wanted to mention this because there are people like me(a lot of people like me) who just like to stick to the PC for their games, consoles are just not made for us. Moreover, due to the hype the consoles have gained in recent years many game developers have started ignoring the PC and turned to developing for CONSOLE'S ONLY. They have forgotten that PC gamers were the ones who had held their games high over their heads. I dont want this to happen with Dragon age 3. HELL NO !
  • zombi3grim - September 24, 2012 2 p.m.

    Because I play it on a console. Therefore, I want it made for consoles. I dont give a fuck about you or any other PC centric player. I care about me. Period.
  • robotdickens - September 25, 2012 12:31 a.m.

    I agree with you totally. Console games should be made for consoles. Dragon Age was great on PC but lack luster on consoles and the same thing can kind of be said for The Witcher 2. If you're going to make a game on a console, at least make it more accessible or natural.
  • ParagonT - September 24, 2012 5:46 p.m.

    I'm just butting in here about the PC subject, but if the PC were the ones that "held their games over their heads", then they wouldn't have needed to move to consoles. But they did, because there was money to be made. Not saying that PC is bad or anything, I play on mine all the time, but no developer owes their consumers anything just because they bought earlier/recent installments of the series first. In the words of yourself. "Sorry, but you've got no one to blame but yourself for that."
  • zombi3grim - September 24, 2012 6:27 p.m.

    Hot damn, I agree. *looks out window to make sure fire and brimstone arnt falling from the sky*
  • ericthesmith - September 23, 2012 6:19 a.m.

    It's kind of fun to think about Thedas as being a planet in the Mass Effect universe at an earlier point in the 10,000 year cycle.
  • DarthKato - September 22, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    Lesson 6- Don't fu*k up the ending.

Showing 1-20 of 36 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.