Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Dragon Age Inquisition

So VP - as out resident RPGer-in-chief - are those Dragon Origin games on the PS3 worth a pop, speaking from a 'really liked Skyrim' angle?

I am not VP (and I like to think of myself as a joint-chief RPGer along with VP and tommers and stigmata and a few others thangyouverymuch, there are several RPG nuts here you know :hmm: ) but I can give you my perspective. Dragon Age: Origins is nothing like Skyrim, it's more like a modern day Baldur's Gate - top down isometric view, pause during combat to issue commands to your party members (not true turn-based combat, but you can simulate it fairly well by using the pause button). I can't say that if you liked Skyrim you'll like DA:O, because they are completely different games with completely different gameplay mechanics, despite being in the same genre.
 
I am not VP but I can give you my perspective. Dragon Age: Origins is nothing like Skyrim, it's more like a modern day Baldur's Gate - top down isometric view, pause during combat to issue commands to your party members (not true turn-based combat, but you can simulate it fairly well by using the pause button). I can't say that if you liked Skyrim you'll like DA:O, because they are completely different games with completely different gameplay mechanics, despite being in the same genre.

Thanks. I did like V.A.T.S. in the Fallout games and I do like the idea of the players' attributes being the determinant at least as much as the user's reflexes, if that means anything.
 
Thanks. I did like V.A.T.S. in the Fallout games and I do like the idea of the players' attributes being the determinant at least as much as the user's reflexes, if that means anything.

Thing is DA:O isn't like Fallout 3 either - although you design a character at the start, it's party-based, you control a number of characters - your own and whichever NPCs you have with you at any particular stage of the game. You don't run around as 'you' (your character), you look down on your character and the other party members from above and combat is strategic rather than doing stuff yourself - in the style of classic isometric party RPGs, rather than modern action-RPGs.

Have a look at some 'lets play' type stuff on youtube to decide whether you would like to play it, but don't go too far into any videos to ruin any story for you, because it is a story-heavy game.
 
DA:O is only isometric if you scroll the camera out and want it to be. You do run around with the camera behind your character (or whichever from your party you're controlling - you can control any of them and switch when you want) in a fairly typical third person view, but can get that strategic isometric top-down view of the battlefield whenever you want. There's quite a bit of freedom with the camera as opposed to DA2, which tied it lower down, although you could still pull back a fair bit - which means that you can move it around to get the best angles that work for you.

It can look like this:
dragon-age-origins.jpg


or this:
dragonage.jpg


and various things in between.

This is what it looks like when you're just running around:
3258178229_419b110ab1.jpg


Like Epona said, it's not really comparable to Skyrim. There isn't really any of that open world exploration, although it feels freer and more open than DA2. There are a series of separate areas you can go to, and you have a small amount of freedom within them but it's still fairly linear about what you have to achieve while you're there. You can visit the main areas in the order you want, though, and approach many of the quests in a couple of different ways, sometimes requiring you to leave the area for a while, do something else, and return later if that's what you decide.

It's a decently long game, but part of that is down to things like the blasted Deep Roads section which takes forever and is the bane of every DA:O player's life. And the Fade. *cries*

There's plenty of humour in the game, and all the characters are interesting in their own right. The lore is where it shines, along with the storytelling, which really is excellent. The origin stories are a great mechanic - and playing through all of them before getting started on the game proper can be quite a good idea if you think you're not likely to ever slog through the game 8 times (or whatever it is). The city elf and the dwarven origins are really good. The human noble origin is probably what you'd expect. The dalish elf origin is certainly worth doing if you are ever going to play DA2 because it gives quite a bit of background to one of the characters and quests in it. The mage origins are so-so - interesting enough to understand how the circle works but no great shakes, tbh. Loghain is a fascinating character.

All in all it's a very solid rpg, good fun, interesting, and a decent bridge of 'old school' and some slightly newer ideas ('newer' is relative, because it's very definitely dated now, but that's no bad thing).

You can set up tactics so that your party will execute certain commands and use certain spells/actions when various criteria are met. That can be useful when wanting to chain spell effects, or make sure a party member drinks a health potion when they fall below X health, or they use X attack when facing 3 enemies at a time, and Y attack when facing one really big bastard, etc. That allows you to focus on just one or two characters if you want, so you can let combat feel a little bit more fast paced ('fast' again being relative, since it suffers from the old 'click mouse, shuffle shuffle shuffle shuffle stab' syndrome) by not pausing to issue commands to every single character for every single attack, the others will just auto-attack using the tactics you've set up (or their own auto-attack if you haven't). So depending on your approach and what you want out of the game, you can create a relatively strategic combat game from it (it does certainly have its limitations), or just breeze through simply controlling your character while the others get on with their thing if all you're interested in is seeing the story.

The ultimate edition, which includes all the DLC (some of which is standalone and not necessarily that good) plus the Awakening expansion (which is a fascinating addition in terms of lore if nothing else), is about £15 on Steam right now. I reckon it's worth it (in fact I just bought it a couple of weeks ago, despite having bought the game twice before on different platforms).

There are also mods. It has its own nexus. It's not anywhere near as sophisticated as Skyrim in that regard, but you can get some useful stuff. Like 'Lock Bash'. God yes.
 
Oh yes, the tactics system is really quite good and removes some of the micromanagement during combat - you can set an archer NPC to always target the strongest enemy spellcaster first in combat with a particular type of attack to interrupt casting, if there is none then to focus on picking off enemies with low health, or release a barrage of arrows over a large area when facing a large mob of weak enemies - so they get down to the sort of thing you want them to do as soon as you enter combat, rather than you having to worry that they are going to immediately try to go toe to toe with the nearest tank!
 
Interestingly, I've found that with both DA games I played through the first couple of times pretty much just for story and was half-heartedly into the combat, but when playing it subsequently that's when I really start to enjoy the strategy and tactics involved in good party-based combat. They both have quite large limitations with what you can do, both in terms of builds available and the tactics menus, but when you come to terms with that it's possible to build some really nice teams. I do prefer DA2 in that regard, probably because I don't have the long history of older rpgs that some do so I'm a bit more receptive to flashbangwallop than I am shuffleshuffleshufflestab, but the concept remains roughly the same between them (despite the protestations of those who are convinced DA2 is worse than Hitler). You can't pull your camera right out for an isometric view, the faster more actiony combat can throw you because it is far more easy to forget to pause and just clickclickclick at the enemies, the bizarrely appearing-from-nowhere second wave of enemies is always jarring, but at their heart there isn't as massive a difference as some might try to make you think.

Regardless, whenever I play it now I have the most fun planning how I'm going to build my team, who I'm going to have with me, how we're going to obliterate everything in sight, and now it's all about the combat and I don't really pay attention to the story as much. Even though all I've been doing the past few weeks is speculate around the lore with friends XD
 
I do prefer DA2 in that regard, probably because I don't have the long history of older rpgs that some do so I'm a bit more receptive to flashbangwallop than I am shuffleshuffleshufflestab, but the concept remains roughly the same between them (despite the protestations of those who are convinced DA2 is worse than Hitler).

Ah now you know I don't think that about DA2, it was a fun game, a better than average game, just not anything exceptional - but that exactly sums up one of my problems with it that knocked a point off my personal score for it - the bloody abseiling second wave of foes which completely wrecked all my carefully laid plans and thoughtfully positioned party members. It would have been more enjoyable if I'd been able to set up such an ambush myself with my party members streaming down from the roof, but there is never the opportunity for that. It renders tactical placement of party members completely redundant once the second wave abseils in, and that's a bit annoying when you are more used to RPGs with a strong tactical element wrt to party positioning!

Personally I'll take shuffle-shuffle-stab over whoosh-bang any day. DA2 is still a good game in my book, just not a great one.
 
Ah now you know I don't think that about DA2, it was a fun game, a better than average game, just not anything exceptional - but that exactly sums up one of my problems with it that knocked a point off my personal score for it - the bloody abseiling second wave of foes which completely wrecked all my carefully laid plans and thoughtfully positioned party members. It would have been more enjoyable if I'd been able to set up such an ambush myself with my party members streaming down from the roof, but there is never the opportunity for that. It renders tactical placement of party members completely redundant once the second wave abseils in, and that's a bit annoying when you are more used to RPGs with a strong tactical element wrt to party positioning!

Personally I'll take shuffle-shuffle-stab over whoosh-bang any day. DA2 is still a good game in my book, just not a great one.

I understand that completely, it's a valid point. I didn't like the 2nd wave enemies either. That said, I don't believe that it renders all strategy useless; in my opinion it simply means that you have to be receptive to changing your strategy mid-way through a fight. Setting up your team at particular points on the battlefield and then not having to think too much on the fly about where to move them next because all the enemies are static and where they are going to be right from the beginning is one way of doing things, but I see nothing inherently wrong in theory of having a more dynamic battlefield, so that you have to think quickly about strategy, alter your set up and positioning as the fight progresses because of new circumstances (such as the arrival of new enemies). It wasn't handled well in DA2 because of the way they chose to introduce them, but in and of itself I don't believe it's a bad idea, and can add another layer of complexity to the idea of strategising ahead of time. At the other end of the scale we have things like MMOs, where, if you're playing in a group, tactical positioning can be very important, but there it has to be handled on the fly and altered as time progresses, depending on the make up of your party or the foes you're fighting (whether AI or other players). There's no pausing, issuing commands, stopping to assess the lie of the land. Both are solid and valid examples of RPG combat, and I see no problems with games experimenting with versions of both, and mixing them to different degrees, nor with introducing faster-paced combat that can feel a bit more actiony. Not every game can cater to every person, not every RPG should be expected to be 'traditional' (what counts as traditional varies by person of course, since everyone places different emphasis on what they deem to be essential and important). I know you don't believe they should be! I'm just making my case for why I don't think that the way DA2 went about combat has to necessarily be a bad thing.

I believe, in any regard, that they are looking to appease the 'traditionalists' to some extent at least in DA3. I'm certain we won't see a complete return to the shuffleshuffleshufflestab, but I expect isometric to make a return and abseiling waves to bite the dust.
 
My major problem with the second wave thing was it just felt like bullshit.

it stuck out like a giant sore thumb as a computer game mechanic. and not even an interesting one.

they don't even bother to try to contextualise it. these guys are given no reason for turning up when they do but they always do.

if they really wanted waves of enemies they could have at least tried contextualising it a bit more.

have it so at the beginning of a fight the boss of the group shouts at someone to fetch the others and they run off.

the next time maybe have a choke point at a door and a group run off in the building

perhaps some city guard are holding off the rest but then get overwhelmed.


if you don't have the time and money to do that at least hang a hat on it. make a reason why people attack in waves. have one of the refugees who turn up at the same time as hawke be a soldier then have him get into a vocal argument with a local soldier about whether you need to attack as a group or split into teams. have the local end the argument by saying that everyone round here always keeps some people in reserve and if we don't stop thinking like a bunch of wierdo foriners were going to end up with a knife in our backs.
 
There's plenty of humour in the game, and all the characters are interesting in their own right. The lore is where it shines, along with the storytelling, which really is excellent.

The characters are pretty good, but the story was really disappointing, by-the-numbers stuff- the Darkspawn are the most boring villains ever- and the setting was hampered by that annoying trope of things being very obviously based on real world analogues (Ferelden is early medieval Britain, Orlais is France etc).

Having said that i've reinstalled the game since reading this thread and it's better than I remembered.
 
I
The characters are pretty good, but the story was really disappointing, by-the-numbers stuff- the Darkspawn are the most boring villains ever- and the setting was hampered by that annoying trope of things being very obviously based on real world analogues (Ferelden is early medieval Britain, Orlais is France etc).

Having said that i've reinstalled the game since reading this thread and it's better than I remembered.
I found Orlais = (an insulting caricature of) France thing pretty annoying too. However, I think the only way you'd think of Ferelden as Britain is if the first thing that Britain brings to mind is "plucky underdog", which it doesn't for me. Even if that was what was likely intended by Gaider and gang. I'm pretty good at ignoring whatever bits of game canon I don't like in any case.

Have you played the expansion for Origins (the title of which escapes me just now)? They tried to give a bit more depth and hints at the motivation of the Darkspawn in that, and one of the novels (the Calling) goes even further with a very similar story (and young Duncan - squee!). They are pretty 2d though I guess. It looks like they might be putting more thoughtful sort of conflicts into the third one, maybe.
 
I

I found Orlais = (an insulting caricature of) France thing pretty annoying too. However, I think the only way you'd think of Ferelden as Britain is if the first thing that Britain brings to mind is "plucky underdog", which it doesn't for me. Even if that was what was likely intended by Gaider and gang. I'm pretty good at ignoring whatever bits of game canon I don't like in any case.

It was the pseudo-Celtic names for all the characters, and the idea of the place as being some muddy, semi-wild land on the edge of the civilised world. And the love of dogs, of course.

I haven't played the expansion but I might give it a go.
 
Awakenings is very good. I don't find the darkspawn boring at all.

Their origin is steeped in lore.

As the Chantry tell it, the old Tevinter Magisters decided that they wanted to see The Golden City, where the maker resides. The Old Gods (the main dragons) helped them learn the magic needed to be able to go into the Fade using their corporeal bodies, but when they got there the maker had turned the city into The Black City as punishment, and banished them back to the mortal plane infected with the taint, they were the first darkspawn. Part of the taint's curse is that they are drawn to the Old Gods (this is the stuff you learn more about in Awakenings and in the novels), and when the darkspawn reach an Old God they corrupt it with the taint, it turns into an Archdemon, and a blight begins.

Since the end of the 5th Blight (in Origins) there are only 2 Old Gods left. The Grey Wardens' task is to attempt to find them before the darkspawn do, so they can kill them before they turn and create a new blight. And obviously to kill darkspawn while they're at it. When an Archdemon dies, its soul is moves into the body of the nearest darkspawn. I think it's unknown whether this is because it is automatically drawn to the taint, or just because darkspawn have no souls. This is part of the reason why the Grey Wardens drink darkspawn blood. It mimics the biological signature of the darkspawn, so that when they slay the Archdemon, its soul will move into them instead, but because they still have a soul, both souls are destroyed inside the Grey Warden, and the Archdemon/Old God dies. Of course, the other reason they drink the blood is so that they can begin to sense the darkspawn themselves, and get drawn to the Old Gods as well.

The stuff that happens in Awakenings has huge ramifications for the future of the darkspawn, and for potential solutions to the taint.

The things I find most interesting is speculating on how true to life the Chantry's teachings are. I like sifting through the various historical and mythological creation accounts the various cultures have, their ideas of who the maker is, what he did, what happened to various key cities in history (The Golden/Black City; Arlathan; the thaig in DA2; etc.), and thinking about where the truth lies, what is total fabrication, and what is myth born of a truth that has been twisted.

I'm also interested to think about what Flemeth is. I have my suspicions. One of them fits quite nicely with everything, but there are still lots of questions to be answered. I don't think they'd go with what I think, because it's too grand, and they tend to go small with that sort of stuff. With Morrigan's return we might get closer to some of that truth this time around though.

I'm also interested about the significance of Sandal being the first dwarven mage. Not just because dwarves can't be mages, but also because mages can't be enchanters - in the circle only the tranquil do the enchanting, and this was also why the dwarves have so many good enchanters, because they don't know magic. Fascinating.

All of that is the interesting stuff for me. The games are the small chapters in modern history that are helping to make sense of it, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm aware not everyone has the capacity to give a shit about lore.
 
I could talk your ears off about the lore in Morrowind. The Tribunal, the Disappearance of the Dwarves, the Sermons of Vivec... but the Darkspawn are just orcs and goblins by another name. Playing it again i'm liking the stuff in the Chantry religion about the world being abandoned by God. If the game was about that i'd be all over it.

I can see they made an effort with the background stuff but it feels like window dressing, not really relevant to a fairly straightforward heroes vs evil monsters story (with a couple of twists here and there)
 
^ Liking that, because the lore in Morrowind is absolutely fucking brilliant - the Sermons of Vivec are just... oh I miss the Tribunal... most of my MW characters join the Temple, and one of the things I miss in subsequent installments of TES is that sort of cult of weirdness.
 
There are spin off books that allow one to delve even more into DA lore, some written by Steven Gaider, Lead Writer of DA. He basically spent a couple of years before coding began thinking and writing up the backstory of the game, these books are kind of his prep work.
 
David Gaider :p

He's a really awesome person. He engages with the fans all the time on the official forums, and is just seemingly a really nice guy. Apart from one unfortunate misstep on his part in an article he once wrote, I like him lots.
 
He was writing a piece about writing, and used the metaphor of a woman who's possibly been raped after getting drunk the night before, and when called out on it and told that he perhaps should have chosen something a little less, well... stupid, he didn't bow down gracefully but attacked those who were taking him to task on it. Rather unpleasant.
 
There are spin off books that allow one to delve even more into DA lore, some written by Steven Gaider, Lead Writer of DA. He basically spent a couple of years before coding began thinking and writing up the backstory of the game, these books are kind of his prep work.
I've read two of them. The first one was alright, and the second one was pretty good
apart from a really dumb bit where they said the child of a human and an elf is a human. Not looks like, IS!
Gaider can write really nice characters, and even can make me like elves, who I don't generally like.
 
So so so...

Lots more info coming out now. Found this nice summary of things to expect (from a demo, I believe):

  • Wants to make the action less frantic and more deliberate, returning to more tactics-oriented approach to encounters. Big return to party-based tactics
  • Part of that is slowing down speed of attacks, more important is designing enemies that force you to examine the battlefield and choose actions carefully
  • Battles veer away from button mashing toward a structure where observation and reaction take precedence
  • Instead of swarming enemies, your foes have specialized roles; work together and force you to size up the battlefield
  • You won’t regularly see waves of new bad guys appearing out of nowhere to extend encounters
  • PC gamers getting an optimized version; “PC actually is different, especially from a controls standpoint”, trying to “recapture the very tailored experience of DA:O on PC”
  • Going from Eastern Ferelden to Western Orlais; repetitive environments are nowhere to be found in DAI like in DA2.
  • Players aren’t just funneled down narrow corridors, the demo showed a bog, desert, a mountain range, all enormous and freely explored in third person.
  • Lots of hidden things to find, caves, dungeons, corpses, etc that create other unique sidequests
  • “Trying to drive exploration- something that frankly, Bioware hasn’t done in a while.” “In a way like Baldur’s Gate, areas that existed in part just to spaces that you went to, but they had a story of their own.”
  • Want to make sure there a sufficient number of caves in the game that are each unique, and optional. If you have a mage in your group, you can use a spell to reassemble a crumbled bridge to reach a new area.
  • Can also restore a ruined desert outpost into an Inquisition stronghold
  • So much ground to cover that mounted creatures are implemented
  • Monsters, and dragons for example, do not level up with you. Some are vastly more powerful, forcing you to come back later with proper experience
  • Some environmental destructibility
  • Warrior class has grappling chain that can pull enemies in close
  • Enemy scenario: Fighting a massive, armored dragon, you can target a leg, send warrior into melee range to bash off armor, rogue can sneak up and poison the exposed limb, dragon stumbles around allowing others to unleash spells etc
  • Weather effects can impact exploration, ex. Rainfall, desert sandstorms
  • Rainy weather can make areas muddy, slowing down your traversal/agility in combat, while sandstorms can inflict damage causing you to seek shelter
  • A new mage joins your party, Vivienne
  • Both Varric and Cassandra also join you
  • Working hard to make large areas interesting; slopes, rocks, elevations and your character has tailored animations for overcoming each. Ease of movement key.
  • Morrigan is not a party member; not a cameo role though
  • Collect resources/materials and craft armor for you and all your party members; heavy emphasis on customization
  • Each armor retains a certain iconic look, but looks different on each character. They want the squadmates to each have an iconic look, but customize armor to tailor to each while retaining elements of that iconic look
  • 3 classes to choose from of course: Warrior, rogue, and mage
  • At least 3 races to choose from; when asked about Qunari, Mike Laidlaw says “Do we go to four? I don’t know. Definitely these are the safe bet”.
  • Your racial choice colors your interactions with others; for example elves may be persecuted in some parts, but an enclave of elves is more likely to open up to one of their own.
  • Chantry/Templars don’t respect your Inquisition, you have “persuade” them through your own means. You can come across a fortress and if refused entry, you can lay siege to it and break down the doors. What you do from there is your choice.
  • Hinting that you have a base of operations, maybe a castle to call your own
  • Dialogue wheel returns, but the team has focused a lot on making the selections accurate to what your character says. They’ve now added an optional addition to the wheel that gives you better idea of what to expect
  • A lot of loose ends will be resolved in the story; expect full resolutions to things like Red Lyrium, the activities of the Grey Wardens, and Flemeth, and also Morrigan
  • Working very hard to ensure your saves/decisions will carry over to next-gen consoles

Sounds good, right?
 
Sounds good, right?
I guess it does. I hope they keep it very centered on story, and don't make it too open though. I don't have heaps of time for games (in fact, I probably won't buy one until this comes out) and I don't like rambling around aimlessly (I'm looking at you, Skyrim). I'm more interested in the story than in them making the combat super-challenging, although I don't mind if they want to make me "work for it" a bit harder. I actually like the unexpected bits of dialogue the character used to come out with based on your choices of what they were to say. I just really, really like both Dragon Age games, and am way less picky than a lot of the people who had big problems with 2.

Cassandra as a party character is interesting news though.
 
Sounds good, right?

So... more like an oldschool Bioware RPG? Sounds promising, hopefully some lessons have been learned from the things fans reported they didn't like about DA2 (and some sensible posts did exist amongst the screaming!) I'd be glad to see a return to more tactical considerations in party combat (which doesn't mean it has to be shuffle-shuffle or boring - just consideration of party placement, use of traps, use of stealth, targeted attacks or AoE etc. rather than chop-chop blood balloons!) :) Bioware usually tell a good story and have good character development of both the protagonist and NPCs, so I am not concerned on that front (but it would be nice if not every character had a tragic background with loads of baggage and went all emo and whiny - in DA2 Fenris basically turned me down because of personal issues and then came back 10 years later with an apology - dude, it's been a decade, I've moved on - the fact that you haven't is kind of disturbing. Liked Aveline, she went through shit but came out of it, but she wasn't a romance-able option)
 
Eppie, what are you talking about? Yes, Fenris was a pain (albeit with a sexy voice), and the romance with him was fairly crap (but I've seen loads of people online who thought it was amazesauce so each to their own), but you could certainly romance Aveline. Remember that bit where you get to help her romance her subordinate? There's a bit there where you get to tell her to forget about that guy because you love her.

I agree that there was way too much tragedy in the story. I absolutely loved the Anders mega emo terrorist story, but not everyone needed to have such a bad ride.
I wish I could have saved Leandra :(
 
Eppie, what are you talking about? Yes, Fenris was a pain (albeit with a sexy voice), and the romance with him was fairly crap (but I've seen loads of people online who thought it was amazesauce so each to their own), but you could certainly romance Aveline. Remember that bit where you get to help her romance her subordinate? There's a bit there where you get to tell her to forget about that guy because you love her.

I agree that there was way too much tragedy in the story. I absolutely loved the Anders mega emo terrorist story, but not everyone needed to have such a bad ride.
I wish I could have saved Leandra :(

You can tell her to forget him, but she rebuffs you. It's not an 'official' romance. The most you get is a friendly peck on the cheek. And she ends up with Donnic anyway. Which is where she should be :)
 
Back
Top Bottom