[Megathread] Dragon Age 3

[Jinxz]

too many other big releases on the way like trials of ascension.

lol!!!!!!!!!!!lololololololololol!!!!!!!!!

[Templar 331]

Meanwhile in DA2 you struggle and struggle doing everything you can to prevent disaster, only to realise that no matter which choices you make, or how much power and influence you obtain, you can't prevent the death of your mother, the viscount, half the city, the entire circle, helping incite a mage/templar war, and potentially bringing down hell on the free marches from the qunari because you shivved their arishok.

That's really my only big problem with the DA2 story. No matter what you do, the story goes the same way no matter what. You just take different steps to get there. The same could be said about Origins, but the difference in steps is way bigger than in 2.

[Notshauna]

It's difficult to say. Bhelen is probably a shittier person than harrowmont, more towards the "evil" side, but ultimately is better to his people, and the rest of the world.

Oh Bhelen is absolutely a tyrant and a brutal one at that (especially in DA2 and DA:A where he dissolves the assembly and attempts to assassinate every Harrowmont). If he ends up doing any good it's coincidental. It's the Templar/Werewolves side where it's the "evil" choice. Harrowmont was clearly the right choice but he was too good of a man to be king and ended up doing very little to help the Dwarves.

[May90]

That's really my only big problem with the DA2 story. No matter what you do, the story goes the same way no matter what. You just take different steps to get there. The same could be said about Origins, but the difference in steps is way bigger than in 2.

I don't see any difference. No matter what you do in DAO, you end up fighting Archdemon and, later, can't prevent the sentient Darkspawn from ravaging your lands, the only difference in major choices you make being what forces are available for you to summon during the fight. Same way, no matter what you do in DA2, you end up with your mother dead, fighting Meredith all alone. This is how story-based games are: if you want to maintain high storytelling quality, you need to skip on how important the choices you make. Otherwise it would take decades to make Dragon Age 3, and by that time no one will remember the original title nor care.

[zealo]

Idk it's like compulsion. I try to make my characters into the me I wanted to be, so I always play male human and make them resemble me as much as possible physically and make them a bit better looking when the game allows it. Basically I am my character which is why I also ALWAYS tend to pick the goody goody options and never the bad options unless I was unaware that something was bad (I picked Bhelen on my first playthrough... I missed a lot of hints)

Bhelen is actually the good choice for dwarfs in general, only picked the other guy when being a dwarf noble.

[takolin]

Dalish... Release a bunch of raping murdering humans from their curse, allowing them to go back into society and continue being awful people (if the dalish don't hunt them down and murder them anyway out of revenge, as happens on occasion which we see in da2 wounded coast act 1), or force them to do the time for their crimes by siding with them, but in the process having to murder a clan full of dalish.*

Here I usually took the middle option. By sacrificing the Keeper, who was a spiteful old elf, you could lift the curse and have the Dalish be alive. Sure they don't end up being besties as shown in DA2 but the relation between elves and humans was never amazing to begin with.


Also a hardened Alistair wasn't the worst king according to the epilogue. Though when married to Anora or when close to the Hero (either married or as chancelor) he would rather let someone else do all the "work".

I think Bhelen is an awful choice. Harrowmont wants everything to remain as it was before, as his father wished - it might be good or bad from our perspective, but it worked for dwarves so far. Bhelen, on the other hand, is a fool caring about nothing but power: he claims that he wants change, but from his actions (essentially: bloody rampage) we can see that these are changes of a madman.

While Harrowmont might let everything be as it was, it also means that the dwarves don't have help in their fight against the darkspawn. The epilogue clearly stated that under Bhelen the dwarves can push the darkspawn back a bit so they can recapture some thaigs. I fail how to see that gaining more land is the bad option.

[Khaza-R]

Bhelen is impossible to like if you picked the Dwarf noble intro. But that's one of the best things about DAO, you get a completely different perspective on characters based on the origin you pick.

[zealo]

Bhelen is impossible to like if you picked the Dwarf noble intro. But that's one of the best things about DAO, you get a completely different perspective on characters based on the origin you pick.

Found more than just the origin quests up until Ostagar to be a bit bland when going through on a human noble as compared to my elf or dwarf, there where certain things that i just felt where missing from the experience. One time was enough with that race.

I think Bhelen is an awful choice. Harrowmont wants everything to remain as it was before, as his father wished - it might be good or bad from our perspective, but it worked for dwarves so far. Bhelen, on the other hand, is a fool caring about nothing but power: he claims that he wants change, but from his actions (essentially: bloody rampage) we can see that these are changes of a madman.

Where the dwarfs actually doing well sticking to their old ways? The impression i got out of the whole Orzammar story arc was that the dwarfs where slowly but surely crumbling sticking to their conservative and old ways in the story.

[Deleted]

The gameplay video didn't blow me off my socks really. Looks like there will be again barely any need for actual planning (as you did in DA:O). Half the pausing was to show how you could zoom in and take cool screenshots (who gives a shit). I really, really hope it's not going to be a smash game like DA2 was, and where you barely 'use' your companions true potential.

I loved killing hordes of Darkspawn by pausing every 3 seconds, lining up new spell combos, taunts, blablabla instead of just looking fancier but being a lot less personal.

[Deleted]

I think Bhelen is an awful choice. Harrowmont wants everything to remain as it was before, as his father wished - it might be good or bad from our perspective, but it worked for dwarves so far. Bhelen, on the other hand, is a fool caring about nothing but power: he claims that he wants change, but from his actions (essentially: bloody rampage) we can see that these are changes of a madman.

This is the thing, he's obviously the more "evil" option since he's like, a nasty bastard. But ultimately, his choices are better for the dwarven people, as well as everyone else. Keeping things the way they are is exactly what got orzammar in the mess it is in at the moment. You can't say that murdering all the casteless is a "Good" action more than an "evil" action, so it's not like harrowmont is a saint, but the point I'm making is that you're damned either way. Either you put an evil, greedy bastard on the throne, which is bad, but in the process help save the dwarven people, which is good, or you put a "nicer guy" on the throne, which is good, but then you are damning the dwarves as a race. They will suffer greatly under harrowmont. The castless will be pushed even further down, no new territory is gained, and in general he's just an incompetent ruler. There is no good option. It's not a matter of perspective. They both suck.

Oh Bhelen is absolutely a tyrant and a brutal one at that (especially in DA2 and DA:A where he dissolves the assembly and attempts to assassinate every Harrowmont). If he ends up doing any good it's coincidental. It's the Templar/Werewolves side where it's the "evil" choice. Harrowmont was clearly the right choice but he was too good of a man to be king and ended up doing very little to help the Dwarves.

Not reallly coincidental. You are shown throughout the orzammar arc that he is a more competent ruler, and you are repeadedly shown that he cares more for the castless, believes they are worth something etc. End of the day, even if it's coincidence, it doesn't matter. We're talking about what is a "good outcome" not a "good vs evil" choice. The point is, whether you pick the "good guy" or the "bad guy" you're still damning the dwarves. Either to a life under a dictator, but a good one who will do good things for the dwarven people, or a life under a "nice guy", but one who fucks up everything for the dwarves. Also, if you think dissolving the assembly is a bad thing, I'm not sure what game you are playing. All of the dwarves problems stem from the assembly. The reason they have no more empire is because of the assembly. When the darkspawn first appeared, the assembly spent ages arguing over which thaig was more important, and in the end none were left, and aeducan had to perform a coup, essentially overthrowing the assembly, in order to save the dwarves as a whole. The problems they are having between harrowmont and bhelen are because the assembly is a waste of time and can't pick one on their own.



Regarding the templar and werewolves, yes, templar and wolves are shown to be the "evil" choices, but again, we're not talking about a "battle of good vs evil" here. We're talking about what is the best outcome for all involved. In these cases, neither option is a good choice. Yes, anulling the entire circle, and murdering a clan of dalish is a bad choice, no one can really argue that. (Although in the case of the mages you could make a decent case for the templar anulling the circle being the good option). The point is, whichever option you take, the outcome is unfavourable to the world. Obvious bad stuff in killing a bunch of dalish and killing a bunch of mages, but the alternatives also suck. You really have no idea who is an abomination in that circle tower. As DA2 shows us, demons can be implanted in people as sleeper agents. You also have no idea how many of the mages you save are blood mages. Is letting these people "free" really such a good idea? Is siding with the elves (either by straight up killing the wolves, or by curing them) really such a good idea? If you just murder all the wolves, that's obviously not really the best outcome because the keeper gets away with his bullshit and continues lieing to his people about reclaiming elven immortality. If / when they find out, what's going to happen? Everyone starts casting curses on people to keep themselves artificially alive because they believe that's how the ancient elves did it? What if you take the middle ground and cure the wolves? Well, now the clan loses it's keeper, and a bunch of rapists and murderers get released back into society to continue their bullshit. This isn't a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The gameplay video didn't blow me off my socks really. Looks like there will be again barely any need for actual planning (as you did in DA:O). Half the pausing was to show how you could zoom in and take cool screenshots (who gives a shit). I really, really hope it's not going to be a smash game like DA2 was, and where you barely 'use' your companions true potential.

I loved killing hordes of Darkspawn by pausing every 3 seconds, lining up new spell combos, taunts, blablabla instead of just looking fancier but being a lot less personal.

He was playing on normal. You didn't need to plan at all in DA:O on normal, unless you built your character poorly.

[Deleted]

He was playing on normal. You didn't need to plan at all in DA:O on normal, unless you built your character poorly.

Wasn't the point. Imo DA:O's fighting system was build around pausing the game and giving commands to each individual party member. Imo DA2 didn't have this feeling at all. I just hope they get it back in DA:I, since it was one of the best aspects of DA:O for me.

[Deleted]

That's really my only big problem with the DA2 story. No matter what you do, the story goes the same way no matter what. You just take different steps to get there. The same could be said about Origins, but the difference in steps is way bigger than in 2.

Well, a lot of people didn't like that about DA2 and I totally understand. I would have preferred if you could have saved your mother, and possibly an option to keep your sibling as a fulltime party member. Saving your mother could have been at the cost of inciting further drama with the qunari, or losing isabella. Like if you had to either go rescue your mother, or go with isabella to get the tome. If you went to save your mother, you lose isabella or something. Saving your sibling (as much as I hated both bethany and carver) could have been a "well, you get to keep them on, but they grow into bitter, resentful assholes instead of developing into their own, strong, unique human being, beacuse they have to stay in your shadow". Really though, the whole "same outcome no matter what" is the point of the story though. You might not like it, and again, I get that, but they're trying to show that like... everything that happens doesn't just have one big cause that the hero can swoop in and defeat the big bad and everything is saved. Cassandra comes into the interrogation beliving that you are the big bad and she (or someone) needs to be the hero and fight you to save the world. She thinks you all come across to kirkwall together from ferelden to cause drama and incite a revolution, but over the course of the game it's explained to you that hawke is just a passenger in the whole thing, and there are too many little causes and things to effectively fight on your own. One person can't save the world, but equally neither can one person damn it. Even if you try and aggravate both sides the entire time, you still aren't the "bad guy" exactly in all of this, because it was all happening anyway regardless of your actions. Same as in DA:O, (though in DA:O it was on a small, per quest basis, rather than a whole game spanning thing). No matter your actions, everything is fucked, no matter who you side with or what you do, because just two grey wardens and their ragtag group of misfits can't travel the land fixing everyone's problems and making everything all better.

This leads into inquisition, where you aren't just "One guy out to save the world". You have a whole organization and a huge army at your back, with a bunch of agents out doing things while you do your thing. And maybe that's enough to save the world?

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't the point. Imo DA:O's fighting system was build around pausing the game and giving commands to each individual party member. Imo DA2 didn't have this feeling at all. I just hope they get it back in DA:I, since it was one of the best aspects of DA:O for me.

On harder difficulties, yes. DA:O's fighting system is built around tactical pause. On normal, it plays like a slow dragon age 2. There is no need to pause whatsoever. Hell, you could probably get through DA:O hard without ever controlling anyone put your protag, and without ever pausing if you build your party correctly (this seems like a challenge I want to try now). Like, there is literally no need to whatsoever on normal, you can just melee everything down. Warriors and rogues have very little reason to even USE their skills on normal. You don't need to stun or taunt anything, because everyone can tank ALLLLLLLLLL THE DAMAGE, and your autoattacks are usually better dps than using an ability beyond a few hours into the game. Mages, on the other hand, have very little cause to be controlled since the short cooldown heals, rejuvs and buffs mean you can just set their tactics up as a heal and buff bot and let them do their thing. Even dragon fights, the most you'll have to do controlling party members is moving people out of breath range. On nightmare, yes you had to carefully control party members, constant pausing, issueing commands etc, but not on normal. This is even by design, they said you shouldn't really have to switch partymembers to give orders on normal.

I wouldn't expect it to be any different in DA:I. If you want tactical play, play a harder difficulty.

[CrossNgen]

Wasn't the point. Imo DA:O's fighting system was build around pausing the game and giving commands to each individual party member. Imo DA2 didn't have this feeling at all. I just hope they get it back in DA:I, since it was one of the best aspects of DA:O for me.

Never paused dao on my first playthrough on normal outside of fighting Flemeth, it's really easy when you have the right team composition

[Deleted]

Never paused dao on my first playthrough on normal outside of fighting Flemeth, it's really easy when you have the right team composition

This. People get rose tinted goggles about DA:O after playing DA2, I think. I'm not saying DA2 combat is bad, that's just opinion, and personally I liked it, but it's obviously different. But suggesting that DA:O on normal was built around having to tactical pause and issue orders etc just isn't really correct. It wasn't even designed that way. Now, if you are a competent player, maybe one who has played on harder difficulties or played other similar games like baldur's gate, then you might tactical pause and issue orders on normal ANYWAY. Hell, I do. I abuse the hell out of pause. I even pause to loot because a stable camera is easy to click on corpses with. After a fight I'll pause and loot different corpses with different party members, then unpause and spam click the loot window. Do you need to? No. I don't see DA:I being any different. You are welcome to tactical pause and issue commands if you desire, but do you need to? Probably not on most fights. Ramp up the difficulty and you probably do need to. Hell, even in DA2 you more or less needed to pause on nightmare. I can't imagine getting through DA2 without tactical pause, though it's probably possible with careful use of tactics and a purpose built party. Even just because in DA2 the stealthing, backstabbing rogue bastards, and certain casters, would WRECK your party if you don't ensure that you are locking them down the moment they appear and chaining your highest damage cross class combos to burn them down quickly. Which pretty much requires pause, particularly because you can't just leave it up to tactics as the abilities are likely to be on cooldown from hitting someone else by the time you need to use them to burn something down if you have their used tied to tactics.

[zealo]

Never paused dao on my first playthrough on normal outside of fighting Flemeth, it's really easy when you have the right team composition

Even the high dragon fights on nightmare where not that bad if you stacked up on some fire resist with plenty of potions and spread out properly to avoid getting cleaved and burned, which is pretty much the basics when fighting dragons in video games.

[CrossNgen]

Also, the soundtrack sounds amazing:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0akrGvcV144

[Deleted]

Even the high dragon fights on nightmare where not that bad if you stacked up on some fire resist with plenty of potions and spread out properly to avoid getting cleaved and burned, which is pretty much the basics when fighting dragons in video games.

Dragon fights can depend on your party makeup, quite a bit. If you don't have shale tanking, and if you don't have a mage protag, you may need to switch to your mage party member to use barrier on the tank when they get "eaten" if you aren't just kiting it around in circles all day. Fortunately shale is a fucking BALLER, SON, so doesn't have this problem. Then again, most problem mights in DA:O can be solved pretty easilly by liberal application of WAR GOLEM. I loved her as a character but she really is overpowered to balls.

[Kaelwryn]

Also, the soundtrack sounds amazing:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0akrGvcV144

I liked DA/2's OST, chances are I'ma like DA I's too.

[Nirawen]

Dragon fights can depend on your party makeup, quite a bit. If you don't have shale tanking, and if you don't have a mage protag, you may need to switch to your mage party member to use barrier on the tank when they get "eaten" if you aren't just kiting it around in circles all day. Fortunately shale is a fucking BALLER, SON, so doesn't have this problem. Then again, most problem mights in DA:O can be solved pretty easilly by liberal application of WAR GOLEM. I loved her as a character but she really is overpowered to balls.

Likewise, Shale MVP without a doubt. Very few things I came across in DA:O couldn't be solved by Shale throwing a stone at them and then hitting the floor.

Could be interesting to see her in her original form (spoilers) in DA:I.

[Deleted]

Likewise, Shale MVP without a doubt. Very few things I came across in DA:O couldn't be solved by Shale throwing a stone at them and then hitting the floor.

I'm sad we havn't seen any more of her since DA:O. She was such a sweetie, and compared to the DA2 dlc character Sebastian, she had an actual personality and character development and stuff. I'm not sure whether I hope she got to tevinter and got turned back into a dwarf, or whether she decided to stay as she was because being a golem is baller as fuck.


There are so many characters I really want to see more of. Shale, tallis, merrill, that legion dwarf from awakening (though I understand she goes to her calling in the epilogue no matter what you do?