[Megathread] Dragon Age 3

[Deleted]

She is sexy as hell. But she is not going to be a companion. Which is sad. Morrigan is one of my favorite Bioware characters: a rare example of a "good evil" character, one that seems to do and say a lot of terrible things, and yet ends up doing good for everyone. Along with Wrex and Kreya, she makes me say: "The dark side can be less dark than we expect".

The bored anti-hero never fails.

As far DA:I Multiplayer, eh its not really i support.
Its about YOU.
What would a Skyrim multiplayer look? Bunch of people jumping around and forming an impenetrable wall around the questnpcs so you cant get to them.

Maybe a multiplayer version of the DA:O DLC where you play as darkspawn would work.

[obdigore]

The bored anti-hero never fails.

As far DA:I Multiplayer, eh its not really i support.
Its about YOU.
What would a Skyrim multiplayer look? Bunch of people jumping around and forming an impenetrable wall around the questnpcs so you cant get to them.

Maybe a multiplayer version of the DA:O DLC where you play as darkspawn would work.

An Evolve-type multiplayer where you have your 4 person quest party of Humans, and then another Human is the Dragon? That might be interesting.

[Wilian]

Just put in editor and DM capabilities for players and that'd be enough fffffs, no need for the "fancy" cheap bullshit they try to push in just to cash onto

[Deleted]

Or a Dungeonland style (which next Fable is totally not ripping off) where 4 people play as the heroes and one guy throw a bunch of shit and enemies at them, culminating in a boss fight against a huge monster (dragons obviously because fuck being original) that is controlled by the "Bad Guy" player.

[Deleted]

Or a Dungeonland style (which next Fable is totally not ripping off) where 4 people play as the heroes and one guy throw a bunch of shit and enemies at them, culminating in a boss fight against a huge monster (dragons obviously because fuck being original) that is controlled by the "Bad Guy" player.

Would play that mode a lot. I could totally see a MP mode with either 4 players vs. monsters, 2 players vs 2 players or 3 players vs. 1 player controlling minions and bosses (or more players involved)

[pateuvasiliu]

The bored anti-hero never fails.

As far DA:I Multiplayer, eh its not really i support.
Its about YOU.
What would a Skyrim multiplayer look? Bunch of people jumping around and forming an impenetrable wall around the questnpcs so you cant get to them.

Maybe a multiplayer version of the DA:O DLC where you play as darkspawn would work.

I'd be fine with playing with 1-2 others, not 100.

Just imagine having a human companion and coordinating stealth attacks rather than having Lydia.

And.. ESO simply doesn't cut it. It's horrible.

[Wilian]

Or a Dungeonland style (which next Fable is totally not ripping off) where 4 people play as the heroes and one guy throw a bunch of shit and enemies at them, culminating in a boss fight against a huge monster (dragons obviously because fuck being original) that is controlled by the "Bad Guy" player.

Easily doable with NWN styled toolkit and DM rights, just make the editor work real time

[Notshauna]

I'd be fine with playing with 1-2 others, not 100.

Just imagine having a human companion and coordinating stealth attacks rather than having Lydia.

And.. ESO simply doesn't cut it. It's horrible.

The problem with that is if someone chose to wait it'd break the game pretty badly for other players, and if they removed it waiting for quest NPCs to wake up would end up being painfully boring. That and you'd have to sacrifice a lot in terms of moding.

But, yeah I can't really see it having co-op simply because the sheer logistical problems it'd have with cutscenes and dialogue. I mean even in SWTOR other players drove you mad and it has a lot less dialogue than in Dragon Age.

[rayvio]

I think the only way co-op could realistically work would be if they had a separate campaign specifically designed just for co-op play. while it could be interesting, doing it that way would take resources away from the single player campaign though

the multiplayer will probably just be player vs player arena and/or a big battle with players teaming up against waves of enemies but with no real story or choices

[pateuvasiliu]

. I mean even in SWTOR other players drove you mad and it has a lot less dialogue than in Dragon Age.

That or you could play with friends.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I actually like the combat. How would you change it?

I feel like spellcasters where maybe at the short end of the stick in DA2, where as in DA1 they where pretty godlike. But aside from balance issues i'm not sure what i would change

I'm not reffering to Balance necessarily more of being more interactive/involved in what you're doing. Strategy is nice and all but DA 2 had that(To a degree).

[Kathandira]

I'm not reffering to Balance necessarily more of being more interactive/involved in what you're doing. Strategy is nice and all but DA 2 had that(To a degree).

So long as I can setup a priority list still and also "pause" to issue on the fly commands, and lastly switch between characters. I'll be content.

[Korgoth]

That pause based game play is terrible. Companions should be fully competent. They should not need orders. At most they should need Mass Effect level control, stuff that can be done in real time.

[Tyris Flare]

That's what casual difficulty is for. There are precious few tactical RPGs these days; let's leave this one alone.

[Deleted]

I wonder if the highest difficulty will add more elements to the game than just upping numbers.

[Tyris Flare]

Has that ever been the case in a Bioware game? I mean i guess DA2 added friendly-fire and immunities, neither of which was compelling.

[Kazlofski]

That pause based game play is terrible. Companions should be fully competent. They should not need orders. At most they should need Mass Effect level control, stuff that can be done in real time.

Did you actually ever play Dragon Age Origins or Baldur's gate or anything like it?

[Yuanrang]

That pause based game play is terrible. Companions should be fully competent. They should not need orders. At most they should need Mass Effect level control, stuff that can be done in real time.

Then you can play the faceroll mode where you do not need to ever pause, just like previous installments, and those that actually want to do Nightmare or self-designed goals, can pause and think through encounters.

[derpkitteh]

game looks nifty. seems like they got better model makers too, they aren't half as nightmare inducing as the current models.

[Deleted]

I think DA2 had nice balance. Game automatically assigned tactics for new spells, however, you could still modify those to your heart's content. While in DA1 you either micromanaged entire party or spent some time on tactics screen, DA2 allowed less tactical players to play through just fine without gimping themselves too much. Going away from tactics number being limited by secondary skill was a good thing too.

As for nightmare difficulty 'bonuses' other than friendly fire/immunities - I believe assassin mob type could steal your potions in DA2 (and with 4 of each limit on nightmare it could hurt). That's about it I think. % buffs work quite well though, making boss phases relevant and encouraging focus on enemy mages/assassins (with them actually being capable of dealing serious harm to party/1shotting your mages from stealth). Led to some odd situations though, like act 2 finale (one version of it anyway) being extremely long kitefest ;P

edit: in retrospection I do believe DA2 ended up being much harder on nightmare difficulty than DA:O. With Shale tank, warden arcane warrior, Wynne as support mage and Leliana doing rogue stuff I don't recall ever struggling. In DA2 each boss fight, or even bigger trash battles, felt quite challenging though in Merril/Anders/rogue Hawke/Aveline setup. Or maybe I just screwed up badly