Dragon Age 3

[Fabricated]

Frostbite 2 has some pretty crazy loadtimes as far as BF3 goes but that's loading well, fairly gigantic maps usually. If they went back to the sorta realistic visuals rather than the heavily stylized stuff from DA2 it'd be a good engine to use since it can do some really amazing landscapes and believable skyboxes that give a good feeling of not being boxed in.

[Ingmar]

I have played zero games in any version of Frostbite, it looks like.

[Paelos]

Ok that's what I thought but wanted to make sure I remembered right.

One piece of information that I didn't know was that Brent Knowles resigned during the development of DA:2 even though he worked on DA:O. When asked why he said, "I'm not the same person I was when I started, and BioWare is not the same company."

When you look at the development cycle of DA2 it was only worked on seriously for about a year. Skyrim was developed in earnest for over 3 years. Trying to copy or create the open-ended style of Skyrim in the time frame that EA will impose on the project is impossible. For that to happen, Dragon Age 3 would have to be released in 2014.

[eldaec]

To illustrate that point further, DA:O was announced in 2004.

[Trippy]

BioWare founders' retirements moved to here:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=22628.0

[tmp]

When you look at the development cycle of DA2 it was only worked on seriously for about a year. Skyrim was developed in earnest for over 3 years. Trying to copy or create the open-ended style of Skyrim in the time frame that EA will impose on the project is impossible. For that to happen, Dragon Age 3 would have to be released in 2014.

There's some mentions on BW forums from BW folks to the effect development of DA3 has been going for two years already. Exactly what work that involved is anyone's guess though -- and applying basic math to these claims leads to some funny results, like conclusion it'd have to mean DA2 and DA3 were developed basically in parallel. So... pinch of salt and all that -- after all when there was concerns raised before DA2 launch over the size of the game and whether it'd mean something regarding game's size/variety etc, the BW guys would insist with straight face it's just a result of how much better they'd gotten at compressing their game assets...

[Ingmar]

New information out today, as there's an article in September's Game Informer:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/08/06/september-2013-dragon-age-inquisition-6119.aspx

Things worth noting:

- Multiple choices of race for the PC are back
- Mounts (to go with the bigger open areas we already knew about)
- destructible/rebuildable environments to at least some degree
- organization/stronghold building, maybe along the lines of AC2 stuff?

Some possibly spoilery bits about companions:

[Montague]

After DA2, ME3 and SWTOR, this game could promise blowjobs and unicorns - still not preordering.

[Signe]

Still, unicorns would be rather nice.

[Sky]

Hate when that horn jabs you in the belly though.

[Reg]

Where on earth is Nayr?  This thread should be twice as long by now.

[Ingmar]

Thanks for trying to get my thread locked, Reg. 

[Ingmar]

Main site updated, not a lot of new info but a couple tidbits:

- tactical view is back for combat
- 9 party members (more than I was expecting)
- NPCs apparently interact with each other more and not just you (someone's been playing Fire Emblem?)
- Color customization for gear (also for followers)

http://www.dragonage.com/

[Trippy]

- NPCs apparently interact with each other more and not just you (someone's been playing Fire Emblem?)

Or Mass Effect

[Ingmar]

Maybe. I get the impression they mean a little more than what happens in Mass Effect, since that sort of stuff also happens in DA2 which would make it not a very new/interesting feature if it is just like that.

[Sjofn]

Yeah Mass Effect 3's companions and Dragon Age 2's companions are about the same as far as interactiveness-with-each-other goes, I think. ME3 had all the Normandy Banter and occasional in-the-mission chit chat, DA2 had all the out-in-the-world banter plus the occasional "Isabella is visiting Aveline because they're totes BFFs now" cut scene. As long as it's at least that level of interaction, I am pleased. I will be even more pleased if it's MOAR, of course.

But the stupid thing that has me way too pleased is the return of Tactical View. I missed it more than I expected in DA2.

[Rasix]

9 party members seems like.. a lot.  Is that 9 in combat at once or just what you have to choose from?

[eldaec]

9 party members seems like.. a lot.  Is that 9 in combat at once or just what you have to choose from?

It says 'chosen from 9' I'm guessing they mean there are 9 companions you can recruit but only take 3 into combat.

Personally I think party of 9 would be great, because that is functionally equivalent to having more buttons to push. But given the probable desire to pander to consoles and their inadequate input devices and UI, it seems very unlikely.

I couldn't see it on the site but I assume this is origin only, so will anyway need to be robot Jesus to drag me in.

[lamaros]

Personally I think party of 9 would be great

Green?

I'd much prefer a party of three and a fun tactical combat than a party of 9 and one that replaces strategy for complexity and complication.

[Ingmar]

9 party members seems like.. a lot.  Is that 9 in combat at once or just what you have to choose from?

Almost certainly the number of people you can pick from. Screenshots already show that you get a 4 person party actually with you at any time IIRC. (With you presumably being one of them.)

[eldaec]

Personally I think party of 9 would be great

Green?

I'd much prefer a party of three and a fun tactical combat than a party of 9 and one that replaces strategy for complexity and complication.

Not green.

If they try seriously to make a nine person party work I would buy this on Origin. I appreciate 4 is probably a wiser, low risk path, but 9 at least introduces a new element.

And more buttons are always better as I have discussed before, even if most philistines around here disagree.

X-com never suffered from larger parties in combat. Nor did Pools of Radiance, FF:T, Rainbow 6 before they fucked it up. Chess has you manage a party of 16.

[Merusk]

Yeah, bu tHen you have to go turn based which is booooooring,man.  I a want to kill shit now and watch it explode like those awesome mike bay movies.


Lots of green.

[K9]

BG2 had six, nine could be fun. It would be like your own personal raid all the time.

[Rasix]

9 party members seems like.. a lot.  Is that 9 in combat at once or just what you have to choose from?

Almost certainly the number of people you can pick from. Screenshots already show that you get a 4 person party actually with you at any time IIRC. (With you presumably being one of them.)

4 person party is fine.  3 was just a bit too small.  I still like the 6 person infinity engine parties, but 4 is workable. With 4 and 9 to choose from, they can kill people off and still have enough for the inevitable "dual party" section of the end section.

[Ingmar]

We can probably expect one of the 9 to be one of those 'buy it new and you get the DLC they're in free' like Shale and Sebastian, also. When you add those in, DA:O had 9 options (if you include Dog) and DA2 sort of had 9, except 2 of them were exclusive with each other (siblings) so I guess 9 isn't a jump up in number to pick from like I was thinking.

[lamaros]

Personally I think party of 9 would be great

Green?

I'd much prefer a party of three and a fun tactical combat than a party of 9 and one that replaces strategy for complexity and complication.

Not green.

If they try seriously to make a nine person party work I would buy this on Origin. I appreciate 4 is probably a wiser, low risk path, but 9 at least introduces a new element.

And more buttons are always better as I have discussed before, even if most philistines around here disagree.

X-com never suffered from larger parties in combat. Nor did Pools of Radiance, FF:T, Rainbow 6 before they fucked it up. Chess has you manage a party of 16.

Disagree. The recent xcom with fewer party members was far richer in tactical gameplay than the originals. Also as others have said you're talking about a few turn based systems there. In Chess you take one action each turn, and half your units are identical.

I'd much rather a simple tactically deep system than lots of party members and just a appearance of it. Limitation breeds challenge too - and is much less time intensive to design and balance to boot.

[rk47]

Yeah fuck party. The Witcher and Skyrim is more engaging tactically than any Bioware RPG ever put together once they went next-gen.
Look at Knights of Old Republic tactical options Oh my ! WHAT FORCE POWER DO I RAPE WITH NOW!

[lamaros]

Yeah fuck party. The Witcher and Skyrim is more engaging tactically than any Bioware RPG ever put together once they went next-gen.
Look at Knights of Old Republic tactical options Oh my ! WHAT FORCE POWER DO I RAPE WITH NOW!

You have a natural knack for the strawman.

[eldaec]

If you are suggesting a larger party means you'd have make it turn based, I'm not sure I completely agree, but even if true, that's a bit like saying you can't have jelly because you'd also have to have ice cream.

I'm OK with getting another good thing to support the first good thing.

I go get that it would make a very different game though.

[satael]

If you are suggesting a larger party means you'd have make it turn based, I'm not sure I completely agree, but even if true, that's a bit like saying you can't have jelly because you'd also have to have ice cream.

I'm OK with getting another good thing to support the first good thing.

I go get that it would make a very different game though.

I'd like a game with a large party and the ability to script their behaviour in combat (something like FF12 gambits... but better).

[Strazos]

I like large parties - allows you more flexibility to use more non-core character types. In Icewind Dale 1/2, after I cover my fighter, wizard, thief, and healer bases, I can slot in other stuff like dual-classed Fighter-Druids and Bards.

[Venkman]

I'm ok with large parties if it's turn based. Because, ya know, I'm a market and goddamit i will be served!

[eldaec]

If you are suggesting a larger party means you'd have make it turn based, I'm not sure I completely agree, but even if true, that's a bit like saying you can't have jelly because you'd also have to have ice cream.

I'm OK with getting another good thing to support the first good thing.

I go get that it would make a very different game though.

I'd like a game with a large party and the ability to script their behaviour in combat (something like FF12 gambits... but better).

DA:O scripting was actually pretty good. With a little polish you could turn it into an interesting large party thing without reverting to turn based.

That said have no problem with the play out 5 seconds and pause to change orders style. I know some people dislike that, but some people are vegetarians, what I am saying is there's no accounting for taste.

[eldaec]

We can probably expect one of the 9 to be one of those 'buy it new and you get the DLC they're in free' like Shale and Sebastian, also. When you add those in, DA:O had 9 options (if you include Dog) and DA2 sort of had 9, except 2 of them were exclusive with each other (siblings) so I guess 9 isn't a jump up in number to pick from like I was thinking.

If you count people who are exclusive with other people, DAO had ten.

[Sjofn]

I don't really count Tenth Character, but I wouldn't fight too hard if people said the siblings don't really count either.


That said, Bioware probably counts them. :P