Yeah, I know what you're getting at. I had a similar reaction when CDPR said the game would have 16 endings. The endings in DA3 will probably be like in DA:O, which I really liked.
Aside from that though, everything they said in that previous post is exciting. Let's hope the game is good.
The thing I'm most looking forward to is whether or not the Strategy elements they're implementing will be a success.
BioWare dabbled in it by giving you Forts to plan in NwN2 and DA:O Awakening, and armies to build in HoTU (awesome game) and DA:O. These attempts were interesting at first sight, but were still fairly superficial. They also had the chance to do something truly amazing and epic in ME3, but they botched it up and your War Assets amounted to nothing.
So far, it seems that in DA:I they're taking it as far as a RPG has done, with you taking control of region after region and planning how the forts within will be built - with military or economic focus, and then see the impact it has on the war at large. Though I'm skeptical, I still hope that they really manage something awesome in this aspect, because I think that RPGs that have you playing a great army leader (as BioWare usually do) can only benefit from actually making you play a great army leader, i.e. set strategies and build armies in a much deeper manner - rather than just naming you that. I say Yes to introducing deep strategy to RPGs.
BioWare dabbled in it by giving you Forts to plan in NwN2 and DA:O Awakening, and armies to build in HoTU (awesome game) and DA:O. These attempts were interesting at first sight, but were still fairly superficial. They also had the chance to do something truly amazing and epic in ME3, but they botched it up and your War Assets amounted to nothing.
So far, it seems that in DA:I they're taking it as far as a RPG has done, with you taking control of region after region and planning how the forts within will be built - with military or economic focus, and then see the impact it has on the war at large. Though I'm skeptical, I still hope that they really manage something awesome in this aspect, because I think that RPGs that have you playing a great army leader (as BioWare usually do) can only benefit from actually making you play a great army leader, i.e. set strategies and build armies in a much deeper manner - rather than just naming you that. I say Yes to introducing deep strategy to RPGs.
He will most likely be replaced ...... *sigh*
Hell ... ALISTAIR will not be in Inquisition as well
EDIT: It seems Alistair will be back in Inquisition after all.
Last edited:
Bullshit.
Anyway, good to hear they won't be ripping us off with characters.
...
Not sure they fully understood the criticism there. People were complaining that you were stuck with very specific roles for different characters in DA2, unlike in DA:O or previous BW titles where there was still some flexibility. The other part was that only the player benefited from armour drops, no party management.
So, while I don't really mind this change, I'm just not sure what made them include it.
That's good when comparing it to DA2. I just hope they avoid the 'pick one of three' main choice at the end of the game with the organic choices you've made throughout the game just adding flavour. As others have said, go for the DA:O approach, where the main variation was a result of the combination of a few 'smaller' decisions, not pressing one of 3 or however many buttons.
Basically, if I'm presented with 5 doorways out of the Fade, after defeating the demons, each offering a different way to close the rifts, I will not be happy.
Last edited:
I don't believe Bioware can deliver 40 different endings any more than CDPR can deliver 36. They should just call them ending states, as CDPR has started to do. Still not a fan of the wheels. Tone wheels, actions wheels, etc. Just have the dialog. It's like they want to eliminate any trace of risk or unpredictability.
I mean, that was pretty obvious, I'm surprised devs need to clarify this anymore.
Aye true but there were a lot of people who really did buy into the whole 40 endings thing. Surprisingly enough. I was a bit sceptical myself but hey, I mean it's not completely impossible right? But no, in this case, it was just exaggeration.
Honestly I don't give a shit about how many endings your game has. Sounds a bit mechanical when you talk about it like that. I want a story to have an ending that's not contrived or badly written. Quality. Something creative and unique. Something meaningful. I hope BioWare shares that sentiment.
We'll see how different they truly are once we play it. As always, I'm a skeptic when any dev makes such assumptions but I get the feeling that BioWare will put 110% effort in this to regain their reputation. That and they have TW3 to compete with from which they probably got the ending idea in the first place. I would have been content with DA:O-like endings but if they can pull this off, then hats off to them.
Regardless, 4 TRULY unique endings is more than enough. The rest are just the icing on the cake. Let's hope the endings and the game won't suck.
After Mass Effect 3 they need to be careful when they say anything about "endings". I imagine it would be hard to come with 40 different colours though...