Dragon Age 3: Inquisition announced

[Cozarkian]

If you watch the video on gamespot, they give a little more info. not much, but I think it is relatively clear that they want to make it multi-player. And that they clearly want it to be a console game.

If they want it to be a console game, they would be well-served to return to DA:O. Looking at VG Chartz, DA:O sold massively more copies on consoles than DA2 (.85 million more on PS3 and a whopping 1.41 million more on Xbox). DA2 actually outsold DA:O on PC by .4 million, but that's fairly insignificant compared to the console numbers.

Presumably even EA is smart enought to look at sales data and realize their mistakes. That doesn't mean they won't make new ones though, like trying to make DA:3 similar to Elder Scrolls.

As for multiplayer, I wouldn't be suprised if the new Companions can be shared with other players. I believe Dragon's Dogma uses a system like that.

 

[Cozarkian]

It will require Origin. It will blow.

That will make me hesitate.

I regret buying Civ V even though it was steam required. Nonetheless, I still bought and enjoyed Skyrim (although I wouldn't have it I didn't already have a Steam account from Civ V). I refuse to buy Diablo III. I think I will also refuse to buy a game that requires Origin. Finally, if DA:3 is similar to DA:O, I won't buy it on a console either.

 

[thespyder]

If they want it to be a console game, they would be well-served to return to DA:O. Looking at VG Chartz, DA:O sold massively more copies on consoles than DA2 (.85 million more on PS3 and a whopping 1.41 million more on Xbox). DA2 actually outsold DA:O on PC by .4 million, but that's fairly insignificant compared to the console numbers.

Presumably even EA is smart enought to look at sales data and realize their mistakes. That doesn't mean they won't make new ones though, like trying to make DA:3 similar to Elder Scrolls.

As for multiplayer, I wouldn't be suprised if the new Companions can be shared with other players. I believe Dragon's Dogma uses a system like that.

Everything you say makes perfect sense. But you are making three fundamental flaws in your logic.

1) Did you ever play DA:O on the console? It was a much worse game than the PC version. Very consolized and generally not a very good game at all.

2) EA thinks that DA2 was a resounding success

3) EA doesn't admit or acknowledge their mistakes. Ever. Any lost sales are due to piracy or 'Temperamental' PC enthusiasts. Not because of anything EA did.

 

[QuantumPion]

Bioware founders Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk just announced their retirement from the VG industry:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/bioware-founders-retire/

That can't be good news lol. EA strikes again?

 

[Bateluer]

3) EA doesn't admit or acknowledge their mistakes. Ever. Any lost sales are due to piracy or 'Temperamental' PC enthusiasts. Not because of anything EA did.

This is standard faire for every publisher these days. If the game sold poorly, it was piracy. Always piracy. Ignore the poor reviews, low meta-critic scores, scores of complaints on the game's forums, etc. It was piracy.

Bioware founders Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk just announced their retirement from the VG industry:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/bioware-founders-retire/

That can't be good news lol. EA strikes again?

Ouch. Think I'm going to write of DA3 as a failure.

Also, I'm going to kick some more money to Project Eternity.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Bioware founders Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk just announced their retirement from the VG industry:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/bioware-founders-retire/

That can't be good news lol. EA strikes again?

That is not good news. They probably know something we don't about DA3.

 

[ArenCordial]

Yeah, it seems those rumors BioWare was so eager to deny turns out to be true.

Can't say I blame them, its got to be hard watching the company you spend 20 or so years building be led to ruin and no one would walk away from something you built that easily. The fact they are retiring at the same time is telling and their blogs read like PR controlled statements.

I'd love to see them try at start up again making RPGs at a new company once their non-competition agreements expire. With their track record they could easily find investors, but I don't know if they have the desire anymore.

Regardless BioWare's glory days are definately over.

 

[thespyder]

I guess what I don't understand is why EA bought Bio in the first place. I mean, normally a business buys out another business for one of two reasons. Either they are competition, or they have something that the other company wants.

Well, on the competition front, Bio and EA "Normally" play in different arenas. I can't think of any games that EA would have competed against Bio for prior to the purchase.

So then there is 'They have something that we want'. Only, when EA took over, they moved in with a hammer. And pretty much destroyed anything that Bio had going for itself that might have been unique. So what could EA have wanted that they actually GOT?

I am sure they had 'Their reasons', but.. it just isn't that clear to me what they are.

 

[ArenCordial]

Name recognition and BioWare's fan base.

BioWare had a strong brand name associated with hit after hit. EA obviously wanted to capitalize on that.

Secondly they had a strong loyal fanbase that even when the takeover came plenty of people argued that it wouldn't really matter. Hell there are still people who think BioWare is fine today and that the quality of their products have improved. It took 3 very badly fan recieved games (DA2, ME3, and SWTOR) before a good number of their fanbase decided to write them off. Even considering that if EA says all the right things I bet they will get more than a few to try the next games they release even if nothing good materializes.

 

[greenhawk]

Neat. Of course, the big question is: will be like DA1 (great) or DA2 (not).

money is on the later. given the wording the team "has been working on Dragon Age since Dragon Age: Origins. "

"since" is rather a strong word.

 

[Grooveriding]

Game will most certainly be another turd pile.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Wait, we still even THINK about buying Bioware games? I'd like to think DA3 won't be a giant bag of flaming poo, but I'd also like to think I'll start crapping money out of my behind. Neither is likely to happen unless I first start EATING money. After DA2 I said I would give Bioware ONE more shot (I was NOT impressed with the direction of ME2. They took everything wrong with ME1, just removed it, made a rails shooter and created a plethora of new crap in the game.

DA2, while I do like the idea of a scoped down story and lack of 5 bajillion pieces of armor that are all the same....was poorly done. So many awful characters (anders, the elf mage, the elf tattooed retard, meridith and orsino, the useless scotsman archer) coupled with an awful ending. "Oh, you sided with me and we're winning/we won the battle? DOESN'T MATTER. I'LL KILL YOU NOW!"

Mass Effect 3 was that LAST chance. And they blew it. ME3 was a well polished game that didn't engaged me that well. And then the ending happened, and I stopped caring. Bioware is finished, it's only a matter of time until they're making Mass Effect 5: Future Warfare 2.

 

[BudAshes]

I loved DA2 so I'm definitely in.

 

[Craig234]

I think it's likely to be very good.

Dragon Age got a metacritic of 91; Dragon Age II 82. I think what tells the story here is that while critics gave it 82, players gave it a 4.2.

I trust the critics more than the players. I think there was a whole lot of 'don't like it as much as DA:O so rate it terribly'.

I think Bioware is a great dev and heard a lot of what players want in the next game.

 

[Bateluer]

Dragon Age got a metacritic of 91; Dragon Age II 82. I think what tells the story here is that while critics gave it 82, players gave it a 4.2.

EA bought a lot of reviews to try build up DA2.

 

[thespyder]

Name recognition and BioWare's fan base.

BioWare had a strong brand name associated with hit after hit. EA obviously wanted to capitalize on that.

Secondly they had a strong loyal fanbase that even when the takeover came plenty of people argued that it wouldn't really matter. Hell there are still people who think BioWare is fine today and that the quality of their products have improved. It took 3 very badly fan recieved games (DA2, ME3, and SWTOR) before a good number of their fanbase decided to write them off. Even considering that if EA says all the right things I bet they will get more than a few to try the next games they release even if nothing good materializes.

All of which is teeny tiny small potatoes. Not even 1% of EA's bottom line. And in a market that they don't play in (historically).

I think it's likely to be very good.

Dragon Age got a metacritic of 91; Dragon Age II 82. I think what tells the story here is that while critics gave it 82, players gave it a 4.2.

I trust the critics more than the players. I think there was a whole lot of 'don't like it as much as DA:O so rate it terribly'.

I think Bioware is a great dev and heard a lot of what players want in the next game.

Just curious. did you PLAY either game? Because if you did, you might be less likely to agree with the critics and more likely to side with the players.

 

[Dumac]

I think it's likely to be very good.

Dragon Age got a metacritic of 91; Dragon Age II 82. I think what tells the story here is that while critics gave it 82, players gave it a 4.2.

I trust the critics more than the players. I think there was a whole lot of 'don't like it as much as DA:O so rate it terribly'.

I think Bioware is a great dev and heard a lot of what players want in the next game.

Did you play the game? Or are you being obtuse?

DA2 is one of the worst games I've played. If it was "Dragon Age", nobody would have bought it and critics would have panned it as well.

 

[Dumac]

Wait, we still even THINK about buying Bioware games? I'd like to think DA3 won't be a giant bag of flaming poo, but I'd also like to think I'll start crapping money out of my behind. Neither is likely to happen unless I first start EATING money. After DA2 I said I would give Bioware ONE more shot (I was NOT impressed with the direction of ME2. They took everything wrong with ME1, just removed it, made a rails shooter and created a plethora of new crap in the game.

DA2, while I do like the idea of a scoped down story and lack of 5 bajillion pieces of armor that are all the same....was poorly done. So many awful characters (anders, the elf mage, the elf tattooed retard, meridith and orsino, the useless scotsman archer) coupled with an awful ending. "Oh, you sided with me and we're winning/we won the battle? DOESN'T MATTER. I'LL KILL YOU NOW!"

Mass Effect 3 was that LAST chance. And they blew it. ME3 was a well polished game that didn't engaged me that well. And then the ending happened, and I stopped caring. Bioware is finished, it's only a matter of time until they're making Mass Effect 5: Future Warfare 2.

Don't forget about the giant failure, TOR.

I guess what I don't understand is why EA bought Bio in the first place. I mean, normally a business buys out another business for one of two reasons. Either they are competition, or they have something that the other company wants.

Well, on the competition front, Bio and EA "Normally" play in different arenas. I can't think of any games that EA would have competed against Bio for prior to the purchase.

So then there is 'They have something that we want'. Only, when EA took over, they moved in with a hammer. And pretty much destroyed anything that Bio had going for itself that might have been unique. So what could EA have wanted that they actually GOT?

I am sure they had 'Their reasons', but.. it just isn't that clear to me what they are.

EA wanted a successful MMO, and gambled on Bioware being able to deliver it.

The result was TOR, which was not as successful as EA had planned.

 

[thespyder]

EA wanted a successful MMO, and gambled on Bioware being able to deliver it.

The result was TOR, which was not as successful as EA had planned.

Which still raises the question of why? Other than the constant revenue, it is still an arena that they don't normally play in.

To be clear, I am not expecting an answer. I am sure someone somewhere in some board room said "Revenues could be higher. You know what makes money? MMOs. Let's buy a company that can build us one. Oh look. Bioware."

Just saying it was odd and really stupid on the face of it is all.

 

[Dumac]

Which still raises the question of why? Other than the constant revenue, it is still an arena that they don't normally play in.

To be clear, I am not expecting an answer. I am sure someone somewhere in some board room said "Revenues could be higher. You know what makes money? MMOs. Let's buy a company that can build us one. Oh look. Bioware."

Just saying it was odd and really stupid on the face of it is all.

I would just guess jealousy after looking at Blizzard's/Activision's profits from WoW, which is what has driven the creation of almost every MMO since WoW's success.

I agree it was stupid. It was new territory for Bioware. Not so much for EA, but I don't know why they went after Bioware. Brand name I suppose; the TOR defenders from pre-release until a few months after release are evidence of the weight Bioware's name used to carry.

Still, not a great idea.

 

[thespyder]

I would just guess jealousy after looking at Blizzard's/Activision's profits from WoW, which is what has driven the creation of almost every MMO since WoW's success.

I agree it was stupid. It was new territory for Bioware. Not so much for EA, but I don't know why they went after Bioware. Brand name I suppose; the TOR defenders from pre-release until a few months after release are evidence of the weight Bioware's name used to carry.

Still, not a great idea.

More or less.

It's a shame that they had to Ruin another company to do it all. Ah well. Add it to the pile I guess.

 

[Craig234]

Just curious. did you PLAY either game? Because if you did, you might be less likely to agree with the critics and more likely to side with the players.

I played DA:O and it's one of the few I finished. I bought DA 2 but barely started it, not enough to have an opinion.

Other players have clearly said they love the game who have played it, so some do, some don't.

My comment is more about the metacritic rating, which as I said I give more weight to than the player weighting. I plan to play DA 2, but that won't change the points I made.

 

[Craig234]

Did you play the game? Or are you being obtuse?

DA2 is one of the worst games I've played. If it was "Dragon Age", nobody would have bought it and critics would have panned it as well.

First, don't be an ass. Second, opinions vary. Some people love DA 2. Some hate it.

 

[thespyder]

I played DA:O and it's one of the few I finished. I bought DA 2 but barely started it, not enough to have an opinion.

Other players have clearly said they love the game who have played it, so some do, some don't.

My comment is more about the metacritic rating, which as I said I give more weight to than the player weighting. I plan to play DA 2, but that won't change the points I made.

Once you actually play DA2 for any length of time, you might form the opinion (as a great deal of others have) that the player review is a lot closer to reality than the Metacritic review.

But yes. There were players that liked DA2. Then again there are players that thought Pool of Radiance: Ruin of Myth Dranor was a good game as well. No accounting for taste.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I played DA:O and it's one of the few I finished. I bought DA 2 but barely started it, not enough to have an opinion.

Other players have clearly said they love the game who have played it, so some do, some don't.

My comment is more about the metacritic rating, which as I said I give more weight to than the player weighting. I plan to play DA 2, but that won't change the points I made.

Once you actually play DA2 for any length of time, you might form the opinion (as a great deal of others have) that the player review is a lot closer to reality than the Metacritic review.

But yes. There were players that liked DA2. Then again there are players that thought Pool of Radiance: Ruin of Myth Dranor was a good game as well. No accounting for taste.

This /\

DA2 is a great game if what you expect is a shallow game with 5 areas to walk around in. (Yes, 5. Uptown, lowtown, docks, darktown, mt sunder) and there being what, 3 dungeon maps? Or was it 4? Every dungeon was the same, just this door opened, this one closed. Or traverse it backwards. The story focuses on some crappy black and white "LIKE MAGES OR BURN THEM!" morality crap where neither the mages nor the templars are likable. Both are complete collections of lunatics. And the ending makes NO sense whatsoever. Oh, let's not forget that enemies just randomly get beamed down from the Enterprise in orbit. Finished a wave? Cool. Scotty, beam down some more enemies.

I'll say it right now: people who liked DA2 have no idea what a good RPG is.