Dragon Age hasn't been Dragon Age since Origins

[Dehumanizer]

>dusk before the upcoming battle
>army is preparing
>young squire quivering at the camp fire
>veteran knight approaches him
>walk with me, boy
>look up that mountain, do you see the fires and smoke?
>yes
>that's the darkspawn horde we have to fight very soon
>in about a day they will be here where we stand
>if we don't fight them with everything we have the realm will be doomed
>i'm not trying to scare you, just telling you the truth
>we're not here to beat them and we probably won't survive
>our purpose here is to hold them off long enough for the king to amass an army strong enough to defend the capital
>if that fails everybody you know will die
>those that don't die will be enslaved and violated to replenish their ranks
>this is bigger than us or anyone here - this is about all of mankind

That little scene is meant to visualize the tone and atmosphere of Dragon Age but only Origins had that. The wardens oath(In Peace, Vigilance. In War, Victory. In Death, Sacrifice.) was ever present in, pretty much, every minute of the game. Sure, there were light hearted moments and funny little scenes and secrets but, i think, they were meant to keep the player from just outright quitting the game because otherwise it would have been too depressing. The game didn't shy away from anything - as long as the ESRB didn't give them an AO. Sexual violence, violence against children, human sacrifice, deals with demons and the player was able to engage in most of it. That was the tone of the game.

But DA2 already ditched most of that and Inquisition did a full tonal 180. Completely revamping the tone, the range of player choices(both in dialogue and actions) to the point that you couldn't even really play a ruthless character anymore, especially in Inquisition. That game was going for a much more light hearted, colorful and, not even joking, a tone obviously strongly influenced by MCU movies. Characters that are constantly quipping, joking, so overdesigned that they seem to be fighting for the main character spot.

What i'm trying to emphasize is that every single Dragon Age game tried to reinvent and redesign the series and it never worked out well and i have no reason to believe that Veilguard is going to hit the spot this time around.

[Dehumanizer]

To me Haven did nothing. I was completely apathetic to the whole location and situation, the characters, i hated the combat and the dialogue. Then they follow it up with a trek through the blizzard that lacked any and all stakes because i already knew where it ends. A cringey-a*s musical interlude and slow pan across characters that i already hated. This set the tone for the rest of the game and it never recovered.

Inquisition, to me, felt like Bioware was watching me play Origins and DA2, made notes of the stuff i liked and made it their number 1 priority to avoid all of that stuff and instead fully lean into what i didn't.

[Targonis]

I see the posts going back and forth here, but the reality is that the first game was dark, the feeling that everyone is going to die, and you have a SMALL hope of saving Ferelden and the world. So, from that perspective, yep, only Baldur's Gate 2 had an enemy that really was a force of darkness that was really twisted, not just an enemy, but one who believes that torture is a tool to get what it wants.

Inquisition wasn't that bad, but the thing that many don't care for is that the DA games with the focus on the oppressed mages and turning it more political is what bothers a lot. If the focus had been more on the red lyrium and the effects it had than on the politics going on, it would have been more popular.

And that's the thing many find missing, that sense of, "if we fail, the world ends". The sense of doom and how many people will prey on the victims of destruction rather than helping them is also not as much there.

And that is where The Witcher 3 has more of the tone that many people look for, that the world is NOT a cheerful place, and when there are disasters(including war), you see people who are both at their best, and at their worst.

We need more information to see if they have made the new DA game "just another high fantasy game with the Dragon Age name slapped on it", or if there really is ANYTHING that will stand out. I miss the days of the original Bioware teams and Black Isle, who also knew how to design a game world that has depth to it.

[Dehumanizer]

Originally posted by Targonis:

Inquisition wasn't that bad, but the thing that many don't care for is that the DA games with the focus on the oppressed mages and turning it more political is what bothers a lot. If the focus had been more on the red lyrium and the effects it had than on the politics going on, it would have been more popular.

And that's the thing many find missing, that sense of, "if we fail, the world ends". The sense of doom and how many people will prey on the victims of destruction rather than helping them is also not as much there.

Wouldn't really call it political but more allegorical. Origins certainly had this "an ancient evil has awaken" theme. This us vs. them, "dwarves, elves, mages and templars - that sounds like an army to me!" gathering of allies and if only one of those parties wasn't up for it we all would fall. I didn't get any of that from Inquisition which is so weird because that game was all about building that huge army yet it never felt like it. I felt really detatched from the whole war aspect. Like playing Risk compared to Command and Conquer?

I just rewatched some of the Veilguard material and i think know why i find it so off putting. The characters are in this weird middle ground between stylized and uncanny valley realistic which makes me deeply uncomfortable just looking at it. Also the combat effects(light trails, particle effects, lots of colorful auras) really don't make it any better. The screen in general is just way too busy and overloaded with...stuff.

[Cutlass Jack]

Eh, I'll disagree about the never feeling in charge of a huge army. You had soldiers in every map, you took forts and claimed them for your forces. You continually saw them in the field doing work for you. Adamant Fortress was one big battle leading your army against demons and wardens.

There was none of that in Origins til the final battle really. Inquisition had it the whole way through.

[Jusenkyo7]

Originally posted by Targonis:

I see the posts going back and forth here, but the reality is that the first game was dark, the feeling that everyone is going to die, and you have a SMALL hope of saving Ferelden and the world. So, from that perspective, yep, only Baldur's Gate 2 had an enemy that really was a force of darkness that was really twisted, not just an enemy, but one who believes that torture is a tool to get what it wants.

Inquisition wasn't that bad, but the thing that many don't care for is that the DA games with the focus on the oppressed mages and turning it more political is what bothers a lot. If the focus had been more on the red lyrium and the effects it had than on the politics going on, it would have been more popular.

And that's the thing many find missing, that sense of, "if we fail, the world ends".

See, I feel you have it exactly backwards. In DA:O, the threat is pretty minor compared to DA:I or DA:V. If you had failed, the Orlesians and/or northern Thedans, with their stronger armies and legions of Grey Wardens would have would quickly put down the Fifth Blight, which ended in the blink of an eye by Blight standards. The fight only feels hopeless because your group is so weak.

That is not a knock on the heroism in DA:O. Certainly, MANY more people would have died without the HoF’s involvement, especially in Ferelden. But Thedas has survived Blights lasting well over a century.

In DA:I (and based on what we’ve seen, likely in DA:V), you really are saving the world from existential threats that would, at minimum, rework the world into what most of its current inhabitants would consider a hellscape. And if you fail, it is highly unlikely anyone would succeed in your place (indeed, Inquisition even shows you what would happen in your absence).

[Archnemesis]

Originally posted by Jusenkyo7:

Originally posted by Targonis:

I see the posts going back and forth here, but the reality is that the first game was dark, the feeling that everyone is going to die, and you have a SMALL hope of saving Ferelden and the world. So, from that perspective, yep, only Baldur's Gate 2 had an enemy that really was a force of darkness that was really twisted, not just an enemy, but one who believes that torture is a tool to get what it wants.

Inquisition wasn't that bad, but the thing that many don't care for is that the DA games with the focus on the oppressed mages and turning it more political is what bothers a lot. If the focus had been more on the red lyrium and the effects it had than on the politics going on, it would have been more popular.

And that's the thing many find missing, that sense of, "if we fail, the world ends".

See, I feel you have it exactly backwards. In DA:O, the threat is pretty minor compared to DA:I or DA:V. If you had failed, the Orlesians and/or northern Thedans, with their stronger armies and legions of Grey Wardens would have would quickly put down the Fifth Blight, which ended in the blink of an eye by Blight standards. The fight only feels hopeless because your group is so weak.

That is not a knock on the heroism in DA:O. Certainly, MANY more people would have died without the HoF’s involvement, especially in Ferelden. But Thedas has survived Blights lasting well over a century.

In DA:I (and based on what we’ve seen, likely in DA:V), you really are saving the world from existential threats that would, at minimum, rework the world into what most of its current inhabitants would consider a hellscape. And if you fail, it is highly unlikely anyone would succeed in your place (indeed, Inquisition even shows you what would happen in your absence).

One could argue if those in Dragon Age: Origins had failed (since many choices branch off of what they do and do not do in that game/story) that all the others after would have failed as well.

Dragon Age 2 (for example) if Flemeth had not intervened on Hawke (and the Warden's) behalf neither would have been able to assist (through Morrigan) the Inquisitor. Nor would Varric had been there to assist the Inquisitor well to become the Inquisitor, because Cassandra wouldn't have spoken to Varric to attempt to recruit Hawke in the first place (who was her first choice to be the Inquisitor).

So, yes, Thedas may have not needed the Warden and Feralden to defeat the Blight, but what came after? I don't think the Rifts would have been sealed and that ending you saw without even the Inquisitor even being there would have been even more bleak. Basically, whatever Solas did in the past certainly saved the world from a far more grim reality than it is currently in Dragon Age universe. At least, so far as know. I think this game is going to explain away some myths and reveal some forgotten truths.

I remember the Dalish intro of the Dread Wolf story as well as from DA2 with Merrill and it is very explicit to make Solas (Dread Wolf) the bad guy. I think the old elven "gods" have been working for centuries to weave a way back into the world. I also think some long forgotten powers are going to make a return that may have been sealed away (both benevolent and malevolent) hence why whatever is happening to Harding may be one of those powers (the Titans) returning as well.

[Six of Saturn]

DA2 was pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dark. Maybe even more dark than Origins.

[BornToFragAlpha]

Originally posted by Jusenkyo7:

Originally posted by Targonis:

I see the posts going back and forth here, but the reality is that the first game was dark, the feeling that everyone is going to die, and you have a SMALL hope of saving Ferelden and the world. So, from that perspective, yep, only Baldur's Gate 2 had an enemy that really was a force of darkness that was really twisted, not just an enemy, but one who believes that torture is a tool to get what it wants.

Inquisition wasn't that bad, but the thing that many don't care for is that the DA games with the focus on the oppressed mages and turning it more political is what bothers a lot. If the focus had been more on the red lyrium and the effects it had than on the politics going on, it would have been more popular.

And that's the thing many find missing, that sense of, "if we fail, the world ends".

See, I feel you have it exactly backwards. In DA:O, the threat is pretty minor compared to DA:I or DA:V. If you had failed, the Orlesians and/or northern Thedans, with their stronger armies and legions of Grey Wardens would have would quickly put down the Fifth Blight, which ended in the blink of an eye by Blight standards. The fight only feels hopeless because your group is so weak.

That is not a knock on the heroism in DA:O. Certainly, MANY more people would have died without the HoF’s involvement, especially in Ferelden. But Thedas has survived Blights lasting well over a century.

In DA:I (and based on what we’ve seen, likely in DA:V), you really are saving the world from existential threats that would, at minimum, rework the world into what most of its current inhabitants would consider a hellscape. And if you fail, it is highly unlikely anyone would succeed in your place (indeed, Inquisition even shows you what would happen in your absence).

You do realize the only reason the Blight was ended so painlessly is because it was never able to get a proper foothold?

Ferelden is a backwater ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ with small populations.

Darkspawn come from captured women.

If Denerim would have fallen that'd have been thousands of broodmothers, making hundreds of thousands of Darkspawn.

The Blight would have once again gone out of control.

The Orlesian Armies and the Grey Wardens in dozens or more would have amounted to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Remember, Grey Wardens do not have Gryphons anymore to contest air supremacy.

Arguably the Hero of Ferelden is also one of the third most strongest characters in the world, with Hawk and Inquisitor. Hell, HoF killed Archdemon, Flemeth, 2 Demon Lords (one of which was in his own home turf in the Fade), a Tevinter Magister that I'd argue was stronger than Corypheus.

100 ordinary Wardens together aren't enough for those feats.

[Corona Scurrae]

I liked how they depicted the elves and dwarves. the former being the offspring of literal tyrants that ruined their own way of life and the latter being completely indifferent to their women getting kidnapped and spoiled by darkspawn, to act as broodmothers.

not to mention the whole dynamic between elves and humans and the qunari.

origins built a good foundation which ea and bioware squandered over the years. inquisition tried to add more to that solid foundation but thankfully people at bioware had an epiphany and turned inquisition into an offline mmo.

what I like about 4 is the reintroduction of griffins. I always despise fantasy stories that start with telling you how grand the bygone era was and how many cool spells, contraptions and beasts they had at their disposal, only to end up in current era which has none of that.

I'm not a fan of this slow reintroduction of magic in fantasy stories.

[Jusenkyo7]

Originally posted by BornToFragAlpha:

You do realize the only reason the Blight was ended so painlessly is because it was never able to get a proper foothold?

Ferelden is a backwater ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ with small populations.

Darkspawn come from captured women.

If Denerim would have fallen that'd have been thousands of broodmothers, making hundreds of thousands of Darkspawn.

The Blight would have once again gone out of control.

The Orlesian Armies and the Grey Wardens in dozens or more would have amounted to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Remember, Grey Wardens do not have Gryphons anymore to contest air supremacy.

Arguably the Hero of Ferelden is also one of the third most strongest characters in the world, with Hawk and Inquisitor. Hell, HoF killed Archdemon, Flemeth, 2 Demon Lords (one of which was in his own home turf in the Fade), a Tevinter Magister that I'd argue was stronger than Corypheus.

100 ordinary Wardens together aren't enough for those feats.

With the likely exception of the Inquisitor while they have the anchor, none of the DA protagonists are “stronger” than their companions. They come across as merely highly skilled, and supremely determined.

Given that the First Blight was put down after nearly two centuries, I think you significantly overestimate how much more powerful the darkspawn would get over time. The year or two it might have realistically taken Orlais and the other countries to get involved would not have made much difference.

And there is no way the Architect was more powerful than Corypheus. Setting aside that Corypheus was the leader of the Magisters Siderial, in DA:I he was massively empowered by the Orb of Destruction and red lyrium, making him far more powerful.

[Jusenkyo7]

Originally posted by Dehumanizer:

It's crazy to see people catching a temp ban for an inflammatory comment but the comment stays up.

What are you talking about? And why make this comment on a two-week old thread?

[Dehumanizer]

Originally posted by Jusenkyo7:

Originally posted by Dehumanizer:

It's crazy to see people catching a temp ban for an inflammatory comment but the comment stays up.

What are you talking about? And why make this comment on a two-week old thread?

When i made that comment the bait hasn't been deleted yet.

But yeah it's gone now.