Dragon Age: Inquisition delayed to Nov. 18

It's bullshit.

Destiny is releasing September 9th, as was Dragon Age. With the Destiny Beta being successful, and the game being praised; they did it to avoid same-release-day competition. Now, I don't doubt there will be some "polishing" but it's far too coincidental. There's also quite a few other good games releasing in September.

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to the game. Game play videos look quite nice. A much improved Dragon Age: Origins.
 
King Icewind said:
It's bullshit.

Destiny is releasing September 9th, as was Dragon Age. With the Destiny Beta being successful, and the game being praised; they did it to avoid same-release-day competition. Now, I don't doubt there will be some "polishing" but it's far too coincidental. There's also quite a few other good games releasing in September.
Click to expand...
Mostly agreed. September and October are rife with big releases, and every big game does the majority of its sales in the first month (there's a reason price drops usually start about 3 months after release). Moving to November 19th gets DAI out of the glut and still gives them a little over a month before Christmas.

I'm a little skeptical that any real polishing will be done over that period, unless it's polishing of the release-day patch. ;)
 
Wasn't a hard decision for me between Destiny and Dragon Age, Destiny isn't releasing on the PC and I don't own a console.
 
normally November is a very crowded time for new games but with Battlefield Hardline and several other high profile games (Arkham Knight, Witcher 3, Dying Light etc) being delayed until 2015,it might be a better time period for Dragon Age
 
King Icewind said:
It's bullshit.

Destiny is releasing September 9th, as was Dragon Age. With the Destiny Beta being successful, and the game being praised; they did it to avoid same-release-day competition. Now, I don't doubt there will be some "polishing" but it's far too coincidental. There's also quite a few other good games releasing in September.

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to the game. Game play videos look quite nice. A much improved Dragon Age: Origins.
Click to expand...
Considering who the publisher is, they probably need the "polish".
 
polonyc2 said:
normally November is a very crowded time for new games but with Battlefield Hardline and several other high profile games (Arkham Knight, Witcher 3, Dying Light etc) being delayed until 2015,it might be a better time period for Dragon Age
Click to expand...

Dragon Age was a pretty big hit when it came out. With it coming from an established publisher/developer I would think it sold better than the Batman games. I don't necessarily see DA as being a "small weight" title.
 
Flogger23m said:
Dragon Age was a pretty big hit when it came out. With it coming from an established publisher/developer I would think it sold better than the Batman games. I don't necessarily see DA as being a "small weight" title.
Click to expand...

DA2 was shit in many respects, DAO may be a sales letdown if they launch with too many other new games and people still with a bitter taste from DA2.
 
I worked with this guy like 5 years ago who was swearing up and down about Dragon Age 2 for the 360 it could of been him but Dragon Age 3 might be good =)

I like the graphics big time though looks really nice not sure of Gameplay the problem is the series is Bioware but not anymore it's EA Orgin all the way.
 
I might have enough cash by then... otherwise its going on my Christmas wishlist. Hopefully its a great game.
 
King Icewind said:
It's bullshit.

Destiny is releasing September 9th, as was Dragon Age. With the Destiny Beta being successful, and the game being praised; they did it to avoid same-release-day competition. Now, I don't doubt there will be some "polishing" but it's far too coincidental. There's also quite a few other good games releasing in September.

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to the game. Game play videos look quite nice. A much improved Dragon Age: Origins.
Click to expand...

The delay has nothing to do with Destiny. DA: Inq was going to be released on October 7th.
 
Why does anyone care? This is the same post-EA studio that gave us Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 3, each one progressively worse than the last, with not one good game in-between. It will be pure garbage.
 
GearChoices said:
Why does anyone care? This is the same post-EA studio that gave us Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 3, each one progressively worse than the last, with not one good game in-between. It will be pure garbage.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you include ME2 and ME3 in that list. Absolutely awesome games. Just because the ending wasn't filled with unicorns farting candy doesn't make it garbage.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Not sure why you include ME2 and ME3 in that list. Absolutely awesome games. Just because the ending wasn't filled with unicorns farting candy doesn't make it garbage.
Click to expand...

I really liked ME3 until the ending. It's not that it was bad, it was just that the whole game was based on the premise of your actions being important and your decisions really affecting everything. The ending just felt like a letdown, ME2's ending was wayyyyy better, every choice you made determined if someone lived or died. I got my whole team out and it was awesome.

As for DAI, I'm really looking forward to it. They seem to have learned some lessons from DA2 and the horrible backlash they got from it. I'll admit, I was practically addicted to DAO, it was one of the best games I've played on the PC, but DA2 was just so boring I literally stopped playing it halfway through (came back 6 months later to finish it), and I was someone who got it day 1 and skipped a class or two to play it.

Not sure if I'm violating any rules, but if you guys haven't, you should watch the interview from Angry Joe at E3. I normally HATE interviews and find them horribly boring, but this one was good and very informative.
 
They would have been better off keeping it on that October date but this is typical of what we see every year. You go through several months of drought and then all of a sudden a couple of dozen games or so all come out within a month's time, tops, usually in November.

This November date has Far Cry 4 coming out which is a different genre so I don't think that's any big deal past people's wallets but it's also the rumored date of the PC version of GTA 5 and that's where I start wondering about the date change.
 
I was quite interested until I saw the lack of intelligent monster tactics.
 
Pylor said:
I really liked ME3 until the ending. It's not that it was bad, it was just that the whole game was based on the premise of your actions being important and your decisions really affecting everything. The ending just felt like a letdown, ME2's ending was wayyyyy better, every choice you made determined if someone lived or died. I got my whole team out and it was awesome.
Click to expand...

What? ME2's ending was bad. Probably worse than ME3's as it was certainly less emotional. The only thing which determined who lives or dies is how many of those crappy character side quests you partake in. The actual story in ME2 wasn't nearly as strong or good as ME1 and it was dumbed down to appeal to the masses.

Likewise, the decisions you made in ME1 had little to no impact in ME2. A few lines of dialogue and a character or two mission from some brief interactions but nothing game changing.
 
Flogger23m said:
What? ME2's ending was bad. Probably worse than ME3's as it was certainly less emotional. The only thing which determined who lives or dies is how many of those crappy character side quests you partake in. The actual story in ME2 wasn't nearly as strong or good as ME1 and it was dumbed down to appeal to the masses.

Likewise, the decisions you made in ME1 had little to no impact in ME2. A few lines of dialogue and a character or two mission from some brief interactions but nothing game changing.
Click to expand...

The point of the "crappy character side quests" was to build up trust and faith between you and your squadmates/companions. If you chose poorly/wrong then it would have logical ramifications when it came time for the ending mission. There was also upgrading the ship, and if you didn't do either, bad things would happen, in ways that made sense and played out well imo (just youtube some of the videos to see what could have happened). It might not have been as emotional (I honestly don't remember specifics) but I liked that my actions and decisions actually mattered in the end, as well as my preparations. There was a sense of accomplishment. With 3 that just didn't happen, and while I realize actions being futile can be a general fact of life, it really didn't feel like ANYTHING you did previously mattered at all. I think we both had different ideals in terms of rewards story-wise.

ME1 to ME2 loss of continuation factors, I believe, was due to the consolisation of the game. The same thing happened with Crysis to Crysis 2, only even worse (WHERE DID THE MAIN CHARACTER FROM CRYSIS 1 GO!? You have to read some obscure comic to find out).
 
Pylor said:
The point of the "crappy character side quests" was to build up trust and faith between you and your squadmates/companions. If you chose poorly/wrong then it would have logical ramifications when it came time for the ending mission. There was also upgrading the ship, and if you didn't do either, bad things would happen, in ways that made sense and played out well imo (just youtube some of the videos to see what could have happened). It might not have been as emotional (I honestly don't remember specifics) but I liked that my actions and decisions actually mattered in the end, as well as my preparations. There was a sense of accomplishment. With 3 that just didn't happen, and while I realize actions being futile can be a general fact of life, it really didn't feel like ANYTHING you did previously mattered at all. I think we both had different ideals in terms of rewards story-wise.

ME1 to ME2 loss of continuation factors, I believe, was due to the consolisation of the game. The same thing happened with Crysis to Crysis 2, only even worse (WHERE DID THE MAIN CHARACTER FROM CRYSIS 1 GO!? You have to read some obscure comic to find out).
Click to expand...

Your post makes no sense. Your decisions did not matter in ME2; only how much you played mattered. Well, I guess in the last 10 minutes of the game if you chose the wrong character for the job it mattered. But it was very obvious who was ideal for what job.

Also Mass Effect 2 was a let down just because it was a letdown and not because of consoles. Remember, Mass Effect started out as an Xbox only game and was ported to PC a year later.

I still enjoyed all three of the games, but story wise number two and three fall far behind the first. Shooting mechanics and inventory wise, ME1 does feel pretty bad though.
 
Flogger23m said:
Your post makes no sense. Your decisions did not matter in ME2; only how much you played mattered. Well, I guess in the last 10 minutes of the game if you chose the wrong character for the job it mattered. But it was very obvious who was ideal for what job.

Also Mass Effect 2 was a let down just because it was a letdown and not because of consoles. Remember, Mass Effect started out as an Xbox only game and was ported to PC a year later.

I still enjoyed all three of the games, but story wise number two and three fall far behind the first. Shooting mechanics and inventory wise, ME1 does feel pretty bad though.
Click to expand...

There are other choices in the game that matter as well. Specifically that fight between Jack and Miranda. That said, I think ME2 did characters better than ME1. ME1 had some really good characters but their personalities expanded in 2 and most of the new characters had their own quirks and personalities that made them fit in. Mind you for the most part it was a ship full of crazy people, but it worked. ME3 as well, less so for the new cast but the finishing touches on some of the other characters were incredibly well done. Can't say I'm overly fond of the rest of ME3's story elements, but that is one thing I felt they nailed throughout the series.
 
Flogger23m said:
Your post makes no sense. Your decisions did not matter in ME2; only how much you played mattered. Well, I guess in the last 10 minutes of the game if you chose the wrong character for the job it mattered. But it was very obvious who was ideal for what job.

Also Mass Effect 2 was a let down just because it was a letdown and not because of consoles. Remember, Mass Effect started out as an Xbox only game and was ported to PC a year later.

I still enjoyed all three of the games, but story wise number two and three fall far behind the first. Shooting mechanics and inventory wise, ME1 does feel pretty bad though.
Click to expand...

You had to make decisions in the character missions, I could never do that Zaeed guy's because it would require a whole bunch of innocent people to burn alive. Which meant he ended up dying in ME3 (a lot of those loyalty missions carry over to ME3, as do other choices in ME2). And ya, you can see it your way in terms of "just requiring extra play time", but the way I see it, it was an option to do those side quests AND make the decision required to gain their trust. I felt like I had accomplished something by gaining loyalty and upgrading my ship which would prepare me better for the final mission. Compare that to ME3, no matter what you do it doesn't make a difference in that game, no decisions matter whatsoever for the final ending. In my mind it invalidates its own model of branching archs by bringing everything together into 3 options.

I'm not denying the game was consolized to hell and back, I firmly agree with that. The story had to be "dumbed down" and streamlined a bit for console people trying to get into the franchise. The mechanics are much, much better for it though. I should also note that I enjoyed the ME3 story up until the very end, it was better than ME2, but the ending just ruined it for me. Maybe that's just me, I felt the same way about the Maze Runner book series.
 
This was the "main" game I was looking forward to next, after Destiny.

October is still going to be a CRAZY month for gaming.

AC: Unity
Alien isolation
Civilization: Beyond earth
Evil Within
Evolve
Lords of the Fallen
Middle Earth: Shadows of Mordor
Sunset Overdrive
 
Pylor said:
You had to make decisions in the character missions, I could never do that Zaeed guy's because it would require a whole bunch of innocent people to burn alive. Which meant he ended up dying in ME3 (a lot of those loyalty missions carry over to ME3, as do other choices in ME2). And ya, you can see it your way in terms of "just requiring extra play time", but the way I see it, it was an option to do those side quests AND make the decision required to gain their trust. I felt like I had accomplished something by gaining loyalty and upgrading my ship which would prepare me better for the final mission. Compare that to ME3, no matter what you do it doesn't make a difference in that game, no decisions matter whatsoever for the final ending. In my mind it invalidates its own model of branching archs by bringing everything together into 3 options.

I'm not denying the game was consolized to hell and back, I firmly agree with that. The story had to be "dumbed down" and streamlined a bit for console people trying to get into the franchise. The mechanics are much, much better for it though. I should also note that I enjoyed the ME3 story up until the very end, it was better than ME2, but the ending just ruined it for me. Maybe that's just me, I felt the same way about the Maze Runner book series.
Click to expand...

I really don't get the consolized argument for Mass Effect 2. ME was ALWAYS a console franchise. The first game was published and funded by Microsoft as a 360 exclusive. It might not even have had a PC version if not for EA buying the rights.
 
Derangel said:
I really don't get the consolized argument for Mass Effect 2. ME was ALWAYS a console franchise. The first game was published and funded by Microsoft as a 360 exclusive. It might not even have had a PC version if not for EA buying the rights.
Click to expand...

It became a cover shooter with no inventory and reduced RPG elements. In this case, consolized probably means "streamlined". The second game was also a lot less about setting, lore, space science fiction, and a little more about character drama.
 
Derangel said:
I really don't get the consolized argument for Mass Effect 2. ME was ALWAYS a console franchise. The first game was published and funded by Microsoft as a 360 exclusive. It might not even have had a PC version if not for EA buying the rights.
Click to expand...

Shhhh don't want to shatter "muh PC mustard race" fanboy dreams. ;)
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It became a cover shooter with no inventory and reduced RPG elements. In this case, consolized probably means "streamlined". The second game was also a lot less about setting, lore, space science fiction, and a little more about character drama.
Click to expand...

It was always a cover shooter. It just became a better one. The RPG elements of ME1 were some of the weakest parts of it's gameplay. I'd argue that ME2 and 3 became more fun to play. I have trouble replaying ME1. Despite it having a weaker story and much less RPG elements I can go back to ME2 over and over again and still find it to be very fun. The actual gunplay in ME1 is terrible and you spend most of the game doing that.
 
Derangel said:
It was always a cover shooter. It just became a better one. The RPG elements of ME1 were some of the weakest parts of it's gameplay. I'd argue that ME2 and 3 became more fun to play. I have trouble replaying ME1. Despite it having a weaker story and much less RPG elements I can go back to ME2 over and over again and still find it to be very fun. The actual gunplay in ME1 is terrible and you spend most of the game doing that.
Click to expand...

It was stronger in the gunplay department, but weaker in the level design department. Every room had very conveniently placed boxes for you to hide behind. It was too forced and broke immersion. ME1 had more open levels and less hiding behind stuff.

That wasn't what I was debating, however. ME2, regardless of whether or not you enjoyed playing it, was a more simple game.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It became a cover shooter with no inventory and reduced RPG elements. In this case, consolized probably means "streamlined". The second game was also a lot less about setting, lore, space science fiction, and a little more about character drama.
Click to expand...

This is really what I am getting at. ME1 was a great science fiction game. ME2 was very "mainstreamized" in terms of the story/content. When you compare the actual story of ME2 with that of ME1 you'll see how shallow it is. Only a few of the side quests actually add to the overall game in terms of story, such as the Shadow Broker.

It was still a good game and the story was better than most games though.

LeninGHOLA said:
It was stronger in the gunplay department, but weaker in the level design department. Every room had very conveniently placed boxes for you to hide behind. It was too forced and broke immersion. ME1 had more open levels and less hiding behind stuff.
Click to expand...

This to. The maps in ME2 felt very claustrophobic and linear. Yes, ME1 was mostly linear to, although the maps certainly had a more natural flow and were a little more spacious. Vamire even had two different pathways to get into a building (with different height levels to). :p
 
I really.... REALLY want to be excited for this game, but I'm not.

I played DA:O probably 30 times, and still have my saves archived off for when the urge to play again strikes.

DA2 I played I think twice.....

DA3 is following after what I feel was a major letdown with ME3..... so this time I'll be waiting to read reviews here before I shell out the money. I just dont have much faith left in them to do justice to the original game unfortunately.

Here's hoping they prove me wrong.
 
I am glad I was able to put this topic back on track - any Bioware topic without ME3 in the conversation is not going to result in anything constructive :)

Ratings: Great > Good > Mediocre > Poor > ME3 Story

ME1: Great story, great characters, great main missions, great side quests, poor movement, mediocre combat.

DA1: Mediocre story, great characters, great main missions, great side quests.

ME2: Poor story, great characters, good main missions, great side quests, good movement, good combat.

DA2: Good story, good characters, mediocre main missions, poor side quests.

ME3: One of worst stories in mainstream CRPG history, mediocre characters, good main missions, poor side quests, good movement, great combat.

Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrBtongue
http://www.youtube.com/user/smudboy
 
GearChoices said:
I am glad I was able to put this topic back on track - any Bioware topic without ME3 in the conversation is not going to result in anything constructive :)

Ratings: Great > Good > Mediocre > Poor > ME3 Story

ME1: Great story, great characters, great main missions, great side quests, poor movement, mediocre combat.

DA1: Mediocre story, great characters, great main missions, great side quests.

ME2: Poor story, great characters, good main missions, great side quests, good movement, good combat.

DA2: Good story, good characters, mediocre main missions, poor side quests.

ME3: One of worst stories in mainstream CRPG history, mediocre characters, good main missions, poor side quests, good movement, great combat.

Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrBtongue
http://www.youtube.com/user/smudboy
Click to expand...

Two things:

I'd argue that the characters in DA2 weren't good. Some of them were alright but most of them were kinda meh.

Smudboy is a fucking idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top