Dragon Age: Inquisition – Meet The Gang

By Alec Meer on June 13th, 2014 at 8:00 pm.

We’ve had the portentous “the world is ending and flames and demons and things” trailer for Dragon Age not-III, but perhaps more useful is this ‘stand together’ one, which shows off some of the party members you, as a titular Inquisitor, will be travelling/fighting/beast-with-two-backing with during the Bioware RPG. After all the recent hoo-hah about you-know-what, it’s rather heartening to see that Bioware/EA has gone with narration and perspective from the woman version of the player-character for this video. Strange to think how familiar that currently-novel voice will likely to sound to my ears in a few months’ time.

I think this is all in-engine rather than CGI shenanigans, though it’s rather unlikely we’ll be seeing such dramatic camera angles and close-ups outside of cutscenes.

AND MY AXE and so forth.

It’s hard not to miss the old gang, much as some of them will inevitably pop up for cameos at least, but there’s every chance that, come October, we’ll be talking about these guys as fondly as we of Alistair, Shale et al. It’s difficult to know from this EVERYONE IS INCREDIBLY GOOD AT FIGHTING trailer who I most want to make come-to-bed eyes. That won’t happen until I’ve heard ‘em speak and especially pun, but this much I know already: there’s no way I’m not going into battle without a dude called The Iron Bull.

Ah, I so hope this one works out. I’m really in the mood for a big ol’ Bioware romp. I’m making no judgements until the thing’s actually on my PC though – grandiose dramatic footage, in-engine or no, says so little about the true experience of playing an RPG.

__________________

« | »

, , .

111 Comments »

  1. LegendaryTeeth says:

    How sad will I be if I try and play Dragon Age 2 before this? Is there a way to play it that will not make me sad? Some kind of abridged version mod, perhaps?

    • IneptFromRussia says:

      Play it on easy and don’t do optional missions. Although i suspect you don’t even need to do that, they’ll probably re-introduce everything in Institution. Its sad really. Dragon Age could’ve been their medieval Mass Effect, but they fucked it up and instead we have 3 separate plots in one universe.

    • hjarg says:

      If you are prepared to be dissapointed and don’t expect much, then it’s ok. It’s actually not a bad game- rather, it is not as good as it could be. Too repetitive, too much reused art etc. But at least you have Varric for entertainment.

    • Sorbicol says:

      DA2 is actually perfectly fine (but not much more than that) up until about half way through the final act. It’s a bit slow getting going, but the second act around the Arashok is actually really well handled and there were some good side mission too which didn’t involve finding things and killing them. Yes the reuse of environments does get very repetitive, but well, I’ll played worse.

      It’s the story that kills the game, especially the finale. It’s utterly illogical and makes no sense at all, and is couple to a very poor final showdown. It was just awful to be honest. You’ll see it coming a mile off, so you could play it up until you starting thinking “hmmmm” and then just leave it.

    • velocerator says:

      It’s not a bad game by any means, but compared to Origins it’s really generic and repetitive. If you expect a good follow-up you’re going to be disappointed, just play it for what it is.

      • Stense says:

        I replayed DA2 recently and have pretty much the same feelings. It’s a flawed game certainly, but still well worth a play. I can’t help but think that its reputation isn’t warranted. It stirred me enough to write some things about it *cough* http://tessstenson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/hawkewind-dragon-age-ii-retrospective.html Excuse me.

      • Continuity says:

        Well, if its disappointing compared Origins, then it must be drivel. Origins was a mediocre CRPG at best, with watered down mechanics and a predictable and generic story. Of course most people who played it wouldn’t know a good CRPG if it took their head off with a critical hit, so I guess that explains its popularity.

      • tomimt says:

        Personally I liked the story of DA2 much better than what DA:O had to offer. The biggest flaw of DA2 is the repetative maps and the quest design, which is just in the way of the narrative.

        • fredc says:

          I have to agree with tomimt – the whole Varric storytelling thing was actually nicely done and the narrative was passable, if hackneyed, but what made it a slog for me was the consolificated gameplay. Everyone doing wuxia film style aerial backflips (at 1st level natch), hugely repetitive maps built from the same 5 tiles and very limited interaction with the environment and characters (other than “kill yet another NPC”).

          It’s like someone high up in the production team looked back at ~30 years of goldbox games, infinity engine games and Neverwinter Nights and said you know what fuck it, the Nintendo generation isn’t going to buy this thing unless it has hopping protagonists, turtles and spinning gold coins. And some cross-title day one DLC.

    • Napoleon15 says:

      For me, DA2′s cardinal sin wasn’t that it was a bad game (it was an average game), it’s that it was a boring game. I got it in a DA set for £5 or something, so I didn’t feel terribly burned by my purchase, but no matter how hard I tried, I just couldn’t muster up the enthusiasm or desire to play through it. Every time I loaded it up and tried to play, I’d end up turning it off again ten minutes later. In the end, I accepted I was never going to play through it and uninstalled it. If I had to pick one of the worst aspects of it, it’d be the battles. They weren’t fun or exciting, they were just something I had to tolerate, and they grew increasingly annoying.

      DA:O had that whole throwback to the infinity engine games. DA2 was like fighting monsters out of the Power Rangers or something. I’m hoping Bioware get back on track with DA3, though I’ll wait until it comes down in price before I chance it. I think they might be in trouble if DA3 under performs financially, or at least when it comes to their relationship with EA.

    • solowd says:

      As a counterpoint to the people saying “it’s not that bad,” it really is that bad. It’s “last episode of Seinfeld” bad. It’s truly a depressing game to play. Coming after Origins, which was generic, but well-made and brimming with detail, it was a real shock.

      I highly recommend skipping it. Certainly don’t pay money for it.

    • Carra says:

      It’s a good game, it just pales in comparison to Dragon Age.

      Think of it as an expansion to Dragon Age instead of a sequel.

    • vecordae says:

      DA2′s a terrible sequel to DA:O. It is, however, just fine as a choose-your-own fantasy adventure/ fan-fiction generator with the occasional sword-bits. It very much seems like a game that had a solid start, but quickly started cutting corners once someone higher up said “Nope! Finish it in half the time.”

    • Listlurker says:

      As others have said: it’s not a terrible game, taken on its own. It’s got some great characters and character-bits along the way. The problem is, as a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins, it seems incredibly weak, and strangely bland, in comparison.

      It plays like someone wanted to turn the game into “Medieval Mass Effect”, but it ended up having the strong points of neither Dragon Age, nor Mass Effect. The worst of all worlds, in my opinion.

      As has been said: expect less going in, and perhaps try playing on Easy difficulty so you can push through the dull bits faster?

      Good luck!

    • Big Murray says:

      You just have to be aware that everything that Bioware does is blown way out of proportion. Therefore, it’s not actually a bad RPG game. It’s a decent but not great one. But because they’re Bioware, people take anything less than perfection as them f*cking up/disrespecting their fans/advocating the murder of small puppies.

      Don’t go in expecting anything great and you’ll find a decent if repetitive RPG.

    • Dread says:

      Yes, I agree with most of the people here. DA2 isn’t a terrible game, it’s above average I’d say. Its biggest problem is simply, that it is worse than Origins in every respect and as such it appears much worse than it is to anbody who has played DAO..
      Weaker characteres, less customization, more repetive, far less interesting combat (more action-oriented, less tactical), there is not a single aspect in DA2 I prefer to DAO.
      What annoyed me most: they frequently reuse assets and whole locations, because some time passes between the acts, you explore the same few outdoor locations 3 or 4 times, just with different encounters in them.

      Overall DA2 is very rushed and full of questionable design decisions. A price you have to pay, when you churn out a sequel to a very large RPG in just 18 months. Consider Dragon Age was first announced at E3 2004, so you are looking at 5+ years development time for Origins.

      • clockworkaugment says:

        Why am i the only person in the entire world who vastly prefers Dragon Age 2 to Dragon Age 1? I truly cannot understand. Its boggles my mind how anyone can consider the first better in any big way! DAO made me bored (after id played the first sixty hours and gotten basically kicked around six plot threads with only a vague relevance to my total task), while i played DA2 without stopping (almost) with a smile on my face. Its like the jump from Mass Effect 1 to 2. While ME has its charm, the second one is a lot tighter, has a better roster and a better story.

        Dragon Age 1 has one thing going for it: environments. Da2 reuses them, a lot. And yes, it irked me. I feel almost like maybe 2 got its budget slashed actually, come to think of it. because the things i can think of it which are bad can easily be explained by it.

        But the gameplay is better in 2. Thats not an argument – it just is.

        The characters are better in 2. The main character being given a name and a vague background was an excellent idea, making him more akin to Shepard. Instead of a faceless no personality berk we follow around, having absolutely nothing interesting to say or do. Its not Roleplaying. In both games i disliked everyone who joined my party (Varric? The fuck is this midget bastard). But in DA2 they actually won me over with bubbly personalities, interesting stories and good writing until i felt they were true friends (Varric! I want to FUCK this midget bastard!). In DAO i liked maybe Alistair, and the Dog. Everyone else can jump off a cliff, and especially Morrigan. Whom is nothing but a far less intelligent Kreia expy, getting away with shit for no other reason than the developers like her.

        In other words, on the characters ask yourself this. If you had to play poker night at the inventory with the cast of either game, full of conversations between them, which game would you select? If you pick DAO you must really like being asleep.

        The story! DAO is generic. Extremely generic. Its high fantasy, and if youve read high fantasy you know the story. Its about a power struggle between some people i dont care about in a ill defined political landscape with very few people we are made to care about. The heroes are betrayed, one survives, rebuilds and defeats the true evil. The evil is mindless and uninteresting, with some vaguely spooky lore, and the human villain is basically twirling a mustache/being the citadel council from ME1.

        DA2 tells all that high fantasy stuff to get in a big sack and throw itself off a bridge. Its time for some swords and sorcery! There is no big bad! And thats awesome! For a start, it means that theres no telling where the story will go. Its a personal story, about one guy rising above the rest in the city, going from rags to riches. There is no black and white. Both sides have legitimate grievances almost all the time, and the bad guys are only doing evil because they truly believe its for the best. We have everything from a reasonable authority figure going slowly off the deep end via paranoia, a blue and orange morality alien committing suicide by cop because his will is being eroded by the life hes been trapped in, a serial killer necromancer trying to bring his wife back, a slavemaster who believes his slave is truly happier serving him, and a big scary Dragon. Which has the same motivation as the dragon from DAO, and is therefore equal. Sure, the ending is maybe rushed? But it has been building the entire time, and is actually both surprising and totally justified.

        DAO is long. Very long. You spend most of that game walking, and walking, and walking. Unending fetch quests abound, and most of its not that amazing. And character interaction is only so possible when you have no voice or personality. DA2 does away with some of that ridiculous length, but instead provides you with a game where you actually get to know people! Where them betraying you both surprises and hurts. Where you can imagine going out drinking with some of them! And its funnier! Much funnier!

        Tl;DR:
        Dragon Age Origins – defeat the ultimate evil while reading thirteeen volumes of bland lore building and experiencing all the character intrigue of ordering a snickers from a vending machine.
        Dragon Age 2 – Wake up. Meet new people. Save the world. Go to the pub with them.

        • tomimt says:

          It took me 3 trials to play through DAO. It is one of those games I have no intention of playing again now, that I finally did play it through. DA2 on the other hand, I played through pretty qucikly. The story in that game is IMO vastly better, I agree on that, while DAO is more generic fantasy mush.

          DA2 has some huge flaws though, repetative maps and boring missions, but I do find it more enjoyable as a whole. But I still wouldn’t place either game among the best games I’ve played list.

        • zerosociety says:

          While flawed in many ways, I too prefer DA2 to DA:O. The plot is better (until it falls over in the 3rd act) and the interactions with the characters over time are more interesting than DA:O’s. It’s didn’t come close to feeling like a “real living city” as the hype suggested, but it felt a lot like a decent tabletop D&D game.

        • Dread says:

          I have to disagree with you.

          First of all, the fact, that your character is Hawke is extremely weak. It shoehorns you into being one person, a human male or female at that. What, if you want to play a dwarf or an elf? Better luck next time, in this game you’ll be a human.
          Origins provided you with the excellent origin stories for your character, allowing you to get a glimpse at his or her life. I’d also argue, that those provide much more background, than you’ll ever get for Hawke.
          If you need your character to be voice acted, then I’m sorry for you. I’d much rather have a mute one and more options to customize him than being forced to be a certain person with voice-acting.
          DA2 uses the ME-style, but ME works better, because it is a trilogy revolving around Shepard, going from customizable main character to ME-style is a step backward.
          Besides Bioware agrees with me here, in Inquisiton, you’ll be able to select your race once again.

          The gameplay is so much worse, I can hardly fathom, why you’d say it’s better.
          Combat turned from a tactical challenge into a mindless hackfest; the whole idea of planning a battle basically went out of the window, because every other fight more waves of enemies spawn out of nowhere.
          Far, far fewer available abilities and less variable enemy types. DA2 combat is so dumbed down, it simply isn’t any fun.

          The reused assets kill any immersion; when I’m clearing the same landscape and dungeon 4 or 5 times; that is not good design. Yes, DAO is long, 60+ hours, but it is also diverse, there are so many different areas to explore, DA2 is half as long and you explore everything in the game multiple times, because the designers just didn’t put the work in.

          The inability to properly equip and skill your party. You can basically throw away every armor, which your main character cannot wear, because your companions can’t either. Every companion is stuck in one role, because they lack the talent trees to play another. If you want a tank, your only choice is yourself or Aveline. A healer, Anders is a the only choice. Whereas in DAO you can pick your party based on who liked best, because you can make every mage a healer and every warrior a tank.

          The characters, yes i’d take the Origins cast in a heartbeat. The only DA2 character I liked was Varric, whereas in Orgins the only one I don’t like is Zevran. It’s personal preference I guess and I don’t have the expertise to argue about the merit of the characters. But, when I think about them, I remember a little story about any of the Origins characters (especially Shale) and for DA2 only the archetype they represent.

          In terms of the story, yes DAO main storyline is very cliched, but what makes a story is not necessarily the overall plot, but how it is delivered and this is something Origins does really well. The excellent origin stories, the design of the main quests, like the sequence in the fade; all the attention to detail like meeting the people from your origin again.
          In DA2 there is none of that, yes the main storyline is better, but the deliverance is awful, especially because of the repetitive gameplay. Act 1: explore stuff, get rich, Act 2: explore the same areas again, then fight Qunari, Act 3: explore the same areas again and everbody goes crazy.

          Just one comparison: How you meet your first high dragon.
          In Origins, it’s at the end of a long, very interesting quest. You search all over the world for clues, you encounter a village of cultists, you find signs of the dragon and then you meet it.
          In DA2, you simply get told at the start of Act 3, that a high dragon has seized your mine.
          They have the same motivation? The Origins dragon is revered as a god by a mad cult, who served her for centuries, the DA2 dragon just decides it’d be cool to seize some guys mine.
          And you tell me, DA2 has a better story? I was furious, when I played this, this dragon is the best fight in the game and it has no build-up, no deliverance whatsoever. It feels like an afterthought, “Hey, it’s called Dragon Age, maybe we should put a dragon in.”

          So, I’ve rambled on long enough, maybe you see a bit of merit in some of the points I made and understand better why people prefer DAO over DA2.

          • zerosociety says:

            One person’s “intense tactical combat” is another person’s “long dreary slog”. One person’s “button mashing” is another person’s “light, fast-paced tactical”. One person’s “the Dragon isn’t interesting enough” is “I’d prefer to go back to hanging out in bars and arguing about civil rights and negotiating with alien cultures and nurturing decade-long in game friendships.”

            That said, Inquisition apparently swings the pendulum a lot closer to DA: O than DA2. And I get why people who came to DA2 for the same kind of tactical combat as DA:O would be disappointed. DA2 really was the Mass Effectification of DA, for better and worse.

          • clockworkaugment says:

            @ Dread

            Why is your definition of a strong or weak character based on what species they are? For a start, DA offers you three characters. Nice Hawke, Snarky Hawke (My favourite) or Angry Hawke – all whom act different, have different lines and get different reactions out of those around them. As for DAO offering you multiple characters? Bollocks it did. What DAO offered you was like seven different tutorial areas, and then the rest was the same accept for someone occasionally saying something like ‘YOU ARE AN ELF. COMMENCE RACISM.’ Or more often than not, not drawing attention to what you happened to be even in situations where it would have been appropriate.

            The background for Hawke isnt as good? Hawke has four family members you spend large amounts of the game with, each with their own stories. Every DAO beginner had like one or two you meet once or twice. And his is literally a personal story. Where he came from, what hes doing, where hes going – the story is about him rebuilding his life! You could argue that DAO’s protagonist isnt central to the story like Hawke is, but you can hardly argue that faceless nameless burk has a better background unless you are literally talking about his background – as in his starting area.

            And no, i dont NEED my characters voice acted. But you’re lying if it says it doesnt help them come to life. Voice acting adds to the experience, it is of detriment not to have it. DAO would have been better with Voice Acting. Unless you are going to go ahead and tell me that you’re sorry for me because reading the sheet-music for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata doesnt do the same for me as listening to it – apparently im a pleb because i enjoy having one more sense stimulated.

            Im going to ignore the combat bleating, because that was one of the few things even negative reviews praised about DA2. I guess you enjoy your combat needlessly finicky, difficult to direct, long-winded, and intensely boring. Like a single player MMO really.

            Yes – assets are an annoyance. Ill admit thats a downside. Dont actually care that much, i mostly ignored it. But yes, its understandable (though even DAO reused assets at times).

            DAO story is boring no matter how well its delivered. Ive read it before. Ive played it before. Yes, a few moments stand out. But overall i spent the game vaguely drifting about doing fetch quests and having very little interest in anything while with a load of characters whom i did not like.

            DA2 had a slightly rushed last section, but things happen for actual reasons directed by characters! Its not yet another ‘ the world is ending blight is coming raar ‘. People have problems, and thats pissing them off. The Qunari attack, because they are trapped by their oath. Meredith’s paranoia drives mages and Templar against one another. As for the dragon – yeah, it feels pretty thrown in. But the dragon in DAO was never the enemy anyway. The cultists were. You dont even fight it unless you ring the horn. As for the mine, its almost part of a joke at that point. Every time they expand, new horrors come out. Every time they are worse. So every time you go back you expect bigger.

            I dont know. I played DAO, and for all i mock of its blandness i still enjoyed time i spent with it. But i have played that game before. In every Kotor, in every Baldurs Gate and come to think of it any game slightly modelled on D&D. I filled my childhood with games where a group of adventurers kill everything then loot everything while spending hours navigating hallways, and im finished with them. Its been done.

            DA2 was a good way to modernise the series and stop me falling asleep in battles. Because yes, its basically just Mass Effect edition. And im pretty damn fine with that, because i enjoy Mass Effect.

          • Dread says:

            @clockwork

            It’s not my definition of a strong character, but of MY character. I want my character to be what I want, instead of being forced into being one person, especially when the first game of the series offered me this. The important difference is, that a character I create completely; looks, name, race, class, voice-set; makes him mine, makes the game my story, instead of soembody elses.
            Your three “characters” are a mute point, you can do the same in Origins with pretty much the same effect; whether you are angry, snarky or nice has no significant impact. What’s more, you cannot alter the story in any way, whereas Origins offers several decisions which will influence the outcome of major quests and what allies you can gather.

            Four family members, with whom you spend a large amount of time with? One of those dies right in the tutorial and you have maybe two conversatinos per act with the mother and uncle.
            Still, the fact is, that “faceless, nameless berk” is MY character, I can identify myself with him much more than Hawke. In the end, Hawke is a cheap Shepard rip-off.
            When I think about Inquisition, I wonder how they implement Morrigan, my mage and their child; how Leliana is doing; I couldn’t care less about Hawke.

            Yes, voice acting adds to the experience, but as I said, I prefer more customization over a restrictive character with voice acting. To really provide a good voice option for a game like Origins you need at least 6 full voice packs (one per race and gender).

            Combat bleating? I’ve never read a single DA2 review which liked the dumbed down combat with its constant in-fight respawns. Origins is tactical and challenging; DA2 is either a simple hackfest or an excercise in patience, because of how cheap and terribly put together it is.
            The thing is Origins had the perfect combat balance. On easy you can hack through everything paying no mind to anything; on normal you have to occasionally plan a fight; on hard you need to be on the ball frequently and on torment you need to plan every fight carefully to suceed.
            In DA2: you can hack thorugh everything easily on easy, normal and hard, though on hard the respawning enemies out of thin air start to annoy you. On torment, you can hack easily, unless the opponent’s rogue decides to do a stealth-attack on anything but your tank (usually a one-shot). On top of that nearly every fight in DA2 is the same.

            As I said, the overall storyline is better, but it’s terribly delivered. You have no impact on any of the major story events; it’s boring to play with the reused assets, weak combat and low item customization. DA2 is after all a game, how is it supposed to make me care about the characters and story, when I don’t have fun playing? Every minute I played DA2, I thought either one of these three things: a) “Why did they change it? In Origins it was so much better.”, b)”This area, again? Do they only have two dungeon-designs?” or c) “Their rogue stealthed, please hit Aveline, please hit Aveline.”

            I spent 65 hours after release playing through Origins as a mage, last year I spent another 70 playing as a warrior with all the dlc. DA2, I played through in 25h after release and never touched it since.

        • Ieolus says:

          “Why am i the only person in the entire world who vastly prefers Dragon Age 2 to Dragon Age 1?”

          You are a terrible person who sells babies into slavery?

    • Juan Carlo says:

      I’m going to disagree with everyone’s “It’s OK” assessment. It’s a straight up awful game that feels like cheap shovel ware rather than a sequel to one of Bioware’s best selling games. Boring storyline, dead environments, and mostly tedious combat. It’s only saving grace is it has a couple interesting NPC companions/storylines.

  2. Evil Pancakes says:

    Why is that mage lady so shiny? It’s like she is covered in baby oil or something.

  3. HiFiHair says:

    “Passionate and reactionary as the groundswell she brings”. Gnuh?

    • Pich says:

      You can’t convince me they’re not talking about penises

    • Dave Tosser says:

      From the same writers that brought you the line,
      “Sailing is like sex. Do it wrong and it will make you sick.”

    • AlwaysRight says:

      I thought that sounded odd too, like it’s been translated from Japanese badly. “Passionate and reactionary” also makes her sound like she’s in UKIP.

    • Trent Hawkins says:

      I just like how they show off this passionate character by having her wear the same immobile expressionless face through the whole trailer.

  4. Christo4 says:

    Ugh… so many generic characters…
    I mean really now, is it hard for them to try and make a mage that is actually good and doesn’t have a hidden agenda and a warrior that has one?
    It’s just always the same… How can they not get tired of making the same types of characters i have no idea.

    EDIT: Also, a commoner elf, of course…

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      I remember when they first announced the first DA. Magic was going to be rare, there weren’t going to be orcs, we weren’t going to have typical player races either, it was going to be gritty and realistic and “low fantasy”… Look how all that turned out. Sure, according to the lore magic is rare, but in the games it’s just like magic in every other transparently D&D based RPG. No orcs? Excuse me then who are these guys here who are exactly like orcs?.. Ok “city Elves” may have been somewhat original but otherwise Elves and Dwarves are your standard issue. In fact, I don’t think there’s ever been a game where Dwarves have been quite so directly out of Tolkien, Mim the petty would be proud.

      • Velthaertirden says:

        Even Elves were not all that original, at least to a Russian reader: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/DiamondSwordWoodenSword

        Bioware could’ve gone a bit further with changing the racial stereotypes.

        • PopeRatzo says:

          racial stereotypes

          I know, right? Not all elves have big pointy ears, after all. I’m a little tired of the minstrelization of the elven folk.

      • Douglas Fir says:

        Mîm would hardly be proud, petty dwarves being quite different from regular dwarves and all.

        • JamesTheNumberless says:

          Ah, he wasn’t quite as different as he liked to think, he acted much like all the other Dwarves did in the end. Fair point though, the original version of him was certainly very different. Also I suppose there isn’t much infighting among Tolkien’s Dwarves.

          Kudos for finding the right squigglything to put above the i!

      • Dave Tosser says:

        I felt the thing about making Elves hobos was more taking influence from The Witcher. There’s nothing original in any way in putting a generic fantasy race in another location.
        “Our Elves are in the city!”
        Fuck off. Use your heads and show some imagination. Give me something fantastical.

        Then again, the series is called Dragon Age. Pffft.

        • JamesTheNumberless says:

          Ah, it was more the fact that they were slaves, than the actual place they lived in. Then again, similar racial themes had already been done in Arcanum.

        • HadToLogin says:

          It’s sad most “new-themes” goes to MMORPGs, while SPRPGs are left to rot with “good old Tolkien”. The Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Witcher, Pillars of Eternity, even new Torment (to lesser extend, but still) – in the end they are still same old worlds.
          Pretty sure one of the reasons why Fallout is so popular is because you could finally take a gun to a knife fight :P

          On the other hand, there are MMOs based on Lovecraft, Vampires or Steampunk, happening in very past, today and in future.

          I’d say even CoD has more variety than SPRPGs.

          $60 to first company that make RPG with elves that use M60 to fight off dwarves who can’t pick hammer to save their life, but throw moon-sized fireballs :)
          And not make it a MMO…

    • Big Murray says:

      This trailer does make them seem very cliche and generic, yes. But it’s difficult to NOT seem cliche and generic when you try to put across an original character in a single line of spoken dialogue.

      Merrill would’ve seemed cliche and generic to me too, but then there’s that plot twist with her halfway through DA2 that makes her suddenly quite interesting (even if they never really went anywhere with that). So I’m reserving judgement on the characters until they can actually be experienced.

  5. CookPassBabtridge says:

    Off-topic, but it seems a rare pleasure to see such nicely done HD. Lately 1080p on YouTube has meant “yeah the video runs in 1080p but the footage was made on a hairdryer”. This really shows off some lovely sharp shinies.

  6. Pich says:

    Is it just me or does Archer Elf No.#2056 look mildly constipated?

  7. velocerator says:

    So far it looks like BioWare didn’t learn anything from how they screwed up Dragon Age 2, what is it with EA devs and making the same mistakes over and over and over…

    • RedViv says:

      How do you come to that conclusion? I’ve seen pretty much all the big complaints about DA2 addressed in preview coverage and interviews for Inquisition.

      • Nibblet says:

        Combat looks the same as Da 2, characters and plot seem incredibly uninspired and like Da 2 its (short) development cycle was seemingly spent following a checklist provided by the marketing dpt.

        • fredc says:

          If combat is like DA2, that’s pretty much killed it. Waves of identical, auto-spawning enemies, ludicrous JRPG style leaping about, click-here-to-kill-enemy levels of tactical complexity.

  8. radrex says:

    love your writing!

  9. sinbad says:

    “Strange to think how familiar that currently-novel voice will likely to sound to my ears in a few months’ time” – Shouldn’t be too novel, it’s the same voice as Traynor from Mass Effect 3 and also one of the characters from Dragon Age: Origins whose name escapes me currently.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Alix Wilton Regan

      Looking at her wiki article, I’m kind of amazed at how many games I’ve played that she’s appeared in.

  10. Eight Rooks says:

    They’re… interesting, maybe, possibly, though yes, it’s tricky to work up much excitement when mage lady’s introduction arguably amounts to little more than “Women be schemin’ “.

    It’s hard not to miss the old gang

    Strange, I find it quite easy. :) Unless you mean from DA2, in which case sure, though I’m interested in Inquisition in large part because we’re getting Varric and Cassandra back – would have preferred Merrill, but… what can you do? (But you probably don’t mean DA2.)

  11. SillyWizard says:

    Stop with this nonsense and somebody make a Black Company games! (Not Bioware.)

  12. Edlennion says:

    “…will be no stranger to giving his life in defense of others”

    Um, unless I’m missing something about Grey Wardens that means they can be resurrected, doesn’t this mean he’s already dead?

    • Wulfram says:

      Well, the Joining is ultimately fatal, so you could say he already gave his life there.

      Though mostly the video was rather keen on purple prose.

  13. tumbleworld says:

    Cripes, that voice-over is badly written.

  14. Wednesday says:

    Soooooooooo, the Reapers are invading Middle Earth?

    Gah. I loved you Bioware.

    • Jackablade says:

      If they were to actually cross over Mass Effect with Dragon Age I’d give them at least a little kudos for poking the overzealous fans. Lord knows I would in their position.

  15. Myrdinn says:

    hope they learned from this, I dont want any more button/awesome. I want brain/button/superawesome

  16. Rizlar says:

    The last supper style images they have released feature about eleven characters. If the game has any less than this as playable companions I will be disappointed. *prepares to be disappointed*

    Also that Grey Warden totes looks like Duncan, waaaat?

    • Valsira says:

      Mark Darrah has stated that there are nine playable companions. The other three (Leliana, Cullen, and scribe girl I believe) are your advisors that help you run the Inquisition.

  17. Philopoemen says:

    whatever happened to the Dragon Age Keep doodad where you were supposed to be able to pick and choose choices from the previous games? I was expecting them to announce that it was ready/gone by now.

  18. Listlurker says:

    I expect I’ll play it, but I don’t expect much beyond that. We shall see, and hide a little hope in a safe place.

  19. MattMk1 says:

    I’ve tried to be open minded about this, but the art direction in Dragon Age just makes me want to hurl. With every new trailer, there’s something else that’s very dull and drab and derivative.

    It’s all just so vanilla and artificial looking. The characters look like they’re in shitty fantasy movie costumes. The architecture looks like it was designed by someone who’s lived his whole life in a city where the oldest building was built in 1920 and has only ever seen a castle when visiting a theme park.

    Or like the inspiration for their generic fantasy art is *other* generic fantasy art. The difference is so glaring when you compare it to games or movies that actually do it well, it’s painful.

  20. Scelous says:

    The constant bashing on Bioware is getting pretty tiring. It seems like it’s the “in” thing to do on the internet, nowadays.

    I enjoyed Dragon Age 1 but thought it was extremely overrated, and I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 and thought it was extremely underrated. Both had problems. Both were not perfect. Yet people rave on and on about The Witcher, where you play “Geralt, the Pimp of Rivia,” another badass loner character (aka Riddick, aka Drizzt, aka every other character that male teens think are badass) with no personality whatsoever.

    I can understand genuine complaints, like the repetitive dungeons in DA2. Really didn’t like that. But people like to complain about practically every single aspect of the Dragon Age series, as if there are these multitude of video games that reach higher and offer more. If there are, please tell me about them, because I sure as hell don’t know of any. All I’m personally seeing year after year are clones of World of Warcraft.

    So I’m pretty stoked about Dragon Age Inquisition. I think the writing is good, but I’m not expecting Doystevsky. I’ve enjoyed the characters and the setting and the combat of the series. And if you know of all these great alternatives, ones that do everything so much better than shoddy old Bioware, then please, by all means, let me know so I can check them out.

    • Jimbo says:

      Try the Witcher games. They are much better and you get to play as a total badass.

    • jerf says:

      If you’re saying that Geralt is “another badass loner character … with no personality whatsoever”, then it’s obvious that you haven’t, in fact, played the Witcher games, or at least haven’t payed any attention to what was happening there. Sorry.

      • jezcentral says:

        Either that or you are a male teen, eh? :)

        • jerf says:

          I don’t really want to answer this trolling, but still I’ll ask this question: have you played the games/read Sapkowski’s books yourself?

          • jezcentral says:

            It wasn’t a troll. More a gentle rib. I was just pointing out that Geralt could be both a boring character who would only appeal to an easily-pleased male teen, and a character that appealed to you.

            EDIT: For the sake of transparency, no, I haven’t played either game. Both of them have been sitting on my hard drive, unplayed, since I bought them at release, at full price.

          • jerf says:

            @jezcentral
            I hope that you would agree that it’s not entirely fair to attach such labels as “only appealling to an easily-pleased male teen” to something before actually trying it for yourself. In this specific case I strongly believe that after playing the games and reading the books (the books are excellent examples of dark fantasy, it’s a shame they are barely known to western readers) you’ll see that you were wrong.

            I’ll leave the following link here, by the way:

          • jezcentral says:

            Jerf, I didn’t attach any labels. I think you are confusing me with Scelous, who started this conversation thread. :)

          • jerf says:

            @jezcentral
            No, I didn’t confuse you with Scelous. Well, considering the possibility which you brought up is already attaching some labels, isn’t it? ;)

          • JamesTheNumberless says:

            You sound like a couple of male teens, each trying to sound more grown up than the other :P

          • jezcentral says:

            If only.

      • Scelous says:

        I did, in fact, play both Witcher games to completion. The first one was a mediocre slog and was difficult to get through because of that. The second one was good, much better than the first, but it still had the same boring Pimp Master Gerald in it.

        And yes, I guess the subtleties of sex trading cards was lost on me.

        I haven’t read any of the books, because I didn’t want to subject myself to that.

        • jerf says:

          I agree that adding sex cards to the game was a poor decision, but I can’t understand people who can’t see beyond that.
          Especially here in RPS comments section it’s very common that people go into crusade against things such as these sex cards, and I have a feeling that in many cases they claim that they played the games, while, in fact, they didn’t. They just got very offended after they learned about the sex cards, and immediately went on attacking the game on all fronts. And I suspect that you’re one of these people, since it completely eludes me why do you keep calling Geralt “pimp master” even in the case of the second game (while it’s not true even in the case of the first game, despite the cards).

          By the way, I strongly recommend you to watch the video I linked couple of posts above.

          • Big Murray says:

            In the second game, you do a sidequest for an elvish lady, who as a reward proceeds to bang your brains out. I didn’t catch the nuances of what this added to the plot or story. Other than tits.

            Fucking women as rewards for quests is not evidence of a mature game.

    • cpt_freakout says:

      I think it’s a matter of which fantasy clichés you prefer: the corny-adolescent ones are all over Dragon Age, while the dark-adolescent ones are all over The Witcher. However, I do think that the Witcher has a much better understanding of its clichés, and in TW 2 that becomes clear as you dabble into the setting’s politics, allowing for a bit of grey thinking that is definitely absent from DA even as it tries its best not to move through dichotomies. I mean in TW 2 these ideas are, overall, not as subtle or significant as one might want (I guess most of us regard Planescape as the referent here) but I think they’re at least better written and better conceived.

    • Charley_Varrick says:

      Just wanted to chime in and say how much I agree with your thoughts. I really admire Dragon Age 2 because of its bizarre structure. It’s flawed (it really falls apart in the 3rd act), but tries something different (the escalation of the 2nd act is wonderful). Dragon Age heralds back to RPGs of old , and it has all of the same problems because of it. Combat is such a slog. I really have trouble replaying the first game, because while I enjoy the world of DA:O, its so monotonous working my way through portions of the game that I just get tired and stop.

      With that said, I really don’t understand the Witcher love, it’s the type of game I might have liked when I was twelve (tonally its so silly, dark for darkness-sake), and while I usually think criticisms of of misogyny in video-games is overblown, its apparent and actually offensive in the Witcher series. It really makes me uncomfortable. The world-building is very opaque too. Just surprised how much love it gets on this site.

      • jerf says:

        Sorry, but I have to ask you too: have you played both Witcher games to completion before passing this kind of judgement? What about the books?

        • theanorak says:

          I know the Witcher games are based on the book series, but really: what relevance does whether or not someone has read the books have on what they think of the game?

          If the games don’t justify themselves on their own, independent of the novels, then they fail and nothing in the books can make up for that.

          I own both, but didnt get very far with the first one as the control scheme wasn’t what I was expecting (as I recall, it was a while back) and while I keep meaning to go back I haven’t, yet. Ergo, I’m not for a moment offering a comment on whether they do succeed, or where they sit on the teenage-pandering—->intelligent-adult-fiction continuum.

    • unit 3000-21 says:

      Yeah this BioWare bashing is really popular nowadays. My favourite “bashers” are those who write about “horrible writing” without even offering an example of its horribleness (or a proof they could discern if the writing is good or not). I suspect they just think it sounds more valid than “Dragon Age sucks ‘cos I say so”.

  21. aperson4321 says:

    The Dragon age 1 vs Dragon age 2 and probably 3 is the classic example of how intelligent AAA sell on average less than average int AAA games.

    If a costy AAA game only is truly enjoyable to a few people that got the brains to get all the historical, political, philosophical conflics, then it will have statistical numbers against it compared to a avg int game.

    Like always with humanity there is exceptions, the Witcher games got no fear of being smart with Geralds intelligent humor that goes right over the head of daft people, but when it comes to EA then you will have to excpect them to make games that is made in ways to get the statistical numbers on their side, and making the game reliant on clever elements is not a way of doing that.

    The fans of Dragon age 1 is not going to stop hating any future Dragon age while it is pissing all over their memories of the clever bits that made DA1 good. And EA is not going to make a game that relies on clever things to be good, so no Dragon Age 3 buy for me, I will have plenty with the new planet scape, witcher 3 and wasteland 2. (And hopefully a new version release of !!!DwarfFortress!!!).

  22. altum videtur says:

    They should’ve done a “When I’m Inquisiting” video instead. Done with the whole cast in half a minute.

  23. Continuity says:

    Oh god, Bioware seem to be going from bad to worse with this series. I’d actually like to see them make a CRPG, maybe one day they will but I doubt it.

  24. robinlaura9001 says:

    My name is Laura Robin i read some testimony about Dr PALOMA on how he has helped them in bringing back there ex within 48 hours i was just thinking if that was real, I never believed in love spells or magic until i met this spell caster once when i went to Nigeria in February this year on a business summit. I meant a man who’s name is DR.PALOMA he is really powerful and could help cast spells to bring back one’s gone, lost, misbehaving lover and magic money spell or spell for a good job or luck spell .I’m now happy & a living testimony cos the man i had wanted to marry left me 4 weeks before our wedding and my life was upside down cos our relationship has been on for 4years. I really loved him, but his mother was against us and he had no good paying job. So when i met this spell caster, i told him what happened and explained the situation of things to him. At first i was undecided, skeptical and doubtful, but i just gave it a try. And in 7 days when i returned to Canada, my boyfriend (now husband) called me by himself and came to me apologizing that everything had been settled with his mom and family and he got a new job interview so we should get married. I didn’t believe it cos Dr PALOMA only asked for my name and my boyfriends name and all i wanted him to do. Well we are happily married now and we are expecting our little kid, and my husband also got the new job and our lives became much better. His email is: palomaspelltemple@yahoo.com

  25. Gilead says:

    I suppose all this trailer’s meant to do is establish that these characters exist before more in-depth previews reveal more/spoil everything. At least I hope so, because it doesn’t really do anything else.

    It might as well have been narrated with the words ‘You don’t care about any of these people or their nebulous goals, but we wanted to remind you that we haven’t stopped work on the game, and we’ve added more hats. We are particularly proud of the Maleficent-style one, which we saw being worn by Sile de Tansarville when the team played through the Witcher 2, and everyone agreed it was the best thing ever.”

  26. Maruk says:

    Whatever we were before, we are now: Weak as sheep and must retrain all our skills to live up to our epic introductions.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>