Dragon Age 3 Confirmed For “Fall 2014”

The EA press conference at E3 has confirmed the release of Dragon Age 3, aka Dragon Age: Inquisition, in 2014. The game will apparently take place in “a vast open world”, while familiar characters Morrigan and Varric have been glimpsed in the trailer shown to press, which you can now see below.


  1. Bobsy says:

    Sounds a bit like they’re trying to take on Bethesda at their own game, which might be good if they pull it off. A Skyrim-esque open world, but with actual interesting people in it?

    Yeah, ta.

    • Fiddi says:

      There was ONE good character in skyrim, Master Neloth from the dragonborn dlc. He actually made me laugh a few times. :)

      • katinkabot says:

        But what about Lydia???!!!!

        • RProxyOnly says:

          She was more of a meme than a developed character… Meaning she wasn’t developed in the least.

          • abremms says:

            the only memorable thing Lydia ever did was stand too close to a cliff edge while the dragon born tried out his new shout.

        • colossalstrikepackage says:

          I think I’m in the minority that actually liked Lydia’s company and sarcastic remarks. The day I lost Lydia was the day I stopped caring about Skyrim. Fact.

    • nzmccorm says:

      What was the last Bioware game with interesting characters? Gaider and company especially are pretty terrible about it what with their blatant ripoffs of Joss Whedon.

      • bella404 says:

        up to I looked at the bank draft which had said $8863, I did not believe that my father in law had been realy receiving money in their spare time from there new laptop.. there brothers friend has been doing this 4 only about 19 months and a short time ago took care of the dept on there home and bought a brand new Fiat Panda. we looked here, kep2.com

      • AJLeuer says:

        Whatever else you say about Bioware’s games, I don’t think you can argue the characters in their recent titles aren’t compelling. Garrus, Jack, Wrex, Isabela, Varric, Morrigan – no other studio engenders the same level of deep emotional connection between fans and the characters in its games.

        • tormeh says:

          I’ve played all the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games, and none of the characters there were close to matching The Witcher 2’s Vernon.

          Let’s not forget the guys who make the The Longest Journey series: Previously Funcom, now Red Thread Games. Really, they put everything else I’ve ever played to shame in terms of character attachment.

          Bioware and Bethesda are the workhorses of RPGs. The former hasn’t done anything exceptional since Morrowind and the latter hasn’t done anything exceptional for as long as I’ve played RPGs.
          They are good, but not exceptionally so. They are the standard that others go above and beyond. I don’t get why people are so obsessed with them. They’re the Infinity Ward and Treyarch of RPGs.

        • nzmccorm says:

          Their characters are terrible. Many of them are directly ripped off from other things, and the developers have admitted to this. Others, like Jack, are laughably terrible.

          Seriously Jack is a character who literally has a barkstring where she basically says “Huh. This public washroom reminds me of a washroom I got raped in once. Life’s funny, innit?” and then later on you get to dick her better. It’s terrible.

          • Klaus says:

            As far as I remember, if you sleep with Jack she wants nothing more to do with you. The only way to proceed is to not sleep with her. They simply cuddle in the bed later on.

        • Zelos says:

          Can and will.

          Hell, you didn’t even name the best character they’ve made since HK-47, Shale. And the sad thing is, they’re very nearly the same character. Artificial life forms dedicated to killing all meatbags.

          The vast majority of ME’s rather large cast isn’t just forgettable, they’re awful. It pains me to have to listen to their dialogue or be around them. Mordin and Wrex are notable exceptions.

          Dragon Age(1) is a little better on that front, with Shale, Sten, Oghren, and Morrigan all being good characters. None of them are exceptional among RPGs as a whole except Shale though.

          • alphyna says:

            “Shale, Sten, Oghren, and Morrigan”

            A Man-Killing Comical Inorganic Thing (okay, that *is* somewhat original, but not much), A Stoic, A Funny Drunk Loser and a Dark Bad Girl? Really? Whatever you think about everyone else, at least DA2 has Aveline, who’s more interesting than everyone from DAO combined.

        • Zekiel says:

          Absolutely agree. (And would add Mordin to the list of awesome characters)

          I was very impressed by how their modified their standard character tropes for Dragon Age. Morrigan isn’t just the “I know everything and you should obey me” bitch, ala Jaheria or Bastila. She’s also highly naive about the civilised world, what with growing up in the wilderness. And while she seems like an evil character, she’s actually more of a social darwinist.

          Leliana, meanwhile, is a twist on the Imoen/Mission character, whereby she seems naive and innocent but actually has a very worldly background.

          I think Bioware’s best characters are the best thing in their games, hands down.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      ‘Pull it off’?????????

      Dude….there’s optimistic and then there’s head-in-the-sand stupidity. :/

  2. rebochan says:

    I still can’t play an elf with her own backstory again? Pass.

    I wouldn’t be so picky if they hadn’t let me do it in the first game and then spend the next TWO games telling me “No no, it wasn’t as fun as you thought it was! I know it was our chief selling point, but seriously, go back to playing the same boring human characters we always write because it’s so much cheaper and faster to churn the games out that way!”

    Meanwhile, Skyrim lets me play a lizard monster. A freaking lizard monster. And it is glorious.

    • nzmccorm says:

      Bioware is very interested in storytelling, but storytelling doesn’t make for good RPGs. The point ofthe game is that ostensibly you’re creating your own story, and Bethesda (and Obsidian, When they tried their hand at a Bethesda style game) does that by leaving a lot about the protagonist unexplained, and by providing a ton of content designed to support different characterizations that the player might want to make up as they go along.

      Bioware on the other hand wants to tell you a story, which is a shame because their stories have the writing of licensed novels and the caliber of acting you get in syfy originals. They lean on an area where they are weak.

      • Kranchan says:

        You’ve never played the Witcher have you? They are fantastic RPGs (well 1’s combat system was bad) with a very predetermined main character and wonderful story telling.

        • abremms says:

          might be just me, but the predetermined nature of the witcher games is a huge part of why I can’t get into them. Bioware at least let you customize and name your character before starting.

          • tormeh says:

            Those are really two different kinds of games. Skyrim et al are a story about whoever it is that you are doing whatever it is that you do. The Witcher is a story about Geralt; you’re just along for the ride. I hope The Witcher 3 doesn’t allow us to do things that are ridiculously out of character. That would break immersion, I think.

        • nzmccorm says:

          I wouldn’t really call them fantastic RPGs, pretty much for exactly that reason. They’re fun games, but that’s different.

      • Nick says:

        Your definition of RPG is one of the worst I have yet to see.

        • RProxyOnly says:


          ‘…but storytelling doesn’t make for good RPGs’?

          WHAT THE F**K!!!!!!!!

          • nzmccorm says:

            Storytelling makes for terrible RPGs because it’s being TOLD to you. Rather than PLAYED by you or created subjectively as a result of your play. I dunno how I can make it clearer.

            If you want to be told a story, you should probably pick a genre that isn’t essentially based around reactivity. Or maybe give up on interactive entertainment altogether. I hear audiobooks are nice.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            No, that is bad execution. It’s got fuck all to do with whether or not there is a story involved.

            In fact I would actively refute your point of view. I state that having a good story is intrinsic to the rpg experience and the games with barely a story.. mainly Bethesda’s offering, are the poor cousin as far as indepth experiences go. Offering very little apart from repeated generic actions within an environment so open as to disencourage a focused gameplay ethos.

            The main reason Bethesda games are popular are mainly because they are so unutterably unstructured, you do what you want, within the framework of repetitive actions you are given, there is no puzzling it out so no failure, the system is brickwall stupid so no brains there either and a storyline so utterly devoid of depth or indeed any point a all, that you don’t need an attention span to play it.. There’s never a need to remember current storylines or states of play, just fire it up, follow the markers and clumsily hack at anything in your way, or wave you arms about for damage causing coloured lights….. Do you see the pattern?

            Popularity is dictated by shallowness of experience, certainly with RPG’s anyway, the shallower the experience the more appeal for the masses because it’s much easier to get their head around. Although this is ‘beginning’ to shift, with the advent of games like the Witcher, however in that case it’s the material that is so desirable, naked pics and grown up stuff, that that has forced players to accept the less than streamlined gameplay, although TW games are certainly more streamlined than earlier classic RPGs.

            Take PS:T for example, widely regarded as the best RPG in existence.. but it was horribly underappreciated when it was released and that’s an understatement. This was because you had to use your brain to follow the story and to be able to use the system, whether you liked AD&D or not you definately had to use your noodle.. and what’s the hate on for THAC0, what’s the matter people? Can’t count backwards? :<).. there's definitely none of those problems with the elder scrolls games, maybe the earlier LESS POPULAR ones were more complex, or less easy to get in to, but certainly not the popular 3D engine games. Morrowind was Beth's last game with ANY kind of perceived complexity to it and even then it wasn't a patch on most of the others that were available around that time.

            Anyway, tbh, most of the 'so-called' RPG's these days, are no such thing.. Changeable stats do not an RPG make. Just ask Mass Effect 2 and 3, 1 was more of an rpg, but still a horribly streamlined cutdown version, heading in a bad direction.

        • Runs With Foxes says:

          And presumably your definition is based on videogame RPGs.

          RPGs are all about making your own ‘story’ as it results from interactions with the rules of the game. It’s not about having an emotional story told to you. Until Bioware came along and turned it into that, anyway.

          • tormeh says:

            Pen-and-paper RPGs consist mostly of the DM/Storyteller telling a story to the players, with the D/S making minor adjustments based on what the players are doing. If the players go “My character goes home and becomes a carpenter” or similar the Campaign simply ends.

            If anything, the Bethesda games are less story-based than the original pen-and-paper RPGs.

          • Zelos says:

            Hate to tell you this mate, but RPGs of that style have been around long before bioware.

            Ever hear of Dragon Quest? Final Fantasy?

          • MarcP says:

            A roleplaying game is first and foremost about playing a role. Designing your own role and then playing it is one kind of roleplaying, but pretending all RPGs should be like that is being unimaginative and limited.

            “Oh, I’m playing a bloodthirsty barbarian brute of a secular tribe living in the northern wastes of a medieval fantastic world. Although I still hold the same moral values I have as a mid-twenties man living in the 21th century, so I won’t stand for racism against black people! (but I will kill dozens of orcs happily. They are monsters, because they look *different*) Discrimination against women won’t do either, there’s nothing saying this chick looking like she’s straight out of a Victoria’s Secret catalogue can’t lift and wield the same giant hammer as well as my hulking dude, because we’re all the same, man, and it’s a fantasy world so everything goes.”

            Or worse yet, the other way around. “I’m evil so I’m going to rape and maim and kill everything I see with a maniacal laugh, because this is how evil people are and act, widely different from us the good guys.”

            Picking your own role, refusing to adapt to the game and the setting, to listen to the story being told, is essentially the lowest form of roleplaying. It’s a kid power fantasy continued – pretending to be Superman as a kid, holding up your invincible shield that reflects everything in pretend fights. There’s nothing wrong with power fantasies, but there’s more to roleplaying than that.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            OF COURSE it’s about defining YOUR role.. but what’s the point of defining a role without a framework in which to apply that role?

            An RPG absolutely MUST have a proper involving storyline to provide a POINT to defining a role.

            Defining a role with no point whatsoever for playing that role is an utterly pointless endeavor.

    • Fluka says:

      Am I the only person who liked Hawke more than my horrible staring-eyes Warden? I love Origins, but the Warden can be rather bland, for all the choice of game beginning. (And they still have rather more personality than Skyrim’s dragonborn. )

      • Kadayi says:

        No. I preferred having an identifiable character Vs an anonymous cypher. All the ‘grey warden this, and grey warden that’ dancing around a lack of a name got kind of tedious in the first game.

        • 2helix4u says:

          I wouldn’t mind the identifiable character if the character was interesting.
          In DA:O I started out with some asshole noble demanding to fuck me on my wedding day and killing my husband. I haven’t had that in a game before. On other playthroughs I was embroiled in scheming dwarf politics.
          In DA2 my village was destroyed by orcs.

          I generally prefer unvoiced characters to badly or averagely voiced characters. Although I’ll take an interesting voice actor over both any day.

      • nzmccorm says:

        Are people really so lazy that they need to be told what they’re role-playing as in a role-playing game? The whole point is that the character in games like Skyrim is what you want them to be. You create a personality and stuff and then actually, y’know, roleplay.

        • dE says:

          Skyrim held up as a shining example for roleplaying. Thanks, I’ve literally seen all the bullshit the internet can come up with now.

          • Grygus says:

            If you feel that you can’t roleplay in Skyrim then you are not familiar with the words in use.

          • iridescence says:

            You can absolutely roleplay in Skyrim if you want to and have a bit of imagination. I played a lawful good mage who hated the undead and would never use any kind of weapon. The game totally allowed me to play that character because there are so many quests that I felt fine turning down the ones that conflicted with my guy’s alignment and never using a weapon as a mage is a totally viable strategy.

            I’m not saying Skyrim is the ultimate example of an RPG but it surely does allow a lot of roleplaying opportunities.

          • dE says:

            If you feel that you can’t roleplay in Skyrim then you are not familiar with the words in use.

            You’re seriously saying that to me? I’ve run a bloody roleplay server for nearly a decade, I’ve gamemastered countless campaigns at the table. Your Skyrim Roleplay doesn’t even get close to actual roleplay. Unless you want to bring the idiot argument that all games are roleplay, at which point – sorry, that’s not new. I’ve seen that nonsense statement before.

          • iridescence says:

            “I’ve gamemastered countless campaigns at the table. Your Skyrim Roleplay doesn’t even get close to actual roleplay”

            Well sure, but what single player video game comes close to a tabletop roleplaying experience really in terms of roleplaying? If that’s your standard do you consider any CRPGs ever made to be good roleplaying experiences?

          • RProxyOnly says:

            ….and thank you, iridescence

            You make our point for us. No matter the game it’s not an RPG when compared to ‘the real stuff’.. and removing a story IS EVEN LESS of an rpg given that is one of the intrinsic features that has ALWAYS defined the genre.

          • iridescence says:

            Yeah I agree with you. In a hypothetical world where getting a group of real people to play RPGs with was possible every time I wanted to play an RPG I wouldn’t bother with CRPGs at all. A human DM will give you a better experience than a computer game every time. But for most people it’s quite an undertaking to assemble a group of people for a tabletop gaming session so these games help fill the void when that isn’t possible.

            As for whether the story driven or sandbox CRPG style is better. I like them both for different reasons. Although I’d prefer to play a game that doesn’t even make a real attempt at narrative like Skyrim rather than one that forced a bad narrative on you like Dragon Age 2.

      • rebochan says:

        I hated Hawke. Hawke was the worst of both worlds – a character with no discernible personality, so I couldn’t get worked up what happened to her, but too much forced storytelling and defined traits to let me just roleplay her.

        I play a LOT of JRPGs, so having a defined protagonist is clearly not a problem, but it was when they started their series out with “Here’s a great experience where you design your character and how they interact with our world!” then completely throw it out the window with the next installment simply to copy off of their better-selling shooter RPG. Er, I mean, TO TELL A DEEPER STORY!

        Seriously, I played a female city elf and loved DA:O because of the insight I got from the Origin and the little flavoring throughout the game that reinforced her storyline. I really cared about my little starey-eyed warden. I couldn’t give two craps about stupid Hawke and her stupid jokes.

        • InternetBatman says:

          This. I truly hated Hawke. I hated him more than Shepard, because the little bits of personality he did inject were so douchey.

          • 2helix4u says:

            Truth time: I kinda liked manHawke’s terrible good guy voice. He was just a sheltered mama’s boy, thats how I “played” him (not that you can really play a pre-set guy) until they SPOILERS: fridge’d my mum.

        • Jimbo says:

          It wasn’t even better-selling.

        • alphyna says:

          It seems a bit weird. Hawke getting a personality (one of the three “colours”) based on your choices was actually advertised. It worked perfectly for me: I’m always playing a male witty Hawke, and when someone died (spoilers, er?) and Hawke tried to console the grieveng father, he came across as improper and awkward. That was personality at work!

      • Zelos says:

        I feel you would not be saying this had you played either dwarf origin. The dwarf origins were the best content in the entire game.

      • aepervius says:

        Hawke was bland, and frankly forgettable. But I could forgive a bland hawke if the story and far more importantly the gameplay had been better. The gameplay was crap, more arcadey that anything, and the wave of respawning enemy out-of-nowhere must have been a good design back in 90ies but not in the more modern 10ies. And don’t get me started on the re-usage of art assets down to the same damn map.
        But that’s my opinion, apparently shared by a lot of user, but not by reviewer (which gave a lot of high review score) so who knows maybe I am full of it.

        • hyzhenhok says:

          Oh look, it’s the same argument from 2011 that got popular and has been copy-pasted over and over again ever since, mostly by people who never played the game or only played the demo having already decided they hated it.

          I’m replaying through Origins right now and I can tell you, there’s plenty of respawning waves of enemies and re-used art assets and maps in this game, too. Those complaints about DA2 were blown out of proportion; the game does not live up to the anti-hype.

          • dE says:

            That’s a rather odd way of logic. It dresses up all trés chic on sundays and tries to fit in, but every other day it’s the unspeakable antilogic. A figure of pure unreasonable unlogic. Your attempt at logic kills mathematicians on sight, it’s that dangerous and vile.

            Let me paraphrase your reasoning:
            There’s some shit stuff in Game 1 and then there’s some shit stuff in Game 2. Thus they’re equal. Oh dear, are you at all familiar with the concept of quantity?

      • alphyna says:

        No, you’re not the only one. Hawke was very likable, actually, if not smart. The Warden was just, well, bland.

    • Kompatriartes says:

      I wonder if you have a more vivid imagination than I do, because the generality of Bioware stories tend to be a bit bland and forced. I can’t really invoke my mind to craft an intricate backstory to fill in all of the gaps the writers simply can’t.

      Handcrafted characters make for better narrative; Deus Ex, Planescape, The Witcher 1-2 all have vastly more robust stories than any Bioware or Bethesda title I can think of. For those who struggle with such games, remember that the protagonists usually comfortably straggle the line between blank slate you can import yourself onto and developed character you can craft a solid story around.

      • freeid says:

        Sorry but KOTOR had a better story than the games you mentioned other than Torment, arguably the gameplay was better in Deus Ex and the Witcher but story…. no way, and this from a guy who has read the witcher series.

    • Rovac says:

      I’ve read this kind of comments in RPS before and the thread that born from it.

      Can we just have both, please? Without claiming one is superior than the other? or shitting it

    • Flavioli says:

      I bet it has to do with the choice to fully-voice the main character. Love it or hate it, if they want to have voice acting for every spoken line of the protagonist they would need 6 times the amount of voice acting (3 races, 2 genders each, all with different voices)… if that’s the case, it’s absolutely prohibitive. Maybe they could reuse the voice acting for each race, but it’d be a bit odd, and they’d still need to voice the different backstories, which I doubt is cheap. Kinda reinforces my dislike for fully-voiced dialog.

  3. lowprices says:

    Maybe this will have more than three levels, since they’ve been working at for so long.

  4. BTAxis says:

    I see.

    • Chalky says:

      Yeah, so, any chance of this not being shit? Even a little?

      • Groove says:

        That is possibly the least interesting trailer I’ve ever seen, and I still rank DA1 as one of my favourite games ever. It’s been said an infinite number of times before, but footage of gameplay! At the very least a CGI render of what gameplay might entail. Unless the primary gameplay mechanic is constructing generic prophesies.

  5. BooleanBob says:

    Jeez, lady, save some cheekbone for the rest of us

    • BobbyDylan says:

      At least she’s wearing more clothes. Age must have brought about at least an increase in her wardrobe budget.

  6. UncleLou says:

    I am not really interested until I see a screenshot from the isometric perspective. It was the reason I liked the first one probably more than I should have.

  7. Fluka says:

    Damn it, I know it’s not cool to enjoy BioWare anymore, but I’m excited for this. Particularly since they’re getting more than twice the time they got to develop DA2. A lesson learned for EA, methinks.

    Also, they gave Morrigan a pretty dress instead of a boob-drape! She looked so cold in Origins! Maybe that’s why she was so grumpy all the time…

    • Shooop says:

      A lesson learned for EA, methinks.

      link to reactiongifs.com

    • realitysconcierge says:

      I would think that it’s not so much cool to hate on Bioware as much as it is to hate on EA owning Bioware :(

      • nzmccorm says:

        I don’t really think that that’s a valid defense. Not even a little. I mean, EA owns Bioware, yes. But look at what EA gave Bioware: Lots of money, lots of autonomy, and they played their chief executives in charge of a huge swath of the company in The Bioware Group.

        At the end of the day, the Bioware Docs were at the top of the pyramid. Myzuka was apparently within striking distance of being the next CEO. I don’t understand why people are so eager to absolve Bioware, seemingly purely on the basis of nostalgia for the Baldur’s Gate games, which weren’t even that good.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Absolutely correct.

          As much fun as it is blaming EA for everything, Bio actually caused their own troubles. As stated EA did everything they could for Bio, money, support, autonomy.. but in the end Bio just decided it would be easier to shit in a bag and serve that, several times, to their customers.

          Unfortunately though, they have the stupid market, so they’ll still make money serving up their great steaming piles.

          • Fluka says:

            So we’re calling Mass Effect 2 and 3 “shit in a bag” now, and those that enjoy their games the “stupid market,” then? Right. Compelling rhetoric, that.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Yes, Fluka, they were each a shit in a bag with 3 being slightly smellier… They certainly weren’t RPG’s, at most they were shooters with stats, a corridor storyline and no consequence to anything you ever did, despite Bio’s protestations that this trilogy would be different.

          • cpt_freakout says:

            Fluka, all ME games were terrible in terms of story and the role you played in it (which is to say, none). You might have become emotionally invested in some characters, but that’s just the forced interactivity and the oh-so-dramatic soap opera stuff that they were written with. It’s engaging on a very basic level, but if you stop and think about what that story tells you and the meaning it could have in a context beyond that of videogames, it’s pretty mediocre, to say the least. Bioware have had good moments, but to be honest they’re pretty scarce.

        • Nick says:

          Weren’t even that good? Oh wait, you think Bethesda make good RPGs, nevermind.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Ignore. (like you were doing anything else. ;))

          • nzmccorm says:

            They weren’t. All BG2 had going for it was the sheer volume of content. Torment had a meatier, smarter, more reactive plot, Icewind Dale had better fights (IWD2 is probably the peak of infinity engine combat), and games like Fallout 2 blew it out of the water in terms of quest design.

            BG2 had decent dungeons and a lot to do, but even back when it was new it was criticized for putting a glut of content ahead of actually fleshing that content out. Even PC Gamer’s glowing review dinged it for having too many FedEx quests.

          • realitysconcierge says:

            @nzmccorm I don’t think any of those games were actually developed by Bioware though -.-

        • realitysconcierge says:

          It seems my rosy glasses were coloring more than I imagined :/

    • Nick says:

      People not liking Bioware is nothing to do with being cool, don’t be so moronic.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Comments like that say more about the poster than the person they were posted at and it’s too long and laborious to call out every moron on the internet so I just tend to ignore people who come away with that kind of thing.

  8. nzmccorm says:

    So an open world game from a studio with no track record of making them, and whose skillset is best suited to highly linear cinematic games with very primitive quest design?

    This game is either going to be hugely disappointing and lobotomized like the last two, or hugely disappointing and buggy

    • smeaa mario says:

      My thoughts exactly.

    • realitysconcierge says:

      The spiritual predecessor of the Dragon Age games, or the Baldur’s Gate series, are considered by many to be Bioware’s masterpieces were very much open world games.

      • nzmccorm says:

        Technically, but they were also totally different from modern open world games in that they used pre-done backgrounds and were reliant on a world-map. There’s not really comparable to a modern open world game, especially something like Skyrim, which Bioware openly compared this game to way back when they were first talking about it.

        If they were making Project Eternity, you might have a point, But they’re not.

        • realitysconcierge says:

          I will definitely have to agree with you on that.

    • Big Murray says:

      Baldur’s Gate was an open-world game. I heard that game did quite well, don’t know if that’s true?

      Bioware know how to make open-worlds, no worry about that. It’s not like they’re constructing a Skyrim clone from scratch here. They’re most likely taking the existing Dragon Age format and gameplay design and applying it to an open world without all the hideously limited level boundaries of before.

      Sounds like the perfect response to the fans’ main complaint about DA2 actually. People like to hate on Bioware, but they have always listened to fan feedback.

      • nzmccorm says:

        A 2D isometric open world game where you spend huge swaths comparably confined in terms of where you can go and what you can do is not comparable to a modern open world game. Especially since they compared what they’re doing to Skyrim at the outset of development, before they even announced the game.

        Secondly, If you take BG2 out of the equation (which I think you should, since they haven’t really done anything comparable since) they don’t really do open world games. They do highly linear episodic games with an episode menu disguised as a worldmap.

        • Zekiel says:

          You definitely should take BG2 out of the equation because there’s no way it was close to an open world game. BG1 was close – although they were separate areas you travelled between (so not really open world) there was a really strong sense of wandering around the wilderness seeing what you could find (which, it seems to me, is what open world is all about).

          BG2 on the other hand didn’t have this. You could wander around Athkatla, but the only wilderness areas were specifically there for you to do specific quests in, not to randomly explore. (OK, apart from 3 areas that only became available in Chapter 6 for some odd reason).

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Umm.. Baldur’s Gate (and expansions/sequel) was NEVER open world.. it has a map with a bunch of areas on it, and that’s NOT open world. You don’t get to travel around the map, only the areas it contains.

        Take out the map and all it is is a bunch of areas.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I disagree. Many parts of the map show a clear environmental and even physical transition from one area to the next. They could pretty seamlessly integrate most of the Sword Coast section of BG by just removing the option to go to the map at area transitions. That game also involved a lot of exploration.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Ok.. can we a agree on big areas then?.. cos I’m certainly never going to agree it’s open world.

      • InternetBatman says:

        It’s all well and good to say they’ve done it in the past, but that was fifteen years ago. People have left, moved into different positions, it has dramatically expanded as an organization, and company culture may (probably has) have changed.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Yeah, Bioware isn’t even a shadow of it’s former self in it’s heyday, completely different workforce and working ethic. Gaider (sigh) and a son of one of the originals.. there may be more… but I really don’t care enough to bother finding out.

          • realitysconcierge says:

            They might as well not even make RPGs anymore for all it matters :/

    • Wulfram says:

      It’s not real open world. “Not Skyrim style, just larger areas and more openness to them” was posted on the forums almost immediately by a Dev

  9. xsikal says:

    At this point, all Bioware games are ‘wait until they go on sale’ for me. (They used to be ‘wait until the reviews’, but, in general, official press reviews of bioware games are hilariously kind)

    I will say, for a press conference that was primarily about next gen consoles, the DA3 trailer stuck out for seeming to be very current-gen, graphically.

    • pakoito says:

      Most E3 games are below current gen by PC standards. This is no exception.

      • xsikal says:

        Sorry for the miscommunication. Obviously, almost everything being shown is below current gen, PC. But DA3 looked like an Xbox 360 game, which put it behind even the other console-focused games on display.

        • DatonKallandor says:

          Compare the Witcher 3 trailer to the Dragon Age 3 trailer. It’s like two games 5 years apart in terms of graphical fidelity. Well, five console years. They’re about one PC year apart, back when the PC actually advanced at a pace that wasn’t held back by consoles, but that’s a whole nother problem.

          • xsikal says:

            Yes, that’s exactly my point. Thanks! :) Two forthcoming RPGs, both demoed in EA’s conference, and DA3 is the one that looks dated.

            Obviously, gameplay is king, but I feel like Bioware has swung and missed on that a lot lately (and it will be a while before we see any actual gameplay), so I’m not very hopeful on that front either.

          • pakoito says:

            You don’t even have to look at TW3. TW2 already looked better, even with those vivid colors.

    • v_ware says:

      My problem with the visuals is the lack of a coherent world design. I mean it all looks like a mix of DA1: Brown and bland and DA2: Pointy and overly stylized.

      It just ends up looking like a mixed bag. I had a lot of issues with DA2 but it’s graphical style was not one of them.

    • realitysconcierge says:

      Sadly all EA games are on No Sale status for me… DRM and what not.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Same here.. I never buy EA and haven’t done for years.. regardless of what releases they may have. There’s just too much crap one is expected to swallow.

    • tnzk says:

      Forgive me for the late reply, but after I saw all these comments, I had to watch this trailer several times, as well as alongside the Witcher 3 one.

      I haven’t taken the latest sip of Kool-Aid just yet, but I swear Dragon Age 3 looks to be running on the latest Frostbite engine. And with a bit of internet sleuthing (not really), it does. And it looks very, very good, not unlike the other Frostbite 3 games that have been revealed recently.

      I’m going to watch the trailer again right now.

      No, it still doesn’t look like crap. In fact, I reckon the Frostbite 3 engine is shaping up to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing of all the next-gen engines yet revealed.

      A shame it’s being wasted on EA games.

      • Widthwood says:

        Hmm… RPG engines are far more about scripting and giving tools to implement complex quests and interactions than just graphical side. I reaaly doubt Bioware had time or resources to retrofit their current workflow and tools to fit new Frosotbite.

        On the other hand, near 0:20 background and lights really do look very much like BF3.. Maybe they had an ongoing side project integrating with Frostbite before they started DA3?

      • RProxyOnly says:

        The fact that it is the FB3 engine was publicised at the same time we found out they were making another, the official news release anyway. That was a while ago.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      ‘Hilariously kind’ is being hilariously kind.. Why not just call them for what they are?… Bought reviews.

      • Widthwood says:

        Not necessarily bought. Bioware of late strived for more cinematic games, and largely they succeeded. If a reviewer tries to judge them “objectively” from a stand point of being closer to current Hollywood productions they are “objectively good”. Rps-style reviews, where writer simply describes his own experiences and states his opinion are still in minority..

        • RProxyOnly says:

          I would be VERY surprised if the reviews weren’t bought. There was a story not so long ago about EA being caught buying reviews, and Bio is their biggest investment.

          • Widthwood says:

            Hmm is this what you meant – link to kotaku.com.au ? Because that is not buying, that’s bullying.

            Not sure how the same tactic would work for Bioware games or if risk/benefit ratio would be considered adequate by PRs, because before DA2 hardly anyone reviewed them “low”.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Nope I’m pretty sure it was for something else, but I will agree about it being self-defeating in the long run now that people are more likely to expose stuff like this.

            It’s bad habits you see, the companies have gone so long without being questioned or found out that it’ll take a while for them to realise that we’ll probably find out about all their sneaky underhandedness and attempt, however small an attempt, to change, or at the least, not get caught in future.

            I will say that, IMO, DA2 was so demonstrably bad that a lot of the sites who would have usually accepted money for a good review realised that they simply wouldn’t have gotten away with it, however such considerations wouldn’t have been the case with previous releases and they could easily fudge the numbers with impunity.

            OK, there’s a lot of ‘coulds’ here, but I’m not saying anything that would raise any eyebrows, because we KNOW that a LOT of sites out there do accept bribes, we’ve seen the stories for ourselves.. Let’s not forget the ‘Jeff, IGN, Kane and Lynch and Eidos’ debacle.

          • Widthwood says:

            Come on.

            You stated that DA2 reviews were bought, didn’t provide any kind of links, now you are just all over the place, writing about most famous corruption scandal involving completely different publisher that had a special advertising deal with ONE web site that they threatened to cancel. What does that have to do with DA2? You can change the name DA2 to any other game who’s metacritic score you don’t agree with, and your post will be equally valid.

            And really, DA2 wasn’t demonstrably bad. Sure, they tried to change the genre a bit, cut corners too much and kind of screwed up in the process. But the result was simply very average, with some ok parts and some annoying parts.
            Might and Magic 9 – now that was demonstrably bad.
            Go ahead, play each head to head and compare :)

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Well I couldn’t find my reference, the same way you couldn’t find.

            So admittedly my arguement loses some points.. however we KNOW this is happening because we HAVE seen and read about it all before in many places, I’m not willing to entirely abandon my pov.

            And yes, compared to EVERYTHING that came before DA2 was a pos.

          • Widthwood says:

            Oh well, I tried.

  10. pakoito says:

    I don’t care about no trailers or open world. Let’s talk some social justice here. Are there any negroes and hispanic there doing meaningful things, instead of just taking orders?

  11. v_ware says:

    Don’t think we have forgotten about Dragon Age 2 Bioware. Oh no, we haven’t.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      But oh boy, we’re trying, oh so very hard to.

    • Vorphalack says:

      Good Guy EA, going against the grain and actually releasing a demo for DA2 so we could dodge that bullet. Best £35 I never spent.

  12. Soulstrider says:

    Neat, I enjoyed both DA1 and 2, and I am mildly looking forward for this one.

    Pity DA2 gets so much hate, despite in most gameplay and design aspects being inferior to 2, It had a pretty good story and characters, certainly the best history I experience in a Bioware game (having played their games since Mass Effect 1)

    • The_Great_Skratsby says:

      The writing in DA2 was borderline miserable, from the horrible fan pandering to the wonky structure.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        The ‘borderline’ was run over by a bleeding tractor, mate.

        Edited for clarity.

        The above meaning that ‘borderline’ has nothing to do with it.. the writing WAS demonstrably and unequivocally bad

    • cpt_freakout says:

      Since you started with Mass Effect 1, you don’t deserve the flak that Great_Skratsby is throwing at you. Most people are also too lenient when it comes to Bioware in terms of story, because most of them think of the Baldur’s Gate saga, and even that one has its predictable moments in the first game (the second one is sheer awesomeness, though, and its revered status is, IMO, deserved). But if you start looking into the back catalogue, to be honest very few of its games have a story that can be actually considered positively in light of stories that don’t come from videogames. In videogame standards, their stories are superb (even the kitschy stuff that ME is made of), but out of game context… well, perhaps only BG 2, their NWN expansions, and even KotOR stand out. I would recommend you go play these games, taking advantage of the fact that they’re compatible with new systems now and easy to set up with mods and a little patience.

      You’ll eventually see why people are so disappointed with Bioware, but at the same time I do believe that they’re obviating that it has almost always created mediocre stories coupled with a great understanding of what mechanics make RPGs so fun and meaningful to play. When game studios start hiring writers that are good beyond the context of videogames, well, that’ll be the day, my friend.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Yeah… stopped reading at ‘sheer awesome’.

      • Zekiel says:

        I love, love, love BG2 and I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s story is awesome. It’s *characters* are awesome but it’s story is a bit odd. It doesn’t actually really rely on you being SPOILER FOR DECADE-OLD GAME a Bhaalspawn, which is strange considering that’s the big thing it should be concentrating on (and which BG1 and ToB do concentrate on).

        And it’s structure is wonky, being too open in Chapters 2-3, and too linear in 4-5.

        And it’s got Saemon Havarian in, who is just about the most annoying thing Bioware have ever done.

        But it’s still amazing because of the characterisation, the breadth and the detail. I love it.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Ding Ding

          ….and we have a winner.

          Yes, despite it’s flaw it is still a supremely entertaining experience and about as close to rpg as we got then, the only changes now being that complex systems are being thrown wholesale out of the window in favour of more mature storylines (witcher).

          Elder Scrolls takes a step backwards there, they remove, not only complexity.. but the whole damn storyline too.

  13. The_Great_Skratsby says:

    Bioware don’t deserve any benefit of the doubt, however credit to them trying a different approach, again.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      ‘Different approach’

      Sorry, what now?

      Looks and sounds like the same ol’ generic crap Bio have been regurgitating for years in the shadows of their better games.

      Oh look… I am the chosen one.. again, AND It’s still ugly, probably more the fault of the art direction rather that the engine TBH, but at least it doesn’t look like a plastic shit anymore.

  14. Arcanon says:

    Someone at Bioware likes Warcraft III…

    “We never paid any heed to the ancient prophecies…like fools we clung to the old hatreds…and fought as we had for generations. Until the day the sky rained fire, and a new enemy came upon us. We stand now, upon the brink of destruction, for the reign of chaos has come at last.”

    Also, Dwarf Prince origin or GTFO!

    • Merlkir says:

      Yep. Tired of fighting the same old undead+orcs…errrr, darkspawn+qunari?! Here, have some demons falling from the sky!

      Yeah, I’m so looking forward to this game. So much.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      That was a pretty good bit of cgi. Then again, that’s Blizzard for you.

  15. aliksy says:

    Meh. It’s EA, and I’ve grown to dislike Bioware games. Two strikes against it.

  16. Eddy9000 says:

    Seriously, can someone just commission China Mieville to write an RPG so I can play one without having to sit through another generic setting and worn out fantasy narratives?

    fragile alliances crumble….
    world turns to ashes/is torn asunder…
    darkness closes in…will you stand against it?…

    I’ve saved the world from ancient evil so many times I just can’t get excited about it anymore.

    • realitysconcierge says:

      Someone should come up with a list of games that those lines describe lol. I imagine it would be quite long.

      • Eddy9000 says:

        I’d rather they made a list of rpg’s that don’t use it so I can have something fun to play.

        • Bhazor says:

          Well a few that come to mind
          Project Eternity (allegedly)

          And that’s it.

          • Widthwood says:

            Among recent ones – Fallout, Witcher, Legend of Grimrock.

            Obviously every RPG will have someone to fight against – thats the whole point of skills, stats etc. And if setting is fantasy – it is traditional to have Tolkien-like DARKNESS in it.

    • B1A4 says:

      I’ll take WW2 game with zombies on top over classic western fantasy game anytime!

      • Eddy9000 says:

        You’re part of the problem.

        • B1A4 says:

          Yeah, I am internet liar with happy hyperbolic triggerfinger.

          But I am trying to change!

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Hi B1A4

            Welcome to our meeting of the internetz support group. Make yourself at home. :)

    • Arglebargle says:

      I’m pretty sure Bioware would happily deep six the western fantasy tropes in favor of something different. Elves and dwarves into the trash can! And then the marketing department hears about it and goes ballistic. Even less likelihood with incompetant EA holding the reins.

      Though I did kinda like the take on the ghetto/back to the land elves, and the scheming moribund dwarven culture.

      But I certainly don’t run to the store to get a Bioware game on release day.

      • Bhazor says:

        No. This is as good as Bioware gets. Seriously. They said they spent 10 years writing this setting. This is what they came up with.

        • Widthwood says:

          When a large studio (that isn’t making money from thin air) works on something for 10 years – you can be sure result will be as generic as possible. Because it means for years they managed to convince their financial department that this will sell well.

          I’d be happier if they said oh someone just had this crazy idea, and we gave them a small team to iterate on it, and it turned out great.

      • Vorphalack says:

        ”Elves and dwarves into the trash can!”

        Elves and Dwarves are not the problem. It’s writers continually taking Elves and Dwarves and doing nothing interesting with them. Too much reliance on the fantasy setting to carry the narrative instead of a narrative that justifies its fantasy setting.

    • iridescence says:

      DAO was very “heavily influenced” by LOTR but was still a good game. I’m afraid if Bioware tried to make up an original setting they’d come up with something completely retarded. I just want the real sequel to DAO that DA2 should’ve been but wasn’t.

      I’m not getting my hopes up or throwing money at them though until I see reviews.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Unfortunately DA WAS Biowares attempt at originality.. they spent 8-10 years defining that world…… Can you bloody believe that? :<

        Ah well.

  17. RProxyOnly says:

    LOL. Talk about trying to regain some of the reputation they have been hemorrhaging.

    Bringing Morrigan back, pure fan service.. and scraping the barrel at that.

    • rebochan says:

      To be fair, Morrigan was left with a giant freaking cliffhanger in DA:O, so it’s not unusual to expect her back.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        I didn’t expect her back. I wouldn’t have thought Bio would have had the gall to return to that story in any manner.

        The only appealing thing about the char was CB doing the voice, it was an ugly model, stupid story and piss poor characterisation.

        • Asurmen says:

          For those of us that enjoyed DA:O it was rather obvious they would return to her at some point. I’d hardly call that gall.

  18. tnzk says:

    Ever since Dragon Age 1, Bioware’s releases have felt like very, very expensive middle-tier games. From the simple action gameplay of the Mass Effect sequels, the strange anomaly that is Dragon Age 2, and the hot air that was Star Wars: The Old Republic, the only thing Bioware ever contributed to the generation was wannabe cinerama.

    Dragon Age 3 better step it up in the gameplay department, if not Bioware is going to leave one of the most disappointing legacies in game development history.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      ‘Dragon Age 3 better step it up in the gameplay department’

      Seriously? You are still willing to throw money them, even now? After all their garbage?

      People who still buy Bio games deserve all the crap they get.

      • tnzk says:

        Did Bioware stick a banana up your bum? I didn’t say I would purchase it, I simply insinuated that if they want to gain some credibility with the core gamer, they are going to have to really step their game up after their abysmal run this generation.

        I only liked one of their games this generation. The rest were pants.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Yep and I still have the marks to prove it.. but they didn’t call it a banana… what was it again…….. ah yes, it was called Dragon Age.

          • Tagiri says:

            It’s true, they forced you to buy it.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Not exactly ‘force’.. but definitely misled.

            I’d been on the Bio boards for YEARS.. I was there for the announcement that they were making DA and the fucking shit spoke about it then.

            It was unique, entirely PC focused, steeped in depth, this that and the other…. all bullshit.

            So yeah, I was definitely misled into buying a pig in a poke.

            Same with ME.. was supposed to be this ubr RPG.. but all we got was something very streamlined and heading in the wrong direction.

    • Widthwood says:

      To be fair, they definitely have their own “brand” of role playing and story.
      Some years down the line, when all this rage about drm, failed expectations, wasted budgets etc will pass – their games might be appreciated more (apart from rushed mess of DA2, but it largely wasn’t their choice afaik).

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Bio made it, Bio get the blame, Full stop.

        And please clarify, HOW, given the fact that EA gave them autonomy, it became NOT their choice? Who’s choice was it then, the cleaners’?

        All this blame shifting strikes me as desperate (and as much as I hate this word…) fanboism. Sometimes you have to just accept that you heroes have feet of clay.

        • Widthwood says:

          Yeah, I was wrong, sorry about that. The argument was inside Bioware, not with EA. But that is exactly why I put “afaik” there – because I wasn’t sure I remembered correctly.

          As for the rest – looks like you are arguing not with me, but with your own imaginary opponents. The only Bioware game I really ever liked was KOTOR – probably because of setting and more tactical combat. I’m more of a ‘invent your own adventure’ kind of player, so rigidly structured RPG’s don’t appeal to me very much.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Imaginary opponents are probably more satisfying than real ones. At the very least I win my arguements with them. ;)

  19. honky mcgee says:

    Yikes! What happened to Morrigan? Looks like she got hit with the ugly stick. Can we start a thread about how videogames depict woman as ugly trolls and in a fashion that is unrealistic to everyday life? I live in San Francisco and I can tell you that 99% of the women walking down the street are way hotter than this.

    • Fluka says:


      But seriously? That’s ugly? Christ, I give up.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Maybe that’s not all you should give up.. if you don’t recognise that IS ugly then I’d hate to see your kids. :P

    • Widthwood says:

      Duh, I think not many girls in San Francisco were born from a witch that is also a dragon!

      But seriously, Morrigan had conflicted and weird personality, and it is only natural that her looks reflect that. This is actually pretty great, that they didn’t walk the classic path of “hotter+larger boobs+less clothes”, but made her more in line of what she actually is.

    • Tagiri says:

      Dude, it’s been ten years and she’s been raising Cthulhu or something on the other side of some creepy-ass mirror. All things considered, she looks great.

    • 11temporal says:

      Yep, she looks like shit, and sadly I don’t care about ugly females. Not nice but that’s how it is.

  20. InternetBatman says:

    That means it will be coming out soon after Project Eternity. It will be interesting to see those two go head to head. Right now, Project Eternity certainly looks like the more interesting game.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      Good point. I’ll be keeping a close eye on the comparison reviews.

  21. RProxyOnly says:

    I have to admit that I’m no oil painting myself, well maybe a Picasso, but It’s just dawned on me, I know someone who likes like that pic.. not the prettiest person in the world.

    • tnzk says:

      I dunno what you guys are on about, especially when the games industry would not yet dare depict truly grotesque women.

      Anyway if she were a real life woman she’d be considered incredibly gorgeous, considering her facial symmetry. But if what Bioware’s got is repulsing gamers, I suppose it’s a good thing: it’s one more stake in their inane romancing features.

      • rebochan says:

        Man, where’s that picture of the ugly guy rating a hot woman “a 6 and that’s being kind” when I need it?

        • tnzk says:

          Oooh, I too would like to see that picture.

          Considering my job and the company I keep, I have more than a few gorgeous female friends. Generally speaking, they aren’t as pretty as their photoshopped selves, and neither digitally drawn women for that matter. They know it too. Sometimes, I wish I had Chell’s portal gun so I could pull some of these guys smack in the middle of one our conversations and sincerely rant about how ugly these unrealistic fantasy women are.

          Like seriously, the most popular Skyrim graphical “enhancement” mods are scary enough. I also noticed Triss Merigold had a way more detailed character model than Geralt himself (it also looked like she worked out a lot. Must’ve done a lot of pull-ups and squats, that girl). But I’m mostly concerned when a game like Remember Me tries to sell its game by having the chick’s arse sprawl half the bloody cover slick is when I get more than a little disappointed. They do it because gamers still respond to it. This whole “Morrigan is ugly” thing is only going to propagate the issue.

          I don’t mind pretty women. I don’t mind pretty women depicted in the media. But when it’s the only purpose of her existence, it gets a little worrying.

          • Klaus says:

            Ah yes, the Skyrim ‘enhancement’ mods come across as terrible to me. Making all the females come across as grey aliens in drag. Or the ones that remove the sharp, angular features some females have and replace them with females with round faces stacked with baby fat.

            Similar to the Morrigan remake mods which mostly do the same. I prefer the regular Morrigan and even the one above. She’s not supposed to a cute!witch. I thought she was supposed to be creepy or intimidating, which most of the mods remove.

        • Klaus says:

          I have this one. – link to i.imgur.com

          Those are some my favorite types of pictures I’ve come across on the internet.

      • MarcP says:

        “Anyway if she were a real life woman she’d be considered incredibly gorgeous, considering her facial symmetry.”

        I feel sorry for you.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Away you go…

          That chin, the mole, the dead eyes and the bad skin being hidden by the hair (indicated by the redness of the skin, it isnt even makeup, it’s not on the other side of the face.

          Ah well, I suppose some people standards are just naturally higher.

          (Granted this is ALL just mush being written to pass the time, but that is BY NO MEANS an attractive character model.)

  22. Solidstate89 says:

    Confirmed for a good Dragon Age game. Why? Because Claudia Black is back and she was in the first one which is the objectively better game.

    Don’t give me this nonsense about how correlation doesn’t equal causation, just let me enjoy her sultry voice!

    Time to go watch some Farscape.

    • acoff001 says:

      This. I probably would have hated Morrigan much more if it wasn’t for Claudia Black’s amazing voice.

    • Widthwood says:

      I watched all seasons of Farscape just before DA and grown to hate both her robotic character and Ben Browder’s. Spoiled my DA playthrough somewhat, since even with fake accent occasionally Morrigan sounded exactly like Aeryn.

      Hopefully her voice changed enough since then..

      • Solidstate89 says:

        You’re a monster.

      • acoff001 says:

        (Taste is entirely subjective and you’re entitled to your opinion, I think you’re very, very wrong though)

        • Widthwood says:

          Its not even a matter of opinion or taste – I though her acting was ok, just some kind of personal incompatibility I guess. These things happen :)

  23. AJLeuer says:

    Every Bioware title I’ve played in recent years has become one of my all-time favourite games. I expect the trend to continue.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      It’s a shame you don’t seem to expect much from either your gameplay of your dollar’s value. :/

      You’ve gotta start playing better games man, If Bio are your all time fav’s then you’re definitely missing out somewhere.

      • Widthwood says:

        Could you provide examples of better recent story driven RPG’s? Apart from witchers (finished those already)

      • bodydomelight says:

        If only there was such a thing as subjective opinion. Then individual preferences would be justifiable!

        What a glorious world that would be.

        • acoff001 says:

          Heresy! All personal preferences are objective fact and must be defended to the death! Or would you rather live in a world where people are allowed to disagree with you? Poppycock, I say.

      • kament says:

        It’s a shame you assume it, knowing virtually nothing about him. You should really stop taking yourself too seriously.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          I’d certainly say I know enough based on his statement.

          • kament says:

            That’s exactly what I meant. You actually assume that some people like something you don’t only because they don’t know better. And you, of course, know what’s best for them in any case. Which is… well, you know.

  24. acoff001 says:

    I will pay top dollar for this game if Merrill is confirmed to have a horribly violent onscreen death. (Not likely, but a man can dream)

    • Wulfram says:

      Why don’t you just Walking Bomb her in DA2?

      (You monster)

      • acoff001 says:

        I never thought of that! If I ever replay DA2 that is all I will do for the whole game.

  25. MeestaNob says:

    Witcher 3.

    That is all.

    • kament says:

      That’s the spirit.

      Nah, just kiddin, gotta get me both of ’em. And a little more.

  26. Crosmando says:

    LOL, modern Bioware are incapable of making anything approaching an open-world. EA would just shove it out the door after 14 months to sure up the quarterly financials. Bethesda are able to do it precisely because their parent company ISN’T publicly-traded and can afford to take years to make a game (even if it ends up bugged).

  27. RedViv says:

    While the trailer provides an interesting setup, the aesthetics are just all over the place. Oh well. Just a teaser. Or should I count that as worse, seeing how it’s the first ANYTHING that people get to see of the game?

  28. aepervius says:

    There is only one important question.

    is the gameplay more like DA:O (good!) or more like DA2 (thanks but I’ll pass).

  29. ShockLobster says:

    Not buying that game, confirmed for fall 2014.

  30. Jenks says:

    2014: the year I still won’t be buying games on Origin

  31. Astalnar says:

    Morrigan got uglier.

  32. Crosmando says:

    The fuck is with Morrigan, she was sexy, now she looks like a gypsy transvestite with a masculine jawline

  33. lordfrikk says:

    Fool me once… oh, no, you don’t, Bioware, no, you do not. And you gave us no fucking closure on Morrigan and, to add insult to injury, made her uglier and apparently changed her voice. Ugh.

  34. Dariune says:

    Safe to say I can pass on this unless its miraculously excellent.

    Bioware IMO are incompitent, EA are a cancer on the hobby I enjoy so much and the game will likely be more “Awersome!!!!111one!” mixed with a bland story and a pinch (Just a pinch mind) of dreary gameplay.

  35. Megakoresh says:

    Fall 2014…. Witcher 3 was planned for that period too.

    Battle of the century coming our way in Autumn, 2014.

  36. Aydrian says:

    Oh great. It’s yet another “Lets bitch about Bioware” thread mixed in with “The Witcher games are a gift from God and Bioware is shit in comparison” threads. Wow, you guys just don’t know how to stop do you? Once you jump on that hate train it’s impossible to get off isn’t it?

  37. Chrysoprase says:

    All the Bioware hates on this article it seems. “They screwed up this” and “They screwed up that”.
    I am going to defend DA:2 because believe it or not: I actually liked the game. It was nowhere near as good as origins, and I disliked an awful lot of things about it, but that didn’t stop me from enjoying it. I have yet to see a perfect game, there will always be flaws. The point is to figure out how many you can deal with, and DA:2 really wasn’t that bad. If it had come out before origins, I imagine it would have been a lot better received, but it did not, and fell slightly into the shadow of it’s predecessor.