The Mass Effect Effect: Dragon Age Inquisition’s Multiplayer

Not found in multiplayer: any of this lot.

After being a big grumpbag about Mass Effect 3‘s multiplayer when BioWare announced it, thinking it a cynical cash-grab, I was pleased to discover it was actually pretty fun for a box-ticking feature. So, if you don’t mind, I’d like to skip that rigmarole for Dragon Age: Inquisition. The fantasy RPG will also have a four-player co-op multiplayer mode, BioWare announced yesterday. It sounds like it’ll try the same sort of stuff ME3 was up to, only better.

You can pore over IGN‘s exclusive preview for the minutiae, but in short: it’s a separate four-player co-op PvE mode, only with real-time combat and none of that pausing, about mashing monsters, levelling up, collecting loot, and unlocking more items and characters. BioWare plan to release free DLC with new characters and levels, but will try to lure money out of your purse with a virtual currency to buy grab-bags of instant unlocks. So far, so familiar.

Differences are small but pleasant. Characters are distinct personalities this time, not blank slates, though they’re not any of the main characters. Rather than fixed arenas, Inquisition’s co-op levels are procedurally generated linear doodads which string together a selection of 5 pre-made areas from a possible pool of 10. These are nice-sounding tweaks to the formula, but won’t mean much if Inquisition’s core combat isn’t much fun–and in real-time too. Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer worked because the game was, at heart, a pretty fun shooter.

Dragon Age: Inquisition is due on November 21st, following a slight delay. Here, watch some IGN folks talk about the multiplayer while showing a few snippets:

77 Comments

  1. Premium User Badge

    Lars Westergren says:

    I really wished they put the money into the single player campaign, but it’s the AAA industry for you.

    I think I’m getting it…unless the reviews say it’s really awful. DA2 was a disappointment for me and I never finished it, but it sounds like they are interested in adressing most of the glaring faults I found with it. But DA2 is one of these titles you can’t have a normal discussion about online, so prepare for incoming shitstorm I guess.

    Edit: Instead of preemptively eyerolling about the discussion quality I should really contribute instead and see what happens.

    I liked about DA1: It felt like they were moving a few steps back towards their origins as a RPG company instead of continuing down the path of every more cinematic action.
    Didn’t like: That their new original setting didn’t feel all that original.

    I liked about DA2: Several of the characters (Aveline particularly). That they tried to deviate from the normal “you are teh saviour of teh universe!!” in favor of a more personal and political story. Urban setting. Telling a story over a long time period.
    Didn’t like: Combat that turned into a repetitive joyless grind. Repeated maps. Railroading and illusion of choice. An artstyle that turned more cartoony and a little too anime for my tastes.

    • TormDK says:

      My friends and I are hyped on DA:I single player, but we are by far more interested in the co-op feature.

      Co-op in the Dragon Age universe? sign me up please!

      My circle of friends spent far more time, and far more Money on the multiplayer part of Mass Effect 3, compared to the single player+DLC so if DA:I multiplayer is going to be an improved version then it’s likely going to be a solid co-op experience.

      ME3 multi player was supported an entire year for free with updates to maps, classes and unlocks.

      If we can expect the same on DA:I, then the sum I payed for the Origin deluxe version already is going to be great value for money.

    • Premium User Badge

      FhnuZoag says:

      With large development teams, it’s not really feasible to divert money in that way. You have some guys working on the SP campaign, some more guys working on the multiplayer, and there’s no way you can get the guys working on the single player to work harder by just sacking the multiplayer dudes. Even trying to get more staff working on single player might actually just make things worse and produce a less coherent design.

      Basically, it’s not EA. It’s actually the way the development studios themselves work, with large groups of developers. You want them all to be doing something, and on a big game like this (or, say, Watchdogs) the only way to stop people walking on each other’s toes is to compartmentalize everything.

    • Rizlar says:

      Interestingly, talking of going back to origins, DA3 multiplayer sounds a bit like dungeon crawling à la DnD. Obviously it’s hack and slash rather than role play, but the idea of playing a specific character, exploring dungeons, levelling up and getting loot, relying on party member’s class skills to access specific areas. Teamwork! Sounds cool.

      Also I’ve been playing silly amounts of Payday 2 recently so any four player co-op with class specific abilities influencing the map is gonna sound appealing at this point.

    • Deano2099 says:

      What money? Bioware don’t have a big pot of cash that’s fixed and they can choose what to spend it on.

      Games work to a budget, and that budget is going to be around 50% of what they expect the game to make in revenue (note, all figures made up to illustrate a point).

      By adding in multiplayer, they use a free-to-play model with packs like in ME3 and occasional cheap DLC to make more money on top of the purchase price.

      So if I’m running Dragon Age as a project, my marketing guys say I can expect to sell three million copies, and make $30 on each. So that’s $90 million expected revenue. So my bosses go: right, you have $45 million to make the game with.

      Then my marketing guys go “ME3 made $10 million from multiplayer sales”. So I look at implementing multiplayer. If I do, my expected revenue goes up by $10 million, so the boses will give me an extra $5 million (and they’re happy, because they’re getting their half). So the question is: can I implement multiplayer for less than that? We already have all the assets, it’s just net code and game mode. It turns out, I can do it for $3 million, which means I now have an extra $2 million to put into the single player campaign, which is enough to pay for an entire new line of sub quests, or an extra NPC.

      See also: day-one DLC works the same way – predicted sales from the DLC increase the game budget, which pays for the development of the DLC itself and other things.

  2. Wrathbone says:

    It’s all well and good to say the single player game isn’t affected by the multiplayer side of it, but it sets a worrying precedent. As a gamer who is only interested in single playing gaming, it concerns me that Bioware will see the success of ME3’s multiplayer and, in all likelihood, DA3’s co-op, and think that it’s acceptable or even desired that the single player campaign should have multiplayer elements embedded. I’m sure some people want that, but spare a thought for the many gamers like me who want a purely SP experience. There are plenty of MP games, and pure SP games are a dying breed. No franchise is sacred anymore, it seems.

    • Premium User Badge

      FhnuZoag says:

      They did patch ME3 to strip out the multiplayer requirement from the single player, so I feel like Bioware at least have learnt that particular lesson.

    • TormDK says:

      Gaming is a social thing now more than ever. At the end of the day it’s about revenue impact, and if multiplayer is the way to go (I personally think it is. Friends keep friends playing, and friends keep friends into the DLC loop – so win-win) to get that result, then that is where the industry is going.

      I’m very much looking forward to the isometric viewpoint RPGs coming out (Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2 etc), and I would hope the games that come out after of this ressurection round will feature Co-op as well.

    • Premium User Badge

      Lars Westergren says:

      > and pure SP games are a dying breed

      In AAA definitely, but thanks to Kickstarter and indies we have more single player RPGs on the way than in a decade, so I’m not worried I will run out of good games to play. Shadowrun, Banner Saga, Pillars of Eternity, Torment, Wasteland, D:OS, Dead State, Age of Decadence, plus countless hybrids with other genres like Sunless Sea, InSomnia, Satellite Reign, Hard West etc etc.

      • Wrathbone says:

        It’s true that there are plenty of decent SP indie and Kickstarter games, but I do like AAA RPGs. What I don’t like is the assumption that everyone wants MP. It’s easy to say that it makes more money, but if you take an example such as Skyrim and compare it to Elder Scrolls Online, that doesn’t seem to be a universal truth. The former was a phenomenally successful SP only game which according to Google has generated $1.29bn in revenue, whereas the latter is nowhere near as successful yet in terms of sheer revenue. It’s hard to get an exact figure for ESO, and it’s not really fair to compare them directly due to Skyrim being out much longer, but it’s a solid indicator that MP does not necessarily mean more money.

        • Smoky_the_Bear says:

          Co-op is a selling point though. Lots of people game with friends. One of the reasons that lead to them making ESO, was lots of people saying “We want co-op Skyrim!”. It’s definitely another checkbox that helps the game. As long as the single player isn’t affected and doesn’t require the multiplayer or something (ESO being an MMO completely detached a lot of the Elder Scrolls fanbase who just weren’t interested in that style of gameplay) then adding co-op can definitely be a nice addition to the game.

        • P.Funk says:

          I think its because executives are stupid and narrow minded. They like big words and strategies and campaigns and all kinds of fluffy crap they can sell to the board when they make presentations. They buy into ideas like “multiplayer social DLC sustainment strategy” and then they do their best to jam every single thing they can into that strategy. What succeeds is validation for the strategy, what fails is considered waste or the natural result of any strategy.

          Thats what I think anyway. They see the future in some arbitrary way and they want to get onto that bandwagon and they dont’ care if they ruin one franchise becuase they don’t love it, they dont’ have any respect for Elder Scrolls or Baldur’s Gate or whatever it is. They see a loyal player base they want to try to move into a more favourable DLC model.

          I think of it like a film studio that wants to make a blockbuster and is willing to screw up a handful of great art house productions trying to get onto that big thing. Its well known that often the higher ups force developers to make arbitrary choices that make no sense for the game because it fits the model they’ve adopted, or its what they’re comfortable with, or they think that one arbitrary thing is part of branding the product in such a way as to make it like other successful brands.

          Its like remember when FPSs didn’t have unlocks and level systems? Remember when it wasn’t a grind and every game was more about a single map iteration being a game unto itself, capture the flag, or death match, or whatever? Then one day one or two games hit it big while doing the level system. Then every exec was like “I want that, do it, do it naow” and from then on every game had to have it. Every game now has to have achievements even though I imagine the vast majority of people dont’ give a shit about them.

          In many ways the execs are responsible for ensuring we have such a homogeneous model for development, because they want to emulate those handful of truly successful franchises. Their position as top dogs in the industry makes no guarantees that they’re aren’t total idiots and won’t screw it up. Bioware Austin and the absurdly expensive development of the incredibly bland and ‘focus grouped to death’ SWTOR is evidence of this enough.

      • ssh83 says:

        Ah… that reminds me of Y2K. Pure single player games were declared dead. Multiplayer was declared king.

        Then the industry turned 180, the hypes are the pure-single-player games.

        Now it’s going the other way again.

        History always repeats itself because even if the times and settings change, the human condition remains the same.

      • InternetBatman says:

        Preach it!

    • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

      They specifically clarified that nothing you do in the multiplayer part will have consequences in the main story.

      This simply is meant to be a different thing, although they’re still trying to give what you’re doing in there some sort of narrative sense.

      But yeah, no good ending tied to that and so on.

  3. SuicideKing says:

    it’s a separate four-player co-op PvE mode, only with real-time combat and none of that pausing, about mashing monsters, levelling up, collecting loot, and unlocking more items

    So it’s Borderlands, basically?

    EDIT: Okay no, Diablo.

    • ssh83 says:

      Humans prefer information that fit their own views. They like to simplify things and crop out details so they can pigeonhole brand new things to something they’re used to and understand. This is particularly dangerous when the said person has limited view to begin with, and they lock themselves as the frog in the bottom of the well.

  4. JohnH says:

    Just leave out the part that “forced” you to play multiplayer to max out your singleplayer game ending… That was a boneheaded move!

    • Wulfram says:

      They’ve been quite insistent that this won’t happen. From the FAQ:

      Is MP going to affect my endings in SP?
      · No. Absolutely not. Our goal with Dragon Age multiplayer is not to affect your SP campaign. We simply want to give our fans the chance to play with their friends for the first time in the Dragon Age universe.

      • bleeters says:

        Not that I expect them to repeat the same mistake, but that’s also what they said about Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer prior to release. Bioware were adamant that the co-op mode served as an alternative means of boosting your singleplayer campaign and was in no way required to unlock all the endings. And then the game came out and Shepard died in every ending unless you played it.

        Like I said, I don’t expect them to do it again, but they’re not above just plain making shit up.

        • Dare_Wreck says:

          Wait…

          (er… SPOILERS, if you didn’t read bleeters comment above)

          …was there seriously a ME3 ending where Shepard didn’t die??

          • aepervius says:

            Spoilerish :

            Yes if you had above 5000 effective war points and chose the destruction path , you got a slightly different added ending with the rubble and seeing shepard move or breath.
            Which led to the speculation (giving too much credit to bioware IMHO) that this was the true ending and in reality shepard was endoctrined , and the otehr ending were the endoctrinment leading to full desturction. Whereas if you got a lot of war assets, “fought” endoctrination, and chose destruction, you got the true ending with shepard living and in reality he is still onearth (confirmed by the rubble looking like beton).

            Again giving too much credit to bioware IMHO.

        • HadToLogin says:

          I think if you’re playing using full-save, with all quests done in previous games, then you can get best ending without multiplayer.

          I recall having over 10k Points, which means after cutting them in half (since I didn’t touch the multiplayer) I still would have enough for 5k Alive-Shepard ending.
          Of course, I had to finish every stinking quest first.

          • Dare_Wreck says:

            Huh… well, I did complete all quests in ME3 and in the previous 2 games. I believed I had gotten the best ending in ME3 at the time, though Shepard still didn’t survive, if I recall correctly. Now I need to go look up all the other endings on YouTube…

  5. harperrb says:

    I’m fan of both online experiences and single player crafted stories, but Bioware has become my goto company to avoid. Seemingly every release is less about player immersion and emmersive storytelling replaced with short sighted repetitive action, widened fan base, and higher profit margin

    Looks like mmo trash to me, just like DA2

    • Premium User Badge

      FhnuZoag says:

      And so it begins, the eternal Bioware/EA hate thread.

      • 0positivo says:

        He does have a point tho. Bioware has really dropped in quality lately. Wouldn’t go as far as he goes, but it’s undeniable

        • kament says:

          But it is. Because this claim is older than most of their audience nowadays. Ever since Jade Empire (at the very least) there were gamers decrying this supposed decline in quality. They did lash out on ME for not being “true” RPG (whatever that is). They condemned ME2 for sinking lower still. And somehow they are still at it after all these years, not willing or unable to let go.

          In reality the overall quality of their games has been steadily increasing over the years, even if sometimes it was not to one’s particular liking. Sure, Bioware had their missteps, but who hadn’t?

          Systems, art, usability, cinematics and dialogue (since they’re intertwined ever since KotOR), and last not least graphics all have been made a bit better with each game, if sometimes it came with the cost of streamlining (which became almost expletive in certain circles even when it’s really for the better). This is what’s truly undeniable, unless you’re clinging to the concepts the games used to follow and don’t want anything to ever change.

          • Ieolus says:

            There is streamlining, and then there is going all cartoony and anime in their animations… and its all just a bit too much for this BG and DA:Origins fan.

          • Premium User Badge

            FhnuZoag says:

            No game is going to be enjoyed by everyone, in the end. Decisions have to be made, and decisions will inevitably alienate some people. I just don’t see how affirming that really contributes to the discussion, especially when repeated for the upteenth time.

            All of the Bioware games I have bought, I have enjoyed. The ones I would not have enjoyed, I didn’t buy. The lesson here is to wait for reviews from people you trust, not to try to assign some kind of objective merit/demerit to the Bioware label and blinding purchase or boycott on that basis.

          • kament says:

            @ Ieolus
            It’s one thing to say they stopped doing things the way you like it, and quite another to proclaim their games have dropped in quality.

          • Ieolus says:

            @kament
            I get what you are saying, but to me its the same thing. To me, its junk.

          • kament says:

            @ Ieolus
            Funny how you say you get what I’m talking about and still carry on this little crusade: “Everything I don’t like is junk.” Like it’s not enough to say that you simply don’t like it, like you must devalue the things you don’t like, implications be damned. Who cares about being civil on the Internet anyway, right?

          • Distec says:

            Preface: All opinions on games are subjective and it is up to the individual to gauge their quality. Also, DA2 has fans that prefer it over the first game.

            With that out of the way, I think it’s a little bit different with series and sequels. DA2 was, by most accounts, an inferior RPG to Origins in most respects. People liked to give credit to Bioware for “innovating” with its story setup a little bit, trading out the sweeping epic for more local politics and focus. But given the end result – repetitive copy/paste environments, cramped locales, a static city that never changes – is that credit well-placed? It really does play like a game from another series, and it clearly didn’t deliver what Origins fans wanted. By that measurement, “junk” is a perfectly valid assessment of the game.

            Yes, we tend to really like “more of the same” as exemplified by AC, CoD, and WoW. But I think it’s a real bullshit dismissal to accuse gamers of fearing change and innovation, because I don’t think history supports that claim. The explosive popularity of games like Portal, Minecraft, or the original DOTA are some relatively recent examples. There’s a whole sub-industry of Walking Simulators and other fare that are getting major traction. Telltale’s The Walking Dead, which heavily focuses on characters and dialogue instead of puzzles or “gameplay”, was a huge success.

            I don’t really see anybody going out of their way to poo-poo experimentation or differences in new franchises (take a hint, industry). What DOES get gamers irked is when they order a hamburger and get fish filet instead. When the comparatively nuanced Origins gets turned into a button-masher where you can’t even equip effin’ companion armor, I imagine there is ample reason to be disappointed.

            Unless you just really like an abundance of romance options, which are blatant pandering most of the time.

          • Ieolus says:

            @kament

            Sorry that you don’t like my opinion or how I express it. I’ll stick with it though.

          • kament says:

            @ Distec
            But given the end result – repetitive copy/paste environments, cramped locales, a static city that never changes – is that credit well-placed?
            Tell me, were locales in DAO not cramped? Environments didn’t ever repeat? Cities were not static? They were, and they did, and you know it. So on that front DA2 wasn’t exactly worse than DAO. As for companion customisation, it’s really not the point of Origins. The only major thing I can think of that makes DAO a better RPG are the playable races, namely their origin stories, but I’m not inclined to dismiss the sequel solely on that basis. (Actually, this whole debate over DAO vs. DA2 reminds me too much of ME vs. ME2—same points, same complaints with absolutely the same level of importance and relevance).

            As for the changes, some people just love to rant about how something is not true RPG and they did it when Jade Empire came out, then Mass Effect, so it’s not about series (and it’s not like they just sprang DA2 on you, it was clear as day for anyone who cared that the sequel was going to be different). It’s about the genre. And that some people just think too much of their tastes, of course.

            @ leolus
            Sorry that you don’t like my opinion or how I express it.
            Well, that sounds genuine!

          • Ieolus says:

            @kament

            WTF is wrong with you? You got issues man. You know this IS the Internet right?

            Edit: For the record, *I* loved Mass Effect. All three of them. They have nothing to do with the expectations of a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins.

          • Distec says:

            Tell me, were locales in DAO not cramped? Environments didn’t ever repeat? Cities were not static? They were, and they did, and you know it. So on that front DA2 wasn’t exactly worse than DAO.

            DA:O did have some of that, but DA2 was far worse and showed it far more visibly.

            I don’t expect cities or towns in DA:O to change because I am pretty much hopping all over the map and encountering new places and locales at a regular pace. This is a much bigger deal in the sequel because you stay in one area for 90% of the game and nothing happens. Bioware’s change in scope necessitated a more reactive environment to sell itself. But that didn’t happen, the novel approach got undermined, and the result was thoroughly mediocre compared to the admittedly standard template that came before. The failure wasn’t inherent in their approach, it was just half-assedly realized. Points deducted!

            Yes, there are loud hardcore RPG purists with some very particular ideas of what qualifies as one, and RPG as a term itself is less and less a useful descriptor. But I can only compare a sequel to its predecessor, and DA2 felt lacking in a lot of ways. Most of the attempts to make it “different” didn’t seem to have much commitment and suffered.

            Jade Empire and Mass Effect surely had their critics for not being true RPGs, but ME clearly came into its own and there is not a small amount of affection for JE these days. I would hope Bioware would ignore those naysayers when they are clearly setting out to make a different kind of game. But yeah, they’re playing with fire when they change things up drastically in a franchise that 1) Has already been established. 2) Isn’t, like, a decade older and given the green light for a “reboot”.

          • kament says:

            @ leolus
            You know this IS the Internet right?
            Why, I certainly do. Do you? I was just messing with you, mate. Don’t get worked up.

            @ Distec
            Bioware’s change in scope necessitated a more reactive environment to sell itself.
            I agree with the last part of your statement, but I don’t think it’s so much change in scope as change in… pacing, I guess (I’m struggling for a better word here and my English fails me). What I mean is in my opinion the sequel is pretty much the same scope location-wise, but whereas DAO used one locale at a time for each chunk of its story, DA2 went for quasi-openworld approach, sending you all over the place in each of its acts, and just wasn’t big and diverse and, yes, dynamic enough for this.

            As for some things we used to have in DAO that were indeed absent in DA2… well, like I said, it depends. For me Bioware games since BG2 are pretty much staged interactive narrative, interactions with the characters, that kind of thing, and in this respect DA2 is a great experience and offers more than DAO. In other aspects—not so much, true.

            In fact, this is why I like what they seem to be doing for DAI: they seem to have found a way, finally, to combine their interactive movies (that’s how I qualify their latest games anyway, and I don’t mean that as an insult) with the actual exploration and so forth.

          • Ieolus says:

            @kament
            lol, I’m not worked up, but you definitely did get me. Good job!

          • kament says:

            @ leolus
            It’s all good and friendly (I hope). Cheers!

          • HadToLogin says:

            “In fact, this is why I like what they seem to be doing for DAI: they seem to have found a way, finally, to combine their interactive movies (that’s how I qualify their latest games anyway, and I don’t mean that as an insult) with the actual exploration and so forth.” – I’m guessing that’s my biggest problem with Bioware this days.

            I expect/want RPGs from them, I was getting something completely different. Still looking forward to it, even while expecting another big disappointment because I won’t get RPG I want.

        • P.Funk says:

          Here’s an analogy to help illustrate how people feel about Bioware and why you guys are misunderstanding what people mean by “quality”.

          “Star Trek has begun to suck! Its total crap now! Its been going downhill since TNG and DS9 ended!”

          “What are you talking about? The quality of production has gone up steadily, especially since Abrams took over”

          “But his movies are crap. They’re derivative shiny nonsense that panders to the crowd without having at its core what made people love Trek”

          “You’re just a hater, you don’t like change”

          “I don’t like crappy movies that are all about visuals and shallow themes”

          “Hater”

          Star Trek looks better than ever, but is worse than ever too. Production quality is higher, story and themes are crappier than ever.

          I feel like Bioware has become better at making games, they just dont’ make games that are as “good” in the way that people want them to be. A Bioware game today isn’t like a Bioware game from 10-15 years ago, and as they’ve become more popular their style has changed to something less like the old days and more like now. Its also obvious that being bought by EA forces ever more changes in this direction.

          There are various types of quality, and the quality of the experience for some people is lower because their opinion is that what Bioware is trying to do with its games these days is inferior to what they used to do. Its an accusation against the entire mainstream AAA scene in general, but things always change, particularly after a niche industry goes big.

          Lots of people think mainstream AAA gaming isn’t as good as it used to be, even though there’s more money in it than ever before. How is this possible? Its possible for the same reason that films from the mid to late 70s were better than the blockbusters that had larger budgets that followed the whirlwind success of Star Wars and Jaws that altered forever how films were made.

          But people will always call those opinions about hate.

          • kament says:

            I feel like Bioware has become better at making games, they just dont’ make games that are as “good” in the way that people want them to be.
            Yep. Exactly my point, with addition: and those people think too much of their tastes. They’re not willing to admit that it’s all really subjective. No. They know the truth and can’t help but preach it. They blame publishers, the industry and, let’s be hohest, the majority of the gamers (too casual, less intelligent and so on) for not getting their way. Hence strong words being thrown around.

  6. Quiffle says:

    I’d be happy enough to see an entire game based on ME3’s surprisingly addicting multiplayer, and let them just run away with it. Though while I’ve enjoyed *most* of their games until now, it sure as hell sounds fresher than the Jedi/Specter/Grey Warden/Chosen One horse that they’ve been beating on for years.

  7. BobbyDylan says:

    As a rabid RPG nut, and a fan of ME, and DA:O and DA:A, (not so happy with DA:2) I’m not interested in this game.
    I’ll see what the reviews say, but I wont be pre-ordering it, and I might not buy it at all, unless its of DA:O Quality.

  8. revan says:

    I’ll wait and see with this one. Plenty of great RPGs out there so as not to be forced into buying this. If it’s good, I’ll buy it. Origin exclusivity is putting me off a bit as well. But when some nice sale comes out, why not?

  9. toxic avenger says:

    DA:O fans, nay, gamers are some of the most entitled fans, the hardest to please out of any customer I can think of right now. Maybe comic book fans, but they are so far in the distant second. Every gamer has their own, sometimes arbitrary, yet highly nuanced likes and dislikes and takes personal offense if a game isn’t catered to each and every one of their individual needs. Trite as it may sound, “This is why we can’t have nice things:” developers and publishers are rightfully scared to innovate for fear that something or other will get blown out of proportion and negatively affect sales to the point where a series no longer becomes tenable in the future.

    Now, I for one welcome this new multi-player mode simply because it’s something new. Could it turn out like ass-soup? Of course, anything could, really. If things like this would never have ever made it to the public, I’m not so sure we wouldn’t have had Splinter Cell’s famous asymmetrical multi-player mode IN A SINGLEPLAYER STEALTH GAME to boot, all those years ago.

    Also, if anyone complains about DA:O/2/Inquisition’s writing, yet are fans of the writing of any number of summer block buster, comic book super hero Marvel films, they shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion, really. That topic, however, is for another time.

    • MattMk1 says:

      That’s a hell of a strawman you have there.

      Fans can be entitled and impossible to please, but Bioware’s problems are almost entirely of their own making. Because what a huge percentage of Bioware fans wanted was obvious – they wanted more games that would remind them of Baldur’s Gate 2 and KotOR. They wanted them so much that they were willing to donate millions of dollars to people Kikstarting projects promising to cater to them.

      Also, change is not the same thing as innovation. Tacking a real-time multiplayer mode on to a story-driven RPG is not creative, it’s checking off a box on a list made by marketing. Aside from that, innovation is also not a good thing in and of itself. 90% of everything is crap, old or new.

      • P.Funk says:

        Way to hit the nail on the head!

        I swear I can’t stand those people who attack criticism with the “entitled” word. We are the consumers, we are the ones paying for things. Why are we entitled if we dislike things? Are people who hated the Godfather Part 3 ‘entitled’ because they wanted a movie that was as good as the first two?

        I think its an alarmingly minority perspective that these aren’t just consumer products, these are pieces of culture. Culture matters. If all you had were sticks, stones, a campfire and a handful of stories the one poet in your little clan would write wouldn’t you rightly be angry if the one little kernel of creativity and wonder was turned into hackneyed crap?

        Thats obviously an exaggeration, but culture is important. Its why we get so cranky when its butchered by advertizing and focus groups and executives. Is it entitlement to want something that meant so much to you to continue to be good? No, its natural to criticize things for failing to live up to their own standards as set before.

        Eh.

    • Geebs says:

      I genuinely don’t believe that publishers listen to any feedback apart from sales figures, which makes it literally impossible for even the most ‘entitled’ *ptooie* customer to ruin anything. You’re just getting the wrong end of the stick because some PR guy figured out that it’s a good idea to pretend to have been listening.

    • Ieolus says:

      “DA:O fans, nay, gamers are some of the most entitled fans, the hardest to please out of any customer I can think of right now”

      Why because we wanted more “Origins”?

      • Gog Magog says:

        Gad fucking knows that last thing I ever wanted was even more origins. Origins are to be remote and remembered only in the hushed whispers of grave theogony.

        Although aside from the retarded title (as opposed to Awakening, which at least tied into the plot of the expansion very clearly if obtrusively) I too wanted another game in the style of the first Dragon Age and there ain’t been a thing to meet that demand.
        There’s been plenty other games where you make a character and find an adventure or five hundred and for the most part they were better too. Nobody would call Dragon Age “good” in any way. But it was something I got sunk in and found it worth my time so there.
        GIMME SOME MORE ILL TAKE IT ALL

        • Ieolus says:

          @Gog Magog
          Sorry, by “Origins” I meant the first game, not more origins as in the separate beginnings of the game.

          I agree with most of what you said, but I must take exception here.. “Nobody would call Dragon Age “good” in any way”. Not so.

          • Rizlar says:

            I believe the only two descriptors allowed are ‘amazing’ and ‘bag of shite’.

  10. Zekiel says:

    Awww! I was hoping you WOULD be able to pause during multiplayer. That would be hilarious*.

    *Incredibly irritating.

    • derbefrier says:

      Heh makes me think of playing baulders gate coop. Its so damn irritating with 4 people trying to pause and unpause in a fight.

  11. aircool says:

    So it’s just an ARPG then?

  12. WiggumEsquilax says:

    Did, did RPS just plug IGN?!

    RPS down. Baaaad RPS.

  13. cpt_freakout says:

    Given DA 2’s MMO-aping mechanics this might feel like doing a short dungeon in any given current MMO, which is… nice? I guess most people that care about the series couldn’t care less about this, but hey, maybe it’s the next Counterstrike… right??? *silence*

  14. MkMax says:

    Multiplayer ? really ? and this is a coop with the main campaign, not a separate campaign specially designed for mp ? …. oh boy,, im going to need popcorn

    • Big Murray says:

      It’s not co-op with the main campaign? It’s a separate multiplayer mode.

  15. bleeters says:

    Hmm.

    Unlocks purchased with currency in the form of random item crates.
    Microtransaction system to alternatively purchase said random item crates for real money.
    Citing of Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer as a success and its microtransaction system as the base model for DA3’s.

    Yeah, see, here’s where I get antsy. Mass Effect 3’s unlock system for obtaining new characters and equipment was a glacially slow process designed to test your patience against your reluctance to spend in the hopes the former would buckle and you’d just shell out money trying to get the one reward you actually wanted no stop giving me predator pistols and human adept cards I just want to try out the new alliance infiltrator class damnit.

    I’ll have to see how it turns out, but it comes across like more of the standard EA sanctioned practice of making playing without constantly spending possible but just a little too irritating and unrewarding.

  16. Megakoresh says:

    In this case I am inclined to agree with the author that it will much depend on the combat of the game. Specifically on it’s action part. As I was always advocating the “true” action combat in DA with the pause/tactical mode being rather separated (think Transistor or something like that). If it will be that, with no autoattacks, with timing, critical hits, combos and physics-based hit registering, and if enemies will be as good as they were in ME3 (which is pretty damn difficult – ME3 is the best horde mode coop shooter I have ever played, due in large part to the enemy design), then I guess I can’t complain.

    But Open World, the whole guild management metagame, huge bosses, graphics upgrade AND a shot at one of the most stellar coop shooters of all time? Isn’t that a bit of a stretch? Never forget just how much ME3 suffered. It’s Single Player is the weakest of the series by a LOOOONGshot. It was terrible from start to finish, it had less or completely missed all the best things the series was loved for. It was a disaster. On the flipside it’s MP was one of the best MP PvE shooters ever made. And to be honest I’d rather have a stellar SP from DAI, than a stellar MP mode. MP isn’t what DA is about.

    • Distec says:

      I remember you making a similar comment on another DA:I article in regards to the gameplay; on how you want physics-based manual combat.

      You know it’s not going to be that, right?

      • Megakoresh says:

        I don’t. It’s very difficult to see from videos. But if it is going to be target-based with autoattacks and, well effectively MMORPG autoattack crap with action camera (like in previous DA games when you zoomed in), then this whole PvE thing is as good as dead. Then it will be a waste of money as I don’t see anyone being interested in shit like that for long. Do you think BioWare could be that stupid? I don’t want to believe that.

  17. Wedge says:

    It honestly just seems a bit nonsensical to include this as part of the main game, since it’s totally unrelated. Considering all the popularity in cross-game franchise promotion, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t just develop it as a spin-off standalone downloadable title or something.

    • Rizlar says:

      Kind of true, but I’m glad of the multiplayer strap ons. I would be very unlikely to try a DA themed standalone F2P game, but if I play Inquisition at some point I will definitely give it a go.

  18. Laurentius says:

    I was cautiously looking at this game when first videos were shown but the more of them crop the worse this game looks, same goes with Witcher 3. Big budgets, horrible trailers, stale, repetitive and streamlined gamepaly and in the age where cRPG from croundfunding are bringing the old good days againa. Still in the race to the bottom, from what I’ve seen so far Dragon Age 3 is still loosing to Witcher 3.

    • kament says:

      I think we can discuss which of the games is loosing once the Witcher brings PC customisation, party-based combat and story to the table. So far they’re just too different to compare. Same goes for the croud-funded games mimicking the old days of yore.

      • Laurentius says:

        You do undesrstand that you don’t want to be wining race to the bottom, meaning DA3 still looks less appalling then Witcher 3.

        • kament says:

          Oops. Somehow the part about race to the bottom slipped my mind. Objection withdrawn. )) Although my point still stands: those games are too different to even be in the same race.

  19. frogulox says:

    So if its known characters and pve coop.. me3 pve is certainlu an option, though I wonder whether theyll have a crack at some kind of lane based horde defender a la fates forever vs bots.

    You since its a popular genre and not oversaturated or anything

  20. rexx.sabotage says:

    Broware® Keeping the bros together

    • green frog says:

      I always get a kick out of the sheer illogic of this meme. Broware? Of course, because there’s nothing your typical dudebro loves more than elves and dragons and gay romance options.