Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.

[Beowulf DW]

20th century history isn't your strong point, huh? Because compared to that, the stuff in DA seems fairly minor.

True enough. But when you have so many years between the other crises in the timeline, it just strikes me as...well, I don't know, it's just that in so many fantasy and sci-fi works have things happening so quickly. Wars that only take a few months or a year (you see this in Lord of the Rings and Mass Effect 3) when they usually take at least a few years, at least when they occur on the scale described in said works.

It's always something that bothered me. At least Fable 2 and DA2 avoided that with it's time skips.

[Dienekes]

Ehh it sort of depends, even in the medieval and renaissance period a lot of stuff can happen in a very short time. Just try and read about all the wars happening during the Holy Roman Empire between all of the nobles. Now admittedly these are mostly fairly small wars, comparatively but there were some big ones too. Hell picking a specific period for early renaissance Italy had a French invasion, the upheaval of Florence, the reign of Pope Julius II (the War Pope), the reign of the Borgias (I know I'm a bit out of order here), and quite a lot more.

Frankly a lot of **** can happen in 100 years if the political climate is right.

[VanBuren]

The direction BioWare intends to follow with Dragon Age III seems to have been the primary subject of a PAX East panel with lead designer Mike Laidlaw, at least according to this GameTrailers report. Less recycled areas, more customization, and decisions that really matter seem to be some of the areas on which the team will focus more on the next title:

"Suppose, in your party, you have a Gray Warden. And suppose you had a Seeker," he said, showing a male Gray Warden and female Seeker. "And you had this thing: a suit of armor, a chest piece, and it had stats and stuff."

Laidlaw showed that armor set applied to the Warden, then to the Seeker, in concept art form. The armor looked slightly different on each, with "thematic" aesthetic differences applied so "they don't lose their identity in the process." Laidlaw then showed a slew of concept art, with various armor pieces from helmets to shoulder guards to bracers, then full sets, each applied to the two different classes.

He also teased the possibility that players might be able to fully customize armor pieces, applying color and types of material (cloth, leather, mail) to armor sets.

On the topic of "decisions that matter," Laidlaw said BioWare is looking to add more character agency ("My character has an active effect on his or her world, determined by my choices") and player agency ("I have control over my gameplay experience") to future Dragon Age games.

And player decisions that carry over from game to game could be given more attention, he said.

This doesn't look too different from the stuff BioWare talked about at PAX Prime last year, but it's good that at least those principles haven't been abandoned.

Update: Mike Laidlaw has been tweeting some questions and answers from his panels too:

Q1: Will we be able to talk more freely with followers? As in: Not just when they have a quest?

A1: Yes! Lots of interactions in DAII, but limited access. We will make sure you can have "fireside chats"...or hugs...when you want.

Q2: Voiced Main Character? Yes/No?

A2: Voiced. However, team's working on ways to improve clarity/predictability of wheel. More details to come, will want feedback on new bits

Q3, from Dawn of the Seeker Q&A: Will DotS have any info about Morrigan?

Q4: Nope, Morrigan's only for the games. Too personal for a fixed script. Can confirm there WILL be more of her story coming.

Q5, from Bioware Base: Enchantment?

A5: Enchantment!

Q6: Will we see more class-specific stuff? Mage only storylines, etc.

A6: Yes. In general, more exclusive content based on how you play / choices you make on all fronts.

A6b: Considering more story impact for specializations, for instance. (Blood Mage, especially.)

[Kish]

A6b: Considering more story impact for specializations, for instance. (Blood Mage, especially.)

Glad to hear this.

It makes me wonder (though I certainly won't take advantage of this option if it's present, personally) if the templar specialization in Dragon Age 3 will mean you're an actual lyrium-addicted, chantry-bound templar, rather than the "I just know the abilities" route taken in Dragon Age 1 and 2.

[Divayth Fyr]

While I like they plan to expand the role of the specializations (making them more than a bonus and a set of abilities), I hope they will make them work for all character types instead of forcing an alignment (ie. by making all possible quest work only for a dogooder or an evil madman)...

It makes me wonder (though I certainly won't take advantage of this option if it's present, personally) if the templar specialization in Dragon Age 3 will mean you're an actual lyrium-addicted, chantry-bound templar, rather than the "I just know the abilities" route taken in Dragon Age 1 and 2.

Asunder spoiler

Spoiler

Show

The Templar order no longer acknowledges the Chantry's authority - they work as they see fit themselves.

While I wouldn't mind seeing the lyrium addiction make it's way into DAIII, I seriously doubt it will be added (they did remove it from DAO - also, it would affect mages as well as the Templar).

[Dienekes]

While I like they plan to expand the role of the specializations (making them more than a bonus and a set of abilities), I hope they will make them work for all character types instead of forcing an alignment (ie. by making all possible quest work only for a dogooder or an evil madman)...



Asunder spoiler

Spoiler

Show

The Templar order no longer acknowledges the Chantry's authority - they work as they see fit themselves.

While I wouldn't mind seeing the lyrium addiction make it's way into DAIII, I seriously doubt it will be added (they did remove it from DAO - also, it would affect mages as well as the Templar).

You see I'm the opposite, I'd rather like if, for some specializations anyway, the quests really do force an alignment or at least put them in situations where an alignment would be most beneficial. Specifically I'm thinking of Blood Mage, Reaver, Templar, Spirit Healer, and Assassin, where there would be more weight behind them if they gave quests where you make deals with demons, hunt down apostates, and get paid to go murder someone.

I think that would fit the narrative of the world better, and add more thought into taking a specialization other than what abilities it grants.

[Divayth Fyr]

You see I'm the opposite, I'd rather like if, for some specializations anyway, the quests really do force an alignment or at least put them in situations where an alignment would be most beneficial. Specifically I'm thinking of Blood Mage, Reaver, Templar, Spirit Healer, and Assassin, where there would be more weight behind them if they gave quests where you make deals with demons, hunt down apostates, and get paid to go murder someone.

I think that would fit the narrative of the world better, and add more thought into taking a specialization other than what abilities it grants.

I wouldn't mind giving the players of a specific alignment a greater reward for their specialization quest - but I also wouldn't like forcing the player to do them in a specific way. Blood mages can make deals with demons - but their magic is also the best way to bind them. I never cared much for Reavers, so didn't give them much though anyway. In the political climate of DAIII the Templars

Spoiler

Show

could be on one of 3 sides: mages, Chantry, Seekers

. Spirit Halers have little room to manouver - their shtick is "being a better healer", so there's not much to work with. Assassins also don't have that much wiggle room - the entire point of the class is "I kill people for money" (the only way to make a "good" assassin would probably be something like "I kill only evil people" - but that isn't really good).

[Kish]

Wait, I'm confused.

There are protagonists of Dragon Age 1, or 2, or any other CRPG ever released, who don't spend most of their time killing people for money?

[Divayth Fyr]

Wait, I'm confused.

There are protagonists of Dragon Age 1, or 2, or any other CRPG ever released, who don't spend most of their time killing people for money?

Not really - but there's no real reason for that (or for the fact that the authorities don't do anything with them) apart from the RPG standard of "we're a party of murdering, looting hobos" ;) And even despite that, options that are created with a backstory of "I kill people for money" are marked as evil (non-good at the very best)...

[Dienekes]

I wouldn't mind giving the players of a specific alignment a greater reward for their specialization quest - but I also wouldn't like forcing the player to do them in a specific way. Blood mages can make deals with demons - but their magic is also the best way to bind them. I never cared much for Reavers, so didn't give them much though anyway. In the political climate of DAIII the Templars

Spoiler

Show

could be on one of 3 sides: mages, Chantry, Seekers

. Spirit Halers have little room to manouver - their shtick is "being a better healer", so there's not much to work with. Assassins also don't have that much wiggle room - the entire point of the class is "I kill people for money" (the only way to make a "good" assassin would probably be something like "I kill only evil people" - but that isn't really good).

You see in the "Dienekes Dream Game" which will in all likelihood have nothing to do with the actual game which would probably be better than it anyway. Specializations open up quest lines. Which can take divergent paths of following the group that gave you the quest or turning them into enemies.

For instance after becoming a Blood Mage your mentor figure puts you on some morally grey missions, then finally asks you to release a demon in a city that is overrun by Templars but will inevitably cause a lot of civilian casualties, where you can choose to help or hinder him and then either gain a powerful ally in the last battle or have to fight them and finish them off beforehand. That I think would be pretty cool

[VanBuren]

You see I'm the opposite, I'd rather like if, for some specializations anyway, the quests really do force an alignment or at least put them in situations where an alignment would be most beneficial. Specifically I'm thinking of Blood Mage, Reaver, Templar, Spirit Healer, and Assassin, where there would be more weight behind them if they gave quests where you make deals with demons, hunt down apostates, and get paid to go murder someone.

I think that would fit the narrative of the world better, and add more thought into taking a specialization other than what abilities it grants.

I don't agree. Sure, make them so that certain alignments are encouraged and maybe make things easier, but the moment you say "you took this specialization, so you can only do evil things" is the moment I decide not to buy the game.

Well... maybe not. I'm not a one-issue gamer, but you get my point.

[Craft (Cheese)]

"Suppose, in your party, you have a Gray Warden. And suppose you had a Seeker," he said, showing a male Gray Warden and female Seeker. "And you had this thing: a suit of armor, a chest piece, and it had stats and stuff."

Laidlaw showed that armor set applied to the Warden, then to the Seeker, in concept art form. The armor looked slightly different on each, with "thematic" aesthetic differences applied so "they don't lose their identity in the process." Laidlaw then showed a slew of concept art, with various armor pieces from helmets to shoulder guards to bracers, then full sets, each applied to the two different classes.

He also teased the possibility that players might be able to fully customize armor pieces, applying color and types of material (cloth, leather, mail) to armor sets.

I don't like the sound of this: Having, say, three different appearance types for each armor just means there's 1/3rd the number of armors in the game. It sounds like what they really want to do here is have customization of stats, but make stats more divorced from appearance. If that's what they want to do here then, well, why not just do that?

And player decisions that carry over from game to game could be given more attention, he said.

Well, they can hardly do worse than DA2's "It gets mentioned in a codex entry what choice was made, at maximum." Yes I'm still bitter about Leliana and Anders flat-out ignoring the events of DAO/DAA. Making Anders' DA2 apperance consistent with the range of his possible fates in DAA would require major changes to the plot but Leliana was just unnecessary.


As for specialization-based quest lines, I'm all for having stuff like blood mage-exclusive content, I just hope it's handled well. Having played a chaotic good-aligned blood mage in the first two titles, I'd be really disappointed if taking the specialization required me to become a mustache-twirling villain.

[Luzahn]

Has there been any word on the racial customization of our character? As in, will we be following an Origins model, or a II model?

[Joran]

I don't like the sound of this: Having, say, three different appearance types for each armor just means there's 1/3rd the number of armors in the game. It sounds like what they really want to do here is have customization of stats, but make stats more divorced from appearance. If that's what they want to do here then, well, why not just do that?

I think it's an attempt to avoid the dreaded Football Helmet Clown Shoes Guy. Or in other words, as you said, divorce appearance from stats. Hypothetically, you can then share equipment with your squadmates (which was removed from DA2 for appearance purposes) or put together equipment that doesn't clash.

I remember dressing up Wynne in mage robes that made her look like a wild witch instead of a proper tower mage.

[Dienekes]

I don't agree. Sure, make them so that certain alignments are encouraged and maybe make things easier, but the moment you say "you took this specialization, so you can only do evil things" is the moment I decide not to buy the game.

Well... maybe not. I'm not a one-issue gamer, but you get my point.

They already toyed with the idea of alignment specific specializations in DAO with the Reaver specialization, I wouldn't be opposed to more of that. Gaining Reaver means helping an insane, destructive, cult. Gaining Templar means joining the Templars. Gaining Blood Mage means sacrificing some slaves to fuel your blood magic. Gaining Spirit Healer means having to go on a quest to free a good spirit. Etc.

I do not want taking a specialization to mean you cannot control your character. But to gain a specialization you must do a good or evil deed? I think that works well.

[Luzahn]

They already toyed with the idea of alignment specific specializations in DAO with the Reaver specialization, I wouldn't be opposed to more of that. Gaining Reaver means helping an insane, destructive, cult. Gaining Templar means joining the Templars. Gaining Blood Mage means sacrificing some slaves to fuel your blood magic. Gaining Spirit Healer means having to go on a quest to free a good spirit. Etc.

I do not want taking a specialization to mean you cannot control your character. But to gain a specialization you must do a good or evil deed? I think that works well.

This kind of mechanism has always seemed odd concerning Evil alignments. Namely, evil alignments can commit good deeds for the rewards they bring, but Good alignments cannot commit evil deeds without being disqualified from goodness.

Of course, as with all alignment debate, this is open to interpretation.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Has there been any word on the racial customization of our character? As in, will we be following an Origins model, or a II model?

Doubtful, considering the character is fully voiced again. It triples the amount of voice work that needs to be done unless they be really lazy and have the same voice for all three races. Though it would be nice to have character background choices that actually mean something.

[VanBuren]

They already toyed with the idea of alignment specific specializations in DAO with the Reaver specialization, I wouldn't be opposed to more of that. Gaining Reaver means helping an insane, destructive, cult. Gaining Templar means joining the Templars. Gaining Blood Mage means sacrificing some slaves to fuel your blood magic. Gaining Spirit Healer means having to go on a quest to free a good spirit. Etc.

I do not want taking a specialization to mean you cannot control your character. But to gain a specialization you must do a good or evil deed? I think that works well.

Except there's really no such thing as a "good spirit", remember? Spirits are spirits are spirits. The only reason some of them are called demons is because the mortals of Thedas are trying to force them into a moral framework that they don't actually operate by.

Anders made this very mistake by assuming that a spirit of Justice would be less dangerous than a Pride demon because of that.

[Dienekes]

Except there's really no such thing as a "good spirit", remember? Spirits are spirits are spirits. The only reason some of them are called demons is because the mortals of Thedas are trying to force them into a moral framework that they don't actually operate by.

Anders made this very mistake by assuming that a spirit of Justice would be less dangerous than a Pride demon because of that.

A minor quibble with my overall point, but fair enough. Though admittedly I wouldn't call Wynne's Faith spirit evil.

[Divayth Fyr]

They already toyed with the idea of alignment specific specializations in DAO with the Reaver specialization, I wouldn't be opposed to more of that. Gaining Reaver means helping an insane, destructive, cult. Gaining Templar means joining the Templars. Gaining Blood Mage means sacrificing some slaves to fuel your blood magic. Gaining Spirit Healer means having to go on a quest to free a good spirit. Etc.

Meh, not a fan of the Blood Mage one (why would we need to sacrifice anyone if the magic can be fueled entirely by our own health?), not fond of the Spirit Haler as well (who would imprison the spirit? And why?). And seeing the setting for DAIII I somehow doubt they would restrict the Templar spec to just one of the 3 main factions...

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think the most tasteful solution here is to handle it this way: Having a particular specialization or class should never limit* the player's options in handling a situation but should instead always expand them and provide new ways of attacking problems, whether in-cutscene or out. Think of it like Hawke's personality types in DA2: Having a sarcastic personality gives you the option of luring guards away by claiming there's a fire in that one quest, for instance.

Following from this, a much better blood mage example idea: A standard quest where you have to stop a cabal of blood mages who are terrorizing a village or something. Normally the quest has to end in the deaths of the mages one way or another, but Blood Mage characters have the option of negotiating and solving the conflict without violence (as they're more willing to listen to reason coming from one of their own or something).

Stuff like "sacrifice an innocent person to power some blood magic to solve the problem" can still exist, it should just be a third option, provided in addition to (rather than instead of) things also available to other characters.

*Not counting opportunity cost, of course.

[Divayth Fyr]

I definately agree with you - I'm all for new options being available thanks to having a certain specialization. I also fully accept cases in which doing things in a particular (even if nasty) way gives you a better reward (ie. an additional ability/item) or is easier. In some cases having it this way fits the lore better (things like having a blood mage be able to sacrifice someone or make a pact with a demon make sense, but I wouldn't want having them as the only way to do a quest - but as the only way to get a particular reward these are perfectly viable). It can be hard to imagine a particular character as "good" (the often mentioned blood mage or reavers), but if you want, it is doable.

[Dienekes]

Meh, not a fan of the Blood Mage one (why would we need to sacrifice anyone if the magic can be fueled entirely by our own health?), not fond of the Spirit Haler as well (who would imprison the spirit? And why?). And seeing the setting for DAIII I somehow doubt they would restrict the Templar spec to just one of the 3 main factions...

Admittedly, my examples were made after roughly 30 seconds of thought put into them. But I do like the Blood Mage one, since many characters the game brings up who are blood mages are rather evil, having one of them be the trainer could work. Though details should be changed and whatnot.

I think the most tasteful solution here is to handle it this way: Having a particular specialization or class should never limit* the player's options in handling a situation but should instead always expand them and provide new ways of attacking problems, whether in-cutscene or out. Think of it like Hawke's personality types in DA2: Having a sarcastic personality gives you the option of luring guards away by claiming there's a fire in that one quest, for instance.

Following from this, a much better blood mage example idea: A standard quest where you have to stop a cabal of blood mages who are terrorizing a village or something. Normally the quest has to end in the deaths of the mages one way or another, but Blood Mage characters have the option of negotiating and solving the conflict without violence (as they're more willing to listen to reason coming from one of their own or something).

Stuff like "sacrifice an innocent person to power some blood magic to solve the problem" can still exist, it should just be a third option, provided in addition to (rather than instead of) things also available to other characters.

*Not counting opportunity cost, of course.

However this is a very interesting idea and I think it should be added as well.

[Androgeus]

But I do like the Blood Mage one, since many characters the game brings up who are blood mages are rather evil

Lets not start this again.

[Dienekes]

Lets not start this again.

I'm not really, we know there are non-evil blood mages. But after we saw Merril, I'd like a real puppy kicker. Preferably from Tevinter.

[Beowulf DW]

I'm not really, we know there are non-evil blood mages. But after we saw Merril, I'd like a real puppy kicker. Preferably from Tevinter.

I'd be all right with that, so long as he only kicked the puppy because he refused to stop walking.

Tevinter magisters strike me as people who will do anything to get ahead. Not to be evil for the sake of evil, but because they pursue their ambitions with such focus that it almost becomes admirable.

[Dienekes]

I'd be all right with that, so long as he only kicked the puppy because he refused to stop walking.

Tevinter magisters strike me as people who will do anything to get ahead. Not to be evil for the sake of evil, but because they pursue their ambitions with such focus that it almost becomes admirable.

That could work. A powerful Tevinter mage with the same goal as your character but completely heartless about achieving it, doing all the morally repugnant things that Tevinter is known for. Bonus points if they end up making him one of the more charismatic and engaging characters in the game.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Quick question for people who have been keeping up with this stuff: How is DA3 handling companion specializations? More like DAO, or more like DA2?

[Beowulf DW]

That could work. A powerful Tevinter mage with the same goal as your character but completely heartless about achieving it, doing all the morally repugnant things that Tevinter is known for. Bonus points if they end up making him one of the more charismatic and engaging characters in the game.

Hmm...Considering the state of the Chantry, the player character could be on a mission for the White Divine. The Tevinter mage could be on a mission for the Black Divine. That could work well indeed.

[Cristo Meyers]

Quick question for people who have been keeping up with this stuff: How is DA3 handling companion specializations? More like DAO, or more like DA2?

At this point all we have is speculation. There's really nothing concrete.

Heck, at PAX Laidlaw specifically pointed out that nothing he said was a promise.