Dragon Age VI: Siege Harder

[Sajiri]

So, I bought this game when it came out but it was so utterly brokenly unplayable (how on earth do you **** up a AAA title so bad you FALL THROUGH THE TERRAIN IN THE TUTORIAL) I didn't touch it until someone recently assured me it had been fixed at some point. Starting my first playthrough now (sorta).

I've made two characters to get a feel for the game, taking them both up to level 7 or 8. A Dwarf Rogue (Dual Wield) and an Elf Mage.

With as little spoilers as possible, can anyone tell me:

A.) Whether the game has enough depth of choice to justify two playthroughs (will they give significantly different experiences with different dialogue and choices or is it a more standard diamond plot?)

B.) Whether being a mage enhances the game experience RP/story-wise like it did in Origins

C.) Whether Mages ever become remotely interesting to play (why is it with every sequel the available spell options becomes smaller and less interesting?). I already know basically what the specializations do, but not sure how that translates into play.

D.) Is DLC worth it? To purchase before finishing the game, or no? Basically are we looking at more "Return to Ostagar" or more "Awakening"? While it's on sale I may as well buy the GOTY edition if so since it's so much cheaper than just buying the add-ons.

Basically I want to play a mage for the extra story elements that may exist but man has it been boring. I've been having fun tele-ganking people with the Rogue a lot more, but this seems a game to play more for the narrative than the gameplay either way, for better and worse.

A) I think this depends on what's important to you. There is really only ONE major choice (It will be an entirely seperate mission/quest depending on which you choose), and there will be various quests that follow up after it. If you're into the romances, well there's choices for other playthroughs. There are some minor roleplaying/dialogue options you can choose. You can play the different classes as well, but I suppose if you arent into the combat that wouldnt matter

B) Well...you're the inquisitor, and you're a mage, thats probably hard for some to swallow. There are some unique dialogues that come up based on that but it's not much at all. Some NPCs will comment differently on your class and spec.

C) Its been a long time since I played a mage, and I always went knight-enchanter. That spec was bother fun as hell and...really boring. I felt like it had some fun mechanics and was a blast at first, but it did get kinda boring/easy mode after a while (Unless it was nerfed in some way it was basically unkillable, so even soloing dragons wasnt much of a threat). Personally I found dual wield assassin super fun, and you could use the respec item to switch between bow and dualwielding to mix things up occasionally if you wanted.

D) If you get invested in the story, Trespasser is absolutely worth it. You dont really need it until you've finished the main story though. Jaws of Hakkon had story, it was enjoyable to me. Descent I never played so I cant comment on it. Maybe I'll look into getting that sometime

[Keltest]

So, I bought this game when it came out but it was so utterly brokenly unplayable (how on earth do you **** up a AAA title so bad you FALL THROUGH THE TERRAIN IN THE TUTORIAL) I didn't touch it until someone recently assured me it had been fixed at some point. Starting my first playthrough now (sorta).

I've made two characters to get a feel for the game, taking them both up to level 7 or 8. A Dwarf Rogue (Dual Wield) and an Elf Mage.

With as little spoilers as possible, can anyone tell me:

A.) Whether the game has enough depth of choice to justify two playthroughs (will they give significantly different experiences with different dialogue and choices or is it a more standard diamond plot?)

B.) Whether being a mage enhances the game experience RP/story-wise like it did in Origins

C.) Whether Mages ever become remotely interesting to play (why is it with every sequel the available spell options becomes smaller and less interesting?). I already know basically what the specializations do, but not sure how that translates into play.

D.) Is DLC worth it? To purchase before finishing the game, or no? Basically are we looking at more "Return to Ostagar" or more "Awakening"? While it's on sale I may as well buy the GOTY edition if so since it's so much cheaper than just buying the add-ons.

Basically I want to play a mage for the extra story elements that may exist but man has it been boring. I've been having fun tele-ganking people with the Rogue a lot more, but this seems a game to play more for the narrative than the gameplay either way, for better and worse.

In my opinion
A: yes. There are a few mutually exclusive options that affect how your companions think of you, which allies the inquisition gets, and what missions are available.

B: Yes. People will react differently if you are a mage, it opens up unique dialogue options (in addition to your racial dialogues) and at one point actually makes the game harder because you have to do some court intrigue.

C: that depends on the mage build I think. I deeply enjoyed my "kill the crap out of them" fire mage necromancer. He did a lot of damage and had a very satisfying ability to blow things up. You can probably find a style that you like.

D: Its a mix of both. I only have trespasser, and you HAVE to finish the game before you can access the quests that come from it, but it also adds a bunch of extra skill improvements (which don't even cost any points if you have the existing one unlocked) and a bunch more items.

[Morty]

The amount of unique interaction you get as a mage is about on par with the previous games. You get extra dialogue now and then. Far more than warriors and rogues got, certainly. Playing a mage is... alright, I suppose. Inquisition's combat isn't too great in general, but mages aren't worse off than others. At least they can't solo everything with Storm of the Century.

Of the DLC, I'd say Descent and Trespasser are definitely worth it. Jaws of Hakkon are take it or leave it.

[Rynjin]

At least they can't solo everything with Storm of the Century.

Because I'm a hypocrite (because I hate that mages are the bestest in D&D), this is actually why I think DA:O did mages the best. There is all this talk about how mages are living artillery, so dangerous they need to be locked up and have the key thrown away, but the general populace will settle for "Imprisoned and watched over by armed guards who will kill them with barely a moment's thought" as a lesser alternative, even if they do grumble about it not being enough.

In DA:O this is borne out. You can cause firestorms (and blizzards and thunderstorms), throw explosive balls of fire, raise the dead, turn people into living bombs, cause the blood of everyone within a certain radius to explode out of every orifice they have, shove that blood back into them and hold them immobile while you slit their throat, summon clouds of poison and darkness, toss on enough passive buffs to wade through an army unscathed while looking like a vengeful ghost, and generally all around creep out or **** up anyone within your line of sight.

In Dragon Age 2, it's a bit more limited but you can still toss fireballs, freeze people, turn them to stone, paralyze, terrify, or induce sleep in them, turn them into a living bomb, and eat their damned souls for a slight mana top up.

In Inquisition you can deal fire, ice, or lightning damage to a single or very limited number of multiple targets. Yaaaaaaay. The spell I come closest to having fun with is Ice Mine.

I tried to justify this by saying my mage was self-taught. That explains why he sucks ass compared to the Warden.

[Kish]

Yes, I agree. Balance is sometimes valuable, but if they're going to push "this class is way better than the others," I prefer for the mechanics to bear that out.

[Keltest]

Overall, I think ive managed to push out the most raw damage as a mage, but I had to give up pretty much all other utility they provide to do so. I could have played a rogue and done about as well at what I did, though admittedly it wouldn't have been nearly as flashy.

But man is it satisfying pointing and making an area blow up.

[Rynjin]

Where are the blow stuff up powers? The only true AoEs I've seen are Ice Mine and Blizzard.

[Dienekes]

Yes, I agree. Balance is sometimes valuable, but if they're going to push "this class is way better than the others," I prefer for the mechanics to bear that out.

Well, there is a way to get around that, if the powerful magics are slower and more complicated the argument could be made that they're still powerful but that doesn't come into play in normal combat.

Of course Bioware hasn't done that. In the games enemy mages just sort of randomly and easily send out insanely powerful magic at a moments notice if it works for the boss fight.

Honestly though while I think balance should be given more than a nod, it would work if the classes were more focused. Show that mages are artillery that can take down a room of mooks/normal people but not also amazing tanks, or amazing single target dps. That even lets the setting make sense that trained Templars have a chance against most mages. Leave that to the others. Mages in Origin were problematic because their AOE was strong enough to kill everything boss and mook and they had a prestige class that also let them tank.

But I'll say the real problem, as I see it, is that Origin had a very interesting system of spell combos that created a decent deal of depth like setting Grease on fire and so on (at least until people realized Storm of the Century cleared out every room). But instead of focusing on that, and maybe adding it to the other classes in their own combos and things to discover they neutered the system with cross-class combos that don't really have much an interesting effect except just a bit more damage.

[Morty]

If your idea of fun is for mages to blow everything up while other party members serve as decoration, I suppose Origins is best. This is not my idea of fun, so I'm glad the other games toned it way down. This is largely because mages aren't my first choice of protagonists, and I do prefer it when my character isn't decoration.

Now, to be fair, Inquisition's mages do feel constrained and unimpressive. But if the alternative is their status in Origins, I'd gladly take Inquisition. The ideal would be a solution where mages are impressive but not overpowered - but Bioware can't or won't give us that. They seemed to be getting close in DA2, but went in a completely different direction in Inquisition.

[Keltest]

Where are the blow stuff up powers? The only true AoEs I've seen are Ice Mine and Blizzard.

Fire Mine and other fire skills.

Also, mobs in general have higher health in inquisiton

[Anteros]

From a gameplay perspective you can't make mages vastly more powerful without alienating a huge portion of your customer base.

From a story perspective you can justify the equal power fairly easy. The fact that your inquisitor or party members can pick up a sword and go toe to toe with a mage makes them the exception rather than the rule. Any mage can become immensely dangerous to the entire population with one slip-up. It takes a lifetime of training, combined with a generational talent to be that dangerous with a sword/bow/etc.

[Rynjin]

The solution (as in most games) is to raise up the other options, and then slightly drop the one that is too good. Origins had the problem of the mage being OP for a lot of the content, the Warrior being basically useless as a PC, and the Rogue being there to pick locks and not much else.

DA2, for all the **** it gets, did the best I think. Warriors were still eh but Rogues were fun as hell and mage were still pretty versatile without being able to just drop the SotC and end high dragons in 2 minutes flat.

Hopefully a hypothetical fourth game does a better job of making mages fun and versatile again while keeping the other classes balanced.

Interestingly, Rogues make better mages than mages all in all. THEY are the ones that can do DoT, clouds of gas, and chuck AoEs like nobody's business with grenades and such.

From a story perspective, that still makes no sense since in previous games mages were again show doing things besides barriers/healing and elemental damage.

I want my Walking Bomb back, man.

[Anteros]

The solution (as in most games) is to raise up the other options, and then slightly drop the one that is too good. Origins had the problem of the mage being OP for a lot of the content, the Warrior being basically useless as a PC, and the Rogue being there to pick locks and not much else.

DA2, for all the **** it gets, did the best I think. Warriors were still eh but Rogues were fun as hell and mage were still pretty versatile without being able to just drop the SotC and end high dragons in 2 minutes flat.

Hopefully a hypothetical fourth game does a better job of making mages fun and versatile again while keeping the other classes balanced.

Interestingly, Rogues make better mages than mages all in all. THEY are the ones that can do DoT, clouds of gas, and chuck AoEs like nobody's business with grenades and such.

From a story perspective, that still makes no sense since in previous games mages were again show doing things besides barriers/healing and elemental damage.

I want my Walking Bomb back, man.

I never felt like my dual wield warrior, or rogues were useless in Origins. Not as powerful as a mage, but still the strongest party member. Shield and 2-hand warriors were pretty lame though.

I enjoyed rogue in DAII also, but it felt like the story almost pigeon-holed you into being a mage.

Inquisition is too far the other way. The rogue class is way better than everything else.

[Morty]

The problem with the abilities DA2 and Inquisition gives warriors/rogues is that while they're cool to use, and much better than the anaemic swinging of Origins, they create a disconnect. The writing treats non-mages as having roughly realistic capabilities without augmentation (like dragon blood, lyrium, magic items etc.), and yet here they are, flash-stepping around and making cracks in the ground. Well, the cracks in the ground are also due to people demanding that two-handed weapons swing like traffic signs. But I digress.

At the end of the day, BioWare wrote themselves into a bit of a corner. On the one hand, mages' being extremely dangerous is one of the core conflict. But the games' tactical portion is a typical real-time RPGs, with the warrior/rogue/mage trio, which is as annoying as it is persistent. Anteros is probably right in that the best answer is to say that it takes a lot of skill and luck for non-mages to go toe to toe with mages, unless you're a templar. And I agree that DA2 got the closest, by giving mages a niche that didn't invalidate the other classes. Mages have utility that warriors and rogues can't match. Let them do that, while the Muggles get the job of straight-up greasing enemies.

Besides, mages being dangerous need not mean that they excel in the kind of combat the games portray. There's a lot of things they can do to wreak havoc that don't boil down to throwing fireballs.

[Anteros]

Isn't the main reason that mages are treated as being so dangerous that they can slip up and kill everyone around them on accident anyway?

It's not necessarily that they are individually more powerful (although they mostly are) it's that one accident and your entire village is full of demons.

[Keltest]

Isn't the main reason that mages are treated as being so dangerous that they can slip up and kill everyone around them on accident anyway?

It's not necessarily that they are individually more powerful (although they mostly are) it's that one accident and your entire village is full of demons.

That's part of it, but the whole "can set things on fire by looking at them" contributes as well.

[Giggling Ghast]

Mages do have access to abilities that they just can't give the protagonist for balance reasons. Summoning demons, using blood magic for mind control, time magic, etc.

[Rynjin]

Mages do have access to abilities that they just can't give the protagonist for balance reasons. Summoning demons, using blood magic for mind control, time magic, etc.

There are plenty of games that balance summoning and mind control as combat abilities. Time magic, admittedly, is only really balanced when it's the focus, at least as far as large scale stuff goes.

Of course as far as I've gotten into Inquisition a slow time field seems very balanced, or at least it was when that one Rift used it. You slow down a lot. Good tactical option, keep warriors separated from their charges. Too bad I can't use it.

And, as Inquisition shows, demons are cannon fodder now anyway. You're better off summoning a spider than a shade.

[Aeson]

using blood magic for mind control

They did give the player's Blood Mages that one in Origins, though only for in-combat use.

Isn't the main reason that mages are treated as being so dangerous that they can slip up and kill everyone around them on accident anyway?

It's not necessarily that they are individually more powerful (although they mostly are) it's that one accident and your entire village is full of demons.

Personally, I think that the main reason why mages are regarded as being so dangerous within the games has less to do with the danger that the mages actually pose to society than with selling the idea that the Chantry is an organization which has its roots in a rebellion against a magocracy which gave mages way too much power. There are other systems in the setting which appear to do about as well as the main Chantry's system at preventing mages from summoning hordes of demons or getting turned into crazed abominations - there's the Qunari system, which seems to be further towards the mage-oppressing extreme; there's the modern and old Tevinter Imperium's systems, which are more or less at the opposite extreme from the main Chantry and Qunari systems; and there's the Dalish, Rivaini, and Chasind systems, which, while not really explored in any great detail within the games, seem to form something of a middle ground between the two extremes.

For that matter, there's at least circumstantial evidence that the Chantry system may actually make the problem of mages being a danger to society worse. Between the suggestion that Fade spirits are at least in part shaped by the expectations of those who encounter them and the indication that Fade spirits grow in power the more widespread and powerful the emotions/ideals/concepts embodied by the spirit are, the widespread fear of mages and the fear and resentment in mages engendered by the Chantry's system cannot be a good thing. On top of that, there's the issue that the Chantry's system seems to be in such a poor state that a not insignificant number of mages within or affected by the system are willing to pursue dangerous or forbidden avenues of magic and go to extremes to escape from the system, remain free of the system, or even just to lash out against others within the system who they regard as being their oppressors or as too closely associated with their oppressors, with results which can be seen in the events at the Circle Tower in DAO, in events throughout DA2, and in the mage rebellion between DA2 and DAI.

[Dienekes]

They did give the player's Blood Mages that one in Origins, though only for in-combat use.


Personally, I think that the main reason why mages are regarded as being so dangerous within the games has less to do with the danger that the mages actually pose to society than with selling the idea that the Chantry is an organization which has its roots in a rebellion against a magocracy which gave mages way too much power. There are other systems in the setting which appear to do about as well as the main Chantry's system at preventing mages from summoning hordes of demons or getting turned into crazed abominations - there's the Qunari system, which seems to be further towards the mage-oppressing extreme; there's the modern and old Tevinter Imperium's systems, which are more or less at the opposite extreme from the main Chantry and Qunari systems; and there's the Dalish, Rivaini, and Chasind systems, which, while not really explored in any great detail within the games, seem to form something of a middle ground between the two extremes.

For that matter, there's at least circumstantial evidence that the Chantry system may actually make the problem of mages being a danger to society worse. Between the suggestion that Fade spirits are at least in part shaped by the expectations of those who encounter them and the indication that Fade spirits grow in power the more widespread and powerful the emotions/ideals/concepts embodied by the spirit are, the widespread fear of mages and the fear and resentment in mages engendered by the Chantry's system cannot be a good thing. On top of that, there's the issue that the Chantry's system seems to be in such a poor state that a not insignificant number of mages within or affected by the system are willing to pursue dangerous or forbidden avenues of magic and go to extremes to escape from the system, remain free of the system, or even just to lash out against others within the system who they regard as being their oppressors or as too closely associated with their oppressors, with results which can be seen in the events at the Circle Tower in DAO, in events throughout DA2, and in the mage rebellion between DA2 and DAI.

Here's the thing. With the exception of the Chantry, Dwarf, and Qunari run territories the leading power is always mages.

Spoiler

Show

Tevinter is still currently a magocracy that has an underground blood slave ring. The old Tevinter Empire was even worse. The old Elven empire was possibly the worst one of all. And the current elves are still run by their mages, they just got continuously beat down by Chantry forces and the humans. And the barbarian people have the implications that their old gods were themselves more powerful super mages. In Dragon Age lore universe mages appear to be the base assumption of hegemonic power. Unless systems are put in place to prevent that outcome. The most efficient at preventing it seems to be the Qun. With the downside of being the most horribly barbaric thing ever. The other is the Chantry which is still terrible but at least isn't the Qun. But on the plus side created a non-mage run society for hundreds of years.

Of course you can argue, quite easily that the average mage is nowhere near as powerful as the super mages like Flemeth and the Magisters. The normal mages may not be that huge a problem except for demonic possession. But the super mages most certainly are.

[Giggling Ghast]

They did give the player's Blood Mages that one in Origins, though only for in-combat use.

Indeed, but there's blood magic and then there's BLOOD MAGIC - demon summoning, ritual sacrifice, necromancy and all that jazz.

[Giggling Ghast]

Of course as far as I've gotten into Inquisition a slow time field seems very balanced, or at least it was when that one Rift used it. You slow down a lot. Good tactical option, keep warriors separated from their charges. Too bad I can't use it.

The Still Ruins represent a catastrophic failure of Tevinter's time magic experiments. Were it not for one researcher, the whole continent might have been frozen.

[Keltest]

The Still Ruins represent a catastrophic failure of Tevinter's time magic experiments. Were it not for one researcher, the whole continent might have been frozen.

By comparison, you can commission the Tevinter mage responsible to research that time magic for more practical and safe purposes, and the end result is... a cooldown amulet. Not even a special one, just a generic item, albeit a fairly useful one at that point in the game.

[Giggling Ghast]

In fairness, Alexius' time travel was only possible because of the Breach. That's why Corypheus couldn't go back to before the Conclave and change events; time travel was only possible within the timeline of the Breach.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Having just got a new computer, I am attempting to reinstall Dragon Age: Origins, and for some reason I can't access the 1.05 Patch I need to get the DLC installed. Every time I click on it, it thinks for a bit and then the connection times out. Am I doing something wrong here?

[Inarius]

Having just got a new computer, I am attempting to reinstall Dragon Age: Origins, and for some reason I can't access the 1.05 Patch I need to get the DLC installed. Every time I click on it, it thinks for a bit and then the connection times out. Am I doing something wrong here?

Are you installing the patch manually, using the old launcher that it used to come with, or are you using the Origin service to do it? If its the first option the patch you downloaded is probably bad so redownload it, if its the second option its probably because they don't support the launcher anymore so you'll either have to find the manual download for the patch or add your cd key to Origin and use that option.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

The former. It keeps claiming the connection timed out. If I add my CD key to Origin will I lose all my Achievements that I had before Origin was a thing?

[Inarius]

The former. It keeps claiming the connection timed out. If I add my CD key to Origin will I lose all my Achievements that I had before Origin was a thing?

They did carry over for me because they were tied to my Bioware account which functions as an Origin/EA account now. The biggest issue I had when I did it was only some of the DLC carried over properly to my origin account. I had to go back to the old Bioware site and manually download and install the DLCs that didn't show up for Origin to recognize that I own them.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

So I should put it in Origin, and then it should recognize the DLC I've bought, and I can just go and manually download the ones I've earned through promos and stuff? Last time I tried to install it on this new computer it was all going to the C: drive instead of D: drive, which meant it was taking up all the memory and some of the DLC wasn't downloading properly, and it needed the 1.05 patch to install.

[Giggling Ghast]

Small bit of news for XBox gamers - DAO is now backwards compatible for the XBoxOne!

https://twitter.com/majornelson/stat...65388465377287