I really like the
Dragon Age series. Origins is one of my favourite RPGs, and whilst
DA2 was clearly rushed, it also had a certain charm (and a rare case
of retconning improving something, namely the Qunari). Inquisition
had its plus points but also took a step in the wrong direction, I
think. Size was emphasised over quality. Maps were enormous but the
side-quests were shopping lists.
Inspired by this great article by Shinobi here’s what I’d like to see in the next Dragon Age game.
But first, a note. It’s
eminently possible, probable, even, that a Dragon Age Tactics game
will come out. I have no idea if this would be before or after DA4
(my guess is before). These suggestions are about a main franchise
sequel to Inquisition rather than the intriguing Dragon Age meets
XCOM game that’s been mooted.
Origins. I do like the
increased mentions of race and class (mostly mage) in Inquisition,
but the origin stories in the first game were a great addition to
help make every combination of race/class feel more distinct, and I’d
like to see them brought back.
Combat tactics. These
were present in the first two games and inexplicably axed in
Inquisition, replaced with a rather rubbish system whereby the skills
were tagged as Use, Use Often, and Do Not Use. The Origins/DA2
approach of having, say, Alistair use an attack to knock down enemies
but only if they were elite or higher was a straightforward and
effective way of ensuring you didn’t have to micromanage companions
in combat.
Weightier decisions. In
Origins (I’m harking back to it a lot, but it’s a bloody good
game) there were numerous stark choices to make, from a possessed
child to werewolf attacks on elves who might not be entirely
innocent. These choices affected who your allies would be in the
final battle. Whilst there are decisions in Inquisition (who to put
on the Orlesian throne, for example) they don’t actually seem to
have much consequence in gameplay.
I’d also like more
moral conflict within parties (this could tie in with the decisions
point above). It’s an approximately medieval world, and this can
(and historically did) lead to some difficult decisions. If you’re
being besieged and there’s food for 10 days, or 40 if you force out
all the non-combatants, then you’ve got a dilemma. Suppose you’ve
accepted the surrender of a 1,000 men, but an enemy army has appeared
and is blocking your access to fresh water, which is running out
fast. They offer to let you past if you release the prisoners. Do you
do it? Try and negotiate as your water runs out? Kill the prisoners
so the men guarding them can join the army and battle the enemy? Or,
on a smaller, more personal scale, suppose an arranged marriage could
end a war, but one or both of the couple don’t want it. Do you
force them to bring peace to many and misery to them? Or let them
have freedom at the cost of ongoing conflict? Or what if you’re
chasing enemies and they take refuge in a chantry? Do you burn it
down or camp outside, risking being attacked by their followers?
Difficult choices create meaningful decisions, and the potential for
moral conflict.
I’ve already
mentioned side-quests. The shopping list approach (fetch 10 dead rams
to feed some refugees) is boring. It’s worse still when put
alongside the excellent side-quests of The Witcher 3. Quality over
quantity, writing little storylines over Fetch X, is much better as
well as providing the opportunity to give more depth to role-playing
and companions.
Add more weight to
judgements. The judgement system in Inquisition was a good addition,
capping off a questline by sentencing the defeated foe. However, the
upshot was mostly you lop off the bugger’s head, throw them in
jail, or they become your ally (which usually meant a small bonus
side-quest from the war table). I think this should be expanded. If
someone’s imprisoned, they could escape or be rescued, or even have
a ransom offered for their release. If they’re killed, their
followers/family might seek vengeance. If they become an ally, they
could betray you, or (as a one-off) become a party member. I’m not
saying have this for every judgement, just make them possibilities
that have to be considered. In Inquisition, the ‘good’ option
(make them an ally) got most approval and in-game bonuses. There’s
no downside. Adding betrayal possibilities would help balance that.
Base improvements to be
more substantial. I don’t mind if the cosmetic stuff has no
gameplay impact, but other decisions (focusing resources on income or
information, diplomacy or military) could be used to affect how
things progress. Originally, Inquisition was going to have every
conquered keep in the field be designated diplomatic, military or
espionage, and something like that could work well.
I’m not a DLC fan. I
didn’t get it for Inquisition, though I do know how things turned
out. And when I buy a game, I expect the whole storyline in the game,
not to be finished off in DLC. Extra content should be just that.
Bring back the murder
knife. It was possible, and fun, for the Origins protagonist (the
Warden) to be pretty damn evil. A bit more in the way of dark options
would be good.
Frivolous stuff:
More armour styles.
Some of the armour/clothing looked pretty nifty in Inquisition and I
liked the customisation options, but there’s not much range.
Better haircuts. It’s
a shame they axed the original set (also used in DA2) because there
were only one or two I liked in Inquisition.
A photo mode. I loved
this in The Last of Us Remastered.
Bianca and Scout
Harding as companions.
Thaddeus
No comments:
Post a Comment