The Fury said:
Of course not, half the actual creative team behind DA:O, 2 and I were no longer at the company. "It does. I find it fascinating - all of the instalments have been significantly different." Never do like this line of talk because in reality, no they didn't. Big world, 4 party team of a PC and controllable party members of various classes in the standard rogue, warrior, mage classes with varying abilities and a story driven narrative based on choices you make along the way which affects decisions and choices later. This was the same for the first 3 but they felt like they naturally progressed from one to the next, simply comparing the menu system from 2 to I shows this. DAV is so different that if anything the story driven narrative is all it had left... oh and the name, for me at least. |
It ticks me off when people bring up the changes between games as some kind of creative license to do whatever they want, as if that automatically negates any criticism on that front. It's not a clever feature or some kind of innovative approach, they just decided that they wanted shift to a different audience and thought the best way to do that was to dumb everything down. It's not a positive to leave parts of your audience behind while you chase dollars.
That the most extreme deviation happening just after BG3 became a smash hit is the most hilarious part. Dragon Age could have been right there, it could have built into something grand if they had honored their own lineage. The difference between the two games, and where they took their respective franchises, should be a start warning to other developers.
Essay Pro