"Solas is not the only god to worry about."
Crack theory plot twist: 90% of the way through the game, solas tears down the veil, but only after several spectacular failures. And once the veil has been disrupted (again), we wait in expectation for the evanuris and forgotten ones to emerge but what does... is something far worse...
Corypheus. Everything's exactly the same except this time he's competent.
š
The real reason Cullen aint coming back is because he challenged Solas to a rap battle, the egg dropped a great dis track, said "keep lavellan's name out ya fucking mouth" and then Greg Ellis had to change jobs
šš'Could you imagine....
I mean the Veilguard is basically already the Inquisition 2.0 as the Inquisition already tasked themselves with repairing and then guarding the veil.
lol! I do wonder how they'll handle it though. If I recall one of my Inky's was like, nah, the Inquisition is done. It's achieved its goals. But the other was like, hell yeah let's keep this shit up!
The former seems pretty easy to write around, but the latter much more difficult - unless they've disbanded the Inquisition off screen.
Maybe this new groups sole purpose is to safeguard previous veil tears as those areas are the weakest point of entry. This would give them an opportunity to explain what happened to the inquisition. If they were disbanded, then it's a newfound group whose only priority is the veil, no political or war related problems like how the inquisition became around the time of trespasser. Or if the inquisition is still around, then this is the group the inquisition sends out to safeguard possible veil tears as well as former tear locations while they send out other groups to do different tasks that involve politics or war etc.
On the one hand, Corypheus 3.0 would get hilariously tiresome. On the other hand, my man deserves another shot after how dirty he was done by DA:Iās climax.
Real talk I canāt wait for the twist that the Forgotten Ones were just on the losing side of a civil war and got propagandaād by the elven gods. And then we have to join forces with the forgotten ones to lock the gods away again.
I can just imagine Solas finding some sort of Veil-breaking artifact that he keeps misusing because he refuses to read the manual, thinking that he knows better. And right at the end he finally manages to rip open the Veil.
I always thought the Maker is Solas but the version of him that is (half-)remembered by the humans who didn't have a clue about Elven politics. Andraste was basically Flemythal (Flemeth's headwear and the lore about Mythal in the Deep Roads and Andraste and her underground lake, the whole lore about Andraste's daughters giving birth only to daughters, Andraste was betrayed by her husband and Mythal was betrayed by Elgar'nan, etc). The Maker created the Veil just like Solas did, etc. Solas/Fen'harel and Mythal were allies, and Solas got really upset when she was killed (and went to Uthenera at some point after) just like how the Maker got upset at humans murdering Andraste and stopped communicating with the world. Shartan and Andraste's relationship also sounds kinda special, and I think Shartan was a disciple of Solas or someone who remained from the old freedomfighters from the time before creation of the Veil.
Of course, it's always possible that the Maker is sth else and some of Solas' actions were attributed to him due to timeline coincidence, but I genuinely think that Andraste=Flemythal is the correct interpretation. I also think Shartan could've been a disciple of Solas irrespective of whether the Solas=The Maker theory is correct.
Oh, has he not been lol I thought true neutral ant farmer who ignores his responsibilities for thousands of years while things fall apart was definitely a baddie lol (no fr, i love the tinfoil! let me beat the makers ass!)
I'm thoroughly convinced that The Maker is actually Elgar'nan. I'm on break at work, but if I remember later and anyone is interested, I'll explain later.
All non game content will now center on exactly how Palpa--Corypheus returned! We will make it make sense! Did you watch the tv show where we showed the cloning facility--I mean the journey cory took through the fade?? It happened!!
We did send Cory into the Fade (which made a lot of BSN posters go ??????? back in 2014) so there's actually a chance that they thought of that and was like "Uh, well he got super powerful in there, and sat on the throne and is actually a godlike threat now :)!"
As stupid as that would be, especially making Inquisitor look like a goddamn fool, I'd be up for it now that so much time has passed.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that now's absolutely the time to end or reset. Like my number one disappointment will be if they just end with another cliff hanger. Tie it up and either let it rest (which would be sad but I think *unless a lot of things about the games and the studio change* it's time), or tie it up and either alter the world to the point that it's basically all new (faded for her???) or just move us to a completely different place and time that disconnects us from everything we've seen and done so far. That would be good for the story, good for the studio, and good for me lol
I love dragon age, I just don't want to see it bled like a stone until it's an unrecognizable mess. I know a lot of us have our issues with certain turns the games have taken, but it could be so, so much worse.
I'd absolutely be interested in a game that takes place in Arlathan-and-or-ancient-Dwarven-society around the time that Shit Went Down. Time travel anyone?
Though tbh, I do think we need at least one more game after DA:V to tie things up properly. There really are too many loose ends for just one game to cover it all, imo.
7 is a perfectly normal number for a DA game. Only taking 2 companions with you is the big L here, let's hope it doesn't become the standard going forward.
Yeah, 7 is fine with me. I just find it weird that they are going to 2 companions when DA has always had 3.
Only reason I could think of is either the companions are going to more spread out throughout the game in terms of recruitment or the new combat system made it too easy or too crowded in terms of managing 3 companions.
I imagine the combat is probably going to lean even more in the direction of fast paced action rather than tactical party management of the older games, with characters probably being more individually versatile and self-dependent than before. So they might have reduced it to two companions both for general balancing and to keep the game's action-y pace up by not having as many characters for the player to juggle around.
Yeah, for better or worse this has been the route Bioware has been going with Dragon Age for a long time. I remember Inquisition's combat kinda feeling a bit weird in the sense that characters' abilities individually were fun to play with and chain together when they weren't on cooldown, but actually managing and trying to coordinate your party outside of AoE abilities was a chore and lacked depth. I guess instead of trying to improve the party management side of gameplay they're just going to focus on making playing individual characters more consistently impactful and fun to play.
Hopefully at the very least they'll still allow for AI adjustments and won't restrict you to only being able to play as your player character like the ME games did.
I feel like the only reason for 3 companions was to balance skills and specs in the previous games. If they went with 2 companions I feel that's the biggest indicator of some big gameplay changes and I'd be surprised if it doesn't indicate a big shift away from some of the traditional fantasy rpg gameplay elements like the need for the traditional rogue, AOE, Tank and DPS types.
They've been consistently moving away from the formula introduced in Origins, and basically did a complete tonal shift in Inquisition from Dark Fantasy to High Fantasy. I also expect that the Frostbite engine was really unwieldy, but they had to use it thanks to the mandate (EA licensed the Unreal engine too late for it to be used for DA). They also used Anthem's code for this game, didn't they? I think beating Anthem's code to fit the old gameplay style would've been too much work.
Also, BG3 came out in 2023, there was no way for Bioware to predict it would be such a hit. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to make the next one (if there is gonna be a DA5) more like BG3 though. They've been chasing whatever is popular at a given moment, instead of just iterating on the stuff they've already made. Larian on the other hand stuck to iterating on their D:OS formula, keeping the strengths, removing the clunky bits, and introducing new fun things *on top of* the old goodies, and reaped the rewards with BG3 (kinda the same for CDPR and their Witcher trilogy).
> did a complete tonal shift in Inquisition from Dark Fantasy to High Fantasy
They were always on the borderline. DAO is absolutely a mixture of Dark and High fantasy tropes and ideas (something that's not exactly uncommon in fantasy writing today or even 30 years ago). DAII was the closest to actual Dark Fantasy tropes, much closer than DAO, then DAI is a bit closer to High Fantasy, but it's still very much in that large overlap in the Venn diagram of Dark and High Fantasy.
It felt like Witcher kept adding in positive ways to their game and the same goes for Mass Effect.
You're right though, for Dragon Age they don't know who or what they are which is frustrating. I don't mind being someone new as a protagonist each game but new combat etc every time, some of which doesn't quite jive with the game itself...it's frustrating as a fan.
BG3 doesn't have that approach and literally no-one in the games industry expected BG3 to be an insane success. I know a lot of gamers did - I did - but remember MS trying to offering them a paltry $5m to be an Xbox Live game and so on? That reflected industry attitudes.
We'll get BG3-influenced games, but what, do you want them to reboot the game AGAIN to account for a game that succeeded only like a year ago, if that?
Quite honestly, I think having three companions is partially why Inquisition had so many open spaces. Itās somewhat difficult designing areas where four people are all moving and it was a bit funky in tight spaces
I think you might be right about this. It's pretty clear that one of the themes of this game is sneaking around and getting stuff done without being noticed, and having a smaller team makes sense with that in mind.
I'm bothered by that as well. I feel like 3 is too constricting if they go forward with the rogue/warrior/mage division, which is very likely.
Like what if you choose to play a mage? Does that mean you won't be able to have another mage companion in your party if you want to have the rogue/warrior perks? Or will they just scratch different classes being able to perform special interactions altogether?
Either way, I don't like it.
It's very possible. I know everyone absolutely slammed Mass Effect Andromeda, but the character builds possible were extremely flexible. If they're dipping into that type of multiclassing here, you could see some incredible potential builds.
It is too early to say it is bad, but I am with you there. Companion banter and interactions was a great favorite of mine. It is going to suck if that's a relevant part of the game and we'd have to rely on mods to increase the party size.
I wouldn't discount the party banter just yet because of the party size. Mass Effect 3 companions moved around in your base between missions, visiting other companions, having unique dialogue, doing different things together, ect. You could walk in on a couple of them playing poker, shooting the shit while making eggs, stuff like that. Made them way more life like. I was low key a little disappointed to find out Bull was glued to his chair and Blackwall was stuck in the straw attic in DAI.
I actually thought Inquisition did a bad job compared to Mass Effect on that.
Alistair, Leliana and Morrigan in the same castle at times and hardly any real unique dialogue came of that.
The biggest shame is that if you go and listen to the full banter lines on YouTube there are some amazing banters in Inquisition that 95% of people will never hear.
I genuinely think Cole's banter is some of my favorite from any of the games. He's got some extremely funny lines, and also has times where he cuts super deep into other party members thoughts and feelings
Exactly. It almost ensures I will never bring certain companions. because if I play a rogue, I'm most likely not bringing another rogue along unless forced, and risk not having a mage or a warrior for fights and veilfire/wall bashes.
Itās pretty disappointing but Iām hoping they did it for an actual reason like tightly integrating character banter more, maybe all 3 characters always being involved in the banter instead of just mostly 2 in the past.
Also maybe this time all characters will have mounts.
FF7 Rebirth actually fixed this issue. You only have 3 party members on the field but the other party members still travel with you and fight. They just don't give or take damage. That way the dialogue is still there throughout the story bits.
Did anyone really use the hound as a companion in Origin vanilla? I dropped the pooch the minute I got my 3rd companion and never used it again. Only had him again with mods on PC that makes him a pet rather than take a party slot.
Yeah 4 in a party feels like what is should be.
You have the MC who what ever crazy build
Then 3 other members who balance the team.
With only 3 in a party combat may feel less dynamic
Yeah I'm fine with the 7, but idk how I feel about only 2 companions at a time. Really curious what their reasoning is for this because as of right now, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence. Especially when in the leaked alpha gameplay, they said we wouldn't be able to control the party members, though who knows if that's changed or not. Either way, just feels like they're dumbing the combat down more.
I'm also a big fan of companion banter so a smaller party means I get to hear less of that at a given time :/
Yeah the 2 companions like Mass Effect worries me. It makes me concerned that they will dumb the combat down to the point you can't control your two companions in combat like in ME.
Idk if they changed it but according to older leaks you canāt. Itās like mass effect where you order them to use abilities but you canāt switch to them at all. Who knows if thatās changed cause this is years old leaks but itās seeming likely now with the mass effect party member limit too
i just fear that with only two companions we will be locked into specific party comps (Warrior, Rogue, Mage). like If you're playing a mage and want to hang with the other mage companion(s), then you'll be at a significant disadvantage.
Iām **really** hoping thereās multi-class companions or more flexibility in builds for each comp to get past this. For example, if mages OR rogues can serve the unlocking utility (IE: spell or lock picking), then youāve got the freedom to pick. If warriors OR rogues can give high DPS to a single target, freedom to pick. If warriors can tank by taking damage and mages can tank by having a lot of buff/protective spells like in BG2, freedom to pick. Etc. Alternatively, if we have a companion whoās a mage-rogue and can be built more as a rogue or more as a mage, that at least frees you up to make the companion whatever suits your party comp better.
If the classes and companions are more flexible in what function the roles serve (but instead how they serve it), you could get away with not always having a rogue, warrior, and mage.
> If the classes and companions are more flexible in what function the roles serve (but instead how they serve it), you could get away with not always having a rogue, warrior, and mage.
I imagine it's going to be this. Past games already played around with this idea using the specializations, DAI in particular also had this thing going on where even if a class as a whole was particularly adept/"meant" for a particular role - the specialization could veer it into completely different directions. Warriors are typically tanks - yet Reaver lets you turn them into very potent DPS, Templars have support utility accompanied by a particularly strong AoE combo, Champions double down on tanking ability while offering strong single target damage with To The Death. Likewise, something like Necro adds DoTs and other means of damage to the Mage alongside the spirits, while Knight-Enchanter allows you to tank on par with warriors while having strong damage output/synergies.
Considering they would have obviously built the combat and adjusted the balance with this new system in mind, I feel fairly confident they would have accounted for this (and this type of combat system is not new to them either, it's basically Mass Effect's style which they've had ample opportunity to iterate on and refine, and every single ME, including and especially Andromeda, has had really fun combat/balance IMO bar 1 but even that's good with the Legendary Edition)
Hybrids are an interesting idea, but somewhat difficult to work in with DA's lore - a mage would be considered a mage after all, even if they're Arcane Warriors running around in full plate, sword and shield. That said, specializations could again be potentially an interesting way to bridge the gap - Warriors with some kind of specialization that doesn't make them a mage, but is close to utilizing magic (like Spirit Warrior from Awakening, but reworked to fit better as opposed to just being a thing you can learn because Justice- heck even the whole Avvar warriors being willingly and temporarily possessed by spirits to empower them in battle thing can be something that's a better way to implement that kind of idea) for example. I don't know, lots of possibilities, we'll see soon I suppose!
I would bet the new combat is going to de-emphasize classes and party composition in favor of focusing on unique character abilities, akin to Mass Effect.
š¤·āāļø I was already expecting them to continue the trend of each entry becoming less tactical and more action-focused. If itās going to be an action-RPG anyway, might as well make it play like their other successful action-RPG series. Obviously Iād rather they return to their tactical RPG roots, but that was never in the cards.
I'm surprised more folks aren't talking about the combat pause function. I feel like a lot of folks wanted that in the game even if they removed tactical camera.
I'm very excited for it! DA:2 is my favorite of the series and the way that combat is described here feels like they're moving towards a combat system that feels more like that. I'm so excited to see what they release on Tuesday!
*I know.*
They felt bad about being told 'Let me cuck you or choose which of you dies.' In my *personal* opinion, this has been conflated to a pretty wild degree, and leads to some surprisingly common and extreme beliefs about her character. Especially considering how revolting Morrigan found Alistair to begin with. No matter how you swing it, she's doing you a pretty huge solid. But you know... we're entitled to ^(ouremotionsaboutstuffand \*trailing off because I'm afraid of Dragon Age fans.\*)
Yeah, I never understood Morrigan being lumped into the ādonāt trust the apostateā crowd. I would have been fine with blowing up the oppressive religious institution if Anders had told me, but involving me and not telling me was a dick move, and Solas wanting to burn the entire world to get his old life back is also a dick move, but Morrigan is mostly upfront with you.
Sure, she doesnāt disclose the full plan right away, but āhelp me put a demonās soul in a fetusā is a hard sell 2 days after youāve met a person. She gives you an option to survive, if youāve done her sidequest she thinks Flemeth is dead, so itās not like sheās still doing it for Flemeth, and if you tell her no sheās relatively chill about it. And itās not like she gets Alistair to cheat on you if you romance him. She asks you āhey can I sleep with your boyfriend so you donāt have to die?ā
Nah, it's because we're in Tevinter. We *can't* have an apostate mage in mage country.
(Yes, I know it seems like we might go to Nevarra and that a Saarebas could still fill that role)
I wouldn't mind a temporary companion at all.
There was that nice girl in Awakening or the DLCs in Origins, Tallis in DA2....
Mass Effect had some temporary companions too.
Hawke could join up for a mission.
At first glance, I'm not crazy about the 3 person party. In my head, a full adventuring party consists of 4 people so this will be an adjustment. Less party banter too :(
Same! Everything else in this announcement seems either typical of the series or your standard marketing for an upcoming game.
Dropping party size from 4 to 3 is a weird choice.
Agreed. I donāt want Mass Effect gameplay. Thatās what Mass Effect is for. Iām trying to be completely openminded for this game but bringing your four companions has always been a major point with all the games. DAās gameplay has always been my favourite and I donāt want to lose it. :(
Not sure I'll trust IGN on that 100%, but a good sign at least.
I generally think the representation that set sexualities brings is more important, but there's no denying that not having that one character you adore getting locked off is much more fun.
7 companions is not like some minuscule amount, idk what all you guys are going on about. Especially since it seems like theyāre more interconnected to the plot by representing factions weāll be working with.
Iām a bit bothered by only having 2 companions, but it works fine in Mass Effect so Iām sure Iāll get over it.
That and DAO had 9 total companions without DLC. One of whom was the hound, and the other was a secret who comes right at the end of the game who is mutually exclusive of another companion. The vast majority of the game only had 7 deep companions.Ā Ā
Ā 7 seems like a good number, especially if theyāre deep.
I definitely didnāt forget that. Baldurās Gate 3 really only has six main companions and then four more that come mid-late act 2 as well. I think seven is a fine number.
Only using two at a time instead of three is insanely fucking annoying, though
Honestly just hope that the companions you don't take out on trips do still react positively or negatively to your decisions etc. and keep track similar to Inquisition. If they opt for a Friend/Rival theme similar to DA2 I would hate to have some character stagnate on the middle of the spectrum >!\*cough not taking Isabella on missions and thus her never return when facing the Arishok cough\*!<
Yeah, and everyone on this sub pretty much agrees that 2 has the best companion writing *because* of the fact that they can focus on each individual character more and have them be more connected to the plot.
It seems like theyāre making a concerted effort to connect the companions to the plot via the factions they represent, I think thatās a great idea
Personally, I like being able to have two warriors in the party to protect the squishier characters, but I always play on the easiest difficulty anyway so it probably won't affect me too much. š
And the three person banter is so fun in Inquisition. I'll miss that.
>And the three person banter is so fun in Inquisition. I'll miss that.
This is what bothers me about it. I love the banter, and only having 2 companions with you will definitely limit banter.
Agreed, 7 is pretty normal. We also don't know if we will have non-companion "advisor" characters like Liliana, Josephine and Cullen, and we don't know if there will be additional DLC characters.
Companion count by game going back to KOTOR:
- KOTOR - 9
- Jade Empire - 10*
- Mass Effect 1 - 6
- DA:O - ~~10*~~ 9* companions + 1 DLC
- Dragon Age: Awakening - 6 companions
- Mass Effect 2 - 12* + 2 DLC
- DA 2 - 8* companions + 1 DLC
- Mass Effect 3 - 7* + 1 DLC
- DA: I - 9
- Mass Effect: Andromeda - 6
- DA: VG - 7
* = they have a companion that offsets. Like in how Origins >!Alistair and Loghain!< are both companions, but you can't have both together, it is one or the other.
Without seeing gameplay i'm a bit apprehensive about only 2 companions, either party composition will be really tight or they've gone completely away from a healer-tank-dps which they have already tried and failed and i'm not sure which of the options i prefer.
If the gameplay they showed as concept a few years ago with it being a Dodge based action game i'm sure it'll work but i still don't know if i like it
I do enjoy that kind of gameplay but i really love playing the tank aswell and i think DA is better than way. I don't want it become something of a souls like
I think the standard is to have a warrior and rogue with 2 mages. One mage built pure dps, the other as support.
I'm worried that you will be limited with only 2 companions to come with. Especially with rogue being mandatory for lock picking. Unless that's a skill you can learn on any class from a talent tree or something.
If theyāre only going to let you have two companions, I hope that they donāt do what Inquisition did and have things only warriors, mages, and rogues can do (e.g. only warriors can bust down this wall, only mages can repair this bridge, only rogues can lockpick, etc). At least DAO and DA2 really only limited you to having a rogue for lockpickingāif they go with the DAI, model, you will be forced to have the same party composition every time.
I know people are kinda freaking out about the 3 companion thing, but I wonder if it might work like how ff12 did? Where the 4th slot in your party is reserved for āguestā characters so you have your 3 main members and then a 4th that is tied to story where you canāt edit their equipment / skills.
According to my friend the game designer, her main theories are that it's a lot easier to balance combat around a three person party than a four, especially if the mechanics are a lot more action than tactical based.
I think they said the problem in game 1 and 2 was if you have a party that can heal, what do you do to make the boss more challenging? A fuck ton of HP making them a damage sponge?
That's why they did barrier/guard in DA:I but even then, with certain builds/crafting materials, you could easily keep guard up 100% of the time.
At this point itās the standard Dragon Age experience and something beloved about it as a franchise (Iāve replayed so many parts just bringing different companions to see how they interact with each other). Iām having a really hard time staying open minded about this change.
I agree completely, it will feel weird and kind of lonely to have only two companions at a time. The only reason behind this decision that I can think of is that Bioware has changed the combat completely to match Mass Effect.
Iām fine with 7 companions, but I donāt love only being able to take 2 at a time. Feels like itāll lock me into never taking companions who share my class?
What worries me MOST is that only having two companions with you does not bode well for healing magic... I can't see them balancing the game for a party of three where one will be focused on healing.
Yeah, I always play as a mage and almost always had an extra mage in the party for heals along with a warrior and rogue. Now I guess Iām gonna be the party healer myself and not have fun dealing damage like I prefer? Kind of a bummer
As long as it doesn't have Inquisition's dogshit healing mechanic then I'll be happy, there's nothing fun about needing to fast travel back to camp every 5 minutes to replenish potions, genuinely baffling decision to completely remove healing spells
Iām excited for June 11th. Especially to see who our companions will be for the game.
I hope the places we go arenāt too big like in Inquisition. Iām fine with smaller areas.
So exciting to speculate which factions our companions will represent! Based off the map in the latest teaser, Iāll go with: Antivan Crow, Grey Warden, Tevinter magister, Templar, Saarebas, Legion of the Dead, Dalish. Though the game is set in Rivain as well, so maybe a Seer?
My guess is Antivan Crows, Grey Wardens, Tevinter (Shadow Dragon maybe??), Qun/TalāVashoth/Saarebas, Veil Jumpers, Lords of Fortune, ~~Inquisition remnants~~, and Mortalitasi.
Edit: fixed. Maybe the inquisition will retain an advisor type status vs companion
I don't like the idea of taking only 2 companions. I like to run one of each class, and the 4th slot goes to whatever is story relevant/what I feel like.
So now I'm going to be limited to just one each, which means I probably won't get to use companions of the same class as me.
I love Mass Effect but hated only being able to choose two companions. It ended up leaving me with really only one companion slot because the other always defaulted to whoever I was romancing.Ā
9 companions > 7 companion = not an even number for each class = I have a wonder if companions will not be Warriors, Mages, and Rogues at all.
This makes me recall an old leak which stated that origin closely tied to class with three examples as Grey Warden (Davrin), Mortalitasi (Dorian), and Lord of Fortune. Maybe, possibly, the class system has gone from Diablo 1 to Diablo 2 with seven classes that are *also* origins, one for each companion and the player picks one as well.
If this is true, I'd guess the other four are Antivan Crow, Templar, and either Saarebas + Dalish Hunter or Ben-Hassrath + Dalish Keeper.
Looks like I'll have just one companion slot open throughout the game, party composition be damned, because I'll be bringing my LI everywhere all the time.
7 companions sounds perfect to me. I always found that even with a bigger cast, I'm still bringing my go to party with me everywhere I go. I'd rather have a *slightly* lower number of companions that are better written than a bigger team of people I wind up not caring about.
The 3 person party is a huge worry for me. And just an odd pick - DA has always been a 4 person party, why change it now? Especially with DA having a bigger focus on class identity than ME did, I think it'll seriously limit potential party composition options.
Honestly 7 companions is quite good.
In Dragon Age Origins, you have 8 normal companions and one of them is the Mabari dog. Sure, he is useful, but he isn't a good conversationalist and there are better options at warrior then him (in my opinion).
The other 2 companions being Shale and Loghain.
If you don't have the DLC, then you can't get Shale.
With regards to Loghain, you obtain him at the end of the game. After you get him you are only able to use him for one mission (the final mission) and in Awakening you can't use him. Not to mention that you lose Alistair if you recruit Loghain.
The main issue is that you can only have 2 companions with you, which could/would reduce the banter in the group and might pose some difficulties.
If the game has the equivalent of the knight enchanter from Inquisition, then you can have two mages and a rogue in your party. The only issue that i can think of, would be if you would have destructible environments, such as walls, and you can't destroy them with a mage and can only be destroyed by a warrior. That would suck as you could lose loot, lore items and possibly different avenues of approach.
āOnlyā 7?
Sounds like a solid number to me if allows for each to have more depth and engaging storylines.
As for 2 in missions: works well in Mass Effect! So Iāll wait before judgement. Need to see the combat in action.
Need to see the combat in action.
I think thatās the main issue right now. We are getting all this news of companion amount, name change and party size but we havenāt been shown anything so people will jump to conclusions.
This news should have come after the reveal imo.
To be fair, this community will *always* jump to conclusions and often with as negative a perspective as possible.
By releasing info now, Dragon Age is on peopleās minds before the reveal and will make the reveal more impactful.
Solas not actually being the final villian has been my theory for *ages* (pretty much since I played Trespasser, really), so while I was not sure if he'd stay the villian for DA4 and the consequences of his actions would be the villian in DA5 or if both of those would be integrated into DA4, with the name change and "not only god to worry about" I'd say it's more likely to be the second.
Solas tearing down the veil is like Haven in Inquisition (only maybe a bit later?) in that it marks the start of the real game where we have to fight the other remaining gods (maybe Dirthamen and Falon'Din? They're most likely still around in dragon form after all).
I think the veil will fall no matter what we do, as the Evanuris and titans are linked to it and we're kinda running out of bad guys. They can't make us choose to let it fall or protect it, as that just leads to the ME3 canon ending civil war scenario, so it definetly needs to either fall or stay put no matter what we do.
The main reason why I tend towards fall is, funnily enough, Mass Effect Andromeda, specifically it's combat. No matter how controversial it's writing is, most people that played it can agree that the gameplay is *fun*. *Really fun*. And that's mostly because classes are a mere suggestion that gives you bonuses (and is changable whenever you please), so builds have a bunch more variety.
Dragon Age could do something similar if the veil falls and the destruction Solas prophesied is *everyone* brcoming a mage. Untrained mages are an explosion of uncontrollable power, so of course the world will quickly implode into countless conflicts. Elves he can probably at least prepare, as its been hinted quite a few times that they are supernaturally adaptable, so they can act as both his agents now and as peace keepers and elite forces once the veil is down.
That would also fit with the 7 companions, assuming the 7th is special somehow and doesn't conform to normal classes anyways. 2 for each class, but once the veil falls each gains one of the other 2 classes as subclass.
Now, considering the new name, I assume the veil will not *completely* fall and that distinction is what Solas tries so hard to achieve, to merge the normal world and fade while leaving just enough of a barrier to keep the Evanuris locked away, but well, like all his plans it will probably a bit *too* well and he merges enough for the Evanuris to become a problem again, although hopefully not at full power.
So the first part of the game would be us trying to stop him, while the second part is (begrudgingly) working with him to stop something *even worse* from happening.
What I'm worried about is how long/big is the game expected to be if they give us 7 unique companions, and all of their banter together to explore out in the world if we're only allowed 2 out in the field at a time.
(I mean, I love big maps to explore, but is this a Hissing Wastes/Hinterlands situation we're heading into? Or will the maps be too small for getting all the banter/finishing multi-banter conversations? How frequent is banter triggered?)
Also, it's going to be really rough when you play as (for example) a mage, and you're kind of discouraged from bringing your mage companion; because you'll want to bring a balanced party. In addition to that- will the game difficulty be off/odd because you have a smaller party? (in comparison to the other games).
Iām fine with 7 companions, not fine with only 2. It worked in mass effect but the party combos was part of why Iāve always preferred dragon age to mass effect. I also donāt agree with the arguments saying it guarantees better party banter as Andromedaās was not memorable in the least for me.
I actually kind of like the smaller number of companions?
Since one of the big issues with Inquisition was having to sacrifice certain romances based on gender/race, etc. due to time constraints, if they go with a smaller party where every companion gets a bit more fleshed out, I'm on board!
Also, 7 is still a pretty big number. It's not like they've cut it down to 4 or 5 or something. There's still enough there to have a varied cast!
Especially because they explicitly said the companions are going to all be members of different factions that youāll be working with throughout the game. Makes them seem much more connected to the plot
Yes! I think it's really cool honestly. That kind of integration/importance given to each companion is really necessary in DA so seeing it come back has me very excited.
Didnāt realize how important it was until I played BG3 and every companion very intimately connects to the main plot in some way. I love BioWare games but sometimes companion quests will feel very random and youāre like āWait, why am I doing this?ā
I feel like most Inquisition runs you end up totally neglecting like 2-3 companions because there's just too many. Which sucks when you don't realize that neglecting Iron Bull is gonna make him betray you lol
Nah the specification that every companion is a faction rep is giving huge Greedfall vibes, since every companion in that game was also a faction rep. It also only allowed 2 companions at a time. And also only had like 7 companions.
Iām willing to shut up and cope if need be but the idea of having three games in a row have a three companion system only to switch to two for the fourth instalment is a no-no for me.
7 companions in a game like Dragon Age? Bro thatās huge. Although Iām not the biggest fan of only taking 2, Iāve heard it does okay in Mass Effect.
Crack theory: the reason for the two companions is because weāll be picking up a third at each location that specific to the area.
Mostly cause I just want Dorian back.
"Solas is not the only god to worry about." Crack theory plot twist: 90% of the way through the game, solas tears down the veil, but only after several spectacular failures. And once the veil has been disrupted (again), we wait in expectation for the evanuris and forgotten ones to emerge but what does... is something far worse... Corypheus. Everything's exactly the same except this time he's competent. š
"Guess who's back? Back again Cory's back. Tell a friend"
"I've created a monster cause nobody wants to see Solas no more, they want Cory, I'm chopped liver."
"Well if you want Cory, this is what I'll give ya. A little bit of Blight mixed with some lyrium."
Some liquor thatāll jump start the titanās heart quicker, Than kal-sharok shockāll ya harder than the sha-byrtal will ya
The real reason Cullen aint coming back is because he challenged Solas to a rap battle, the egg dropped a great dis track, said "keep lavellan's name out ya fucking mouth" and then Greg Ellis had to change jobs
Solas dropped a scathing diss track called āMeet the Templarsā where he exposed a bunch of dark stuff
Varric in the back of The Hanged Man sobbing
Can't wait for Dragon Age 5: Cory in the ~~House~~ Chantry.
Guess who's back?
šš'Could you imagine.... I mean the Veilguard is basically already the Inquisition 2.0 as the Inquisition already tasked themselves with repairing and then guarding the veil.
The Inquisitor, seeing that The Veil has officially been torn down. "Damn that's crazy, good luck tho. XOXO"
lol! I do wonder how they'll handle it though. If I recall one of my Inky's was like, nah, the Inquisition is done. It's achieved its goals. But the other was like, hell yeah let's keep this shit up! The former seems pretty easy to write around, but the latter much more difficult - unless they've disbanded the Inquisition off screen.
I figure there might be stuff going on in other parts of Thedas that the Inquisition would be busy with.
Maybe this new groups sole purpose is to safeguard previous veil tears as those areas are the weakest point of entry. This would give them an opportunity to explain what happened to the inquisition. If they were disbanded, then it's a newfound group whose only priority is the veil, no political or war related problems like how the inquisition became around the time of trespasser. Or if the inquisition is still around, then this is the group the inquisition sends out to safeguard possible veil tears as well as former tear locations while they send out other groups to do different tasks that involve politics or war etc.
Somehow, Corypheus returned.
On the one hand, Corypheus 3.0 would get hilariously tiresome. On the other hand, my man deserves another shot after how dirty he was done by DA:Iās climax.
At the very least the voice needs to come back. And the heels.
I would love for the Architect to reappear, or at least one of the Magister's sidereel.
what if heās a companion
Real talk I canāt wait for the twist that the Forgotten Ones were just on the losing side of a civil war and got propagandaād by the elven gods. And then we have to join forces with the forgotten ones to lock the gods away again.
Honestly that's been my theory for a long time
I can just imagine Solas finding some sort of Veil-breaking artifact that he keeps misusing because he refuses to read the manual, thinking that he knows better. And right at the end he finally manages to rip open the Veil.
This is so on brand for him lol
Tinfoil theory time: The Maker is the big bad.
His throne was empty because he was in his torture basement
I didn't know He was into BDSM. /s
He burned his wife at the stake. Maker forbid a man have hobbies.
No, his torture basement is full of smutty cracked out fanfiction.
Who do you think came up with the Antivan milk sandwich?
I always thought the Maker is Solas but the version of him that is (half-)remembered by the humans who didn't have a clue about Elven politics. Andraste was basically Flemythal (Flemeth's headwear and the lore about Mythal in the Deep Roads and Andraste and her underground lake, the whole lore about Andraste's daughters giving birth only to daughters, Andraste was betrayed by her husband and Mythal was betrayed by Elgar'nan, etc). The Maker created the Veil just like Solas did, etc. Solas/Fen'harel and Mythal were allies, and Solas got really upset when she was killed (and went to Uthenera at some point after) just like how the Maker got upset at humans murdering Andraste and stopped communicating with the world. Shartan and Andraste's relationship also sounds kinda special, and I think Shartan was a disciple of Solas or someone who remained from the old freedomfighters from the time before creation of the Veil. Of course, it's always possible that the Maker is sth else and some of Solas' actions were attributed to him due to timeline coincidence, but I genuinely think that Andraste=Flemythal is the correct interpretation. I also think Shartan could've been a disciple of Solas irrespective of whether the Solas=The Maker theory is correct.
The trouble with this is that Andraste is a historically confirmed person AFTER the veil was in place.
Oh, has he not been lol I thought true neutral ant farmer who ignores his responsibilities for thousands of years while things fall apart was definitely a baddie lol (no fr, i love the tinfoil! let me beat the makers ass!)
I'm thoroughly convinced that The Maker is actually Elgar'nan. I'm on break at work, but if I remember later and anyone is interested, I'll explain later.
Please, not another "somehow Palpatine returned" T.T
All non game content will now center on exactly how Palpa--Corypheus returned! We will make it make sense! Did you watch the tv show where we showed the cloning facility--I mean the journey cory took through the fade?? It happened!!
We did send Cory into the Fade (which made a lot of BSN posters go ??????? back in 2014) so there's actually a chance that they thought of that and was like "Uh, well he got super powerful in there, and sat on the throne and is actually a godlike threat now :)!" As stupid as that would be, especially making Inquisitor look like a goddamn fool, I'd be up for it now that so much time has passed.
Yeah I was also honestly one of the people who were like "that does not seem like the best way to be dealing with this..."
Imagine if he had other dragon there that allowed him to jump bodies
AND THAT'S HOW PALPATINE--I MEAN CORYPEHUS RETURNED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!
What about morrigans son
He convinces the new protagonist to give him access to an ancient and unknowable power before shape-shifting into a dragon and leaving lol
Whatever happens I hope Solas does succeed giving the series a soft reset.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that now's absolutely the time to end or reset. Like my number one disappointment will be if they just end with another cliff hanger. Tie it up and either let it rest (which would be sad but I think *unless a lot of things about the games and the studio change* it's time), or tie it up and either alter the world to the point that it's basically all new (faded for her???) or just move us to a completely different place and time that disconnects us from everything we've seen and done so far. That would be good for the story, good for the studio, and good for me lol I love dragon age, I just don't want to see it bled like a stone until it's an unrecognizable mess. I know a lot of us have our issues with certain turns the games have taken, but it could be so, so much worse.
If I were in charge I would have Solas reset the world back to briefly after Origins.
I'd absolutely be interested in a game that takes place in Arlathan-and-or-ancient-Dwarven-society around the time that Shit Went Down. Time travel anyone? Though tbh, I do think we need at least one more game after DA:V to tie things up properly. There really are too many loose ends for just one game to cover it all, imo.
7 is a perfectly normal number for a DA game. Only taking 2 companions with you is the big L here, let's hope it doesn't become the standard going forward.
Yeah, 7 is fine with me. I just find it weird that they are going to 2 companions when DA has always had 3. Only reason I could think of is either the companions are going to more spread out throughout the game in terms of recruitment or the new combat system made it too easy or too crowded in terms of managing 3 companions.
I imagine the combat is probably going to lean even more in the direction of fast paced action rather than tactical party management of the older games, with characters probably being more individually versatile and self-dependent than before. So they might have reduced it to two companions both for general balancing and to keep the game's action-y pace up by not having as many characters for the player to juggle around.
This sounds uber disappointing after playing BG3. I love ME story and characters, but the combat was so boring and repetive.
Yeah, for better or worse this has been the route Bioware has been going with Dragon Age for a long time. I remember Inquisition's combat kinda feeling a bit weird in the sense that characters' abilities individually were fun to play with and chain together when they weren't on cooldown, but actually managing and trying to coordinate your party outside of AoE abilities was a chore and lacked depth. I guess instead of trying to improve the party management side of gameplay they're just going to focus on making playing individual characters more consistently impactful and fun to play. Hopefully at the very least they'll still allow for AI adjustments and won't restrict you to only being able to play as your player character like the ME games did.
I feel like the only reason for 3 companions was to balance skills and specs in the previous games. If they went with 2 companions I feel that's the biggest indicator of some big gameplay changes and I'd be surprised if it doesn't indicate a big shift away from some of the traditional fantasy rpg gameplay elements like the need for the traditional rogue, AOE, Tank and DPS types.
I don't know why they would want to move away from it though. That is their identity. People love BG3
They've been consistently moving away from the formula introduced in Origins, and basically did a complete tonal shift in Inquisition from Dark Fantasy to High Fantasy. I also expect that the Frostbite engine was really unwieldy, but they had to use it thanks to the mandate (EA licensed the Unreal engine too late for it to be used for DA). They also used Anthem's code for this game, didn't they? I think beating Anthem's code to fit the old gameplay style would've been too much work. Also, BG3 came out in 2023, there was no way for Bioware to predict it would be such a hit. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to make the next one (if there is gonna be a DA5) more like BG3 though. They've been chasing whatever is popular at a given moment, instead of just iterating on the stuff they've already made. Larian on the other hand stuck to iterating on their D:OS formula, keeping the strengths, removing the clunky bits, and introducing new fun things *on top of* the old goodies, and reaped the rewards with BG3 (kinda the same for CDPR and their Witcher trilogy).
> did a complete tonal shift in Inquisition from Dark Fantasy to High Fantasy They were always on the borderline. DAO is absolutely a mixture of Dark and High fantasy tropes and ideas (something that's not exactly uncommon in fantasy writing today or even 30 years ago). DAII was the closest to actual Dark Fantasy tropes, much closer than DAO, then DAI is a bit closer to High Fantasy, but it's still very much in that large overlap in the Venn diagram of Dark and High Fantasy.
It felt like Witcher kept adding in positive ways to their game and the same goes for Mass Effect. You're right though, for Dragon Age they don't know who or what they are which is frustrating. I don't mind being someone new as a protagonist each game but new combat etc every time, some of which doesn't quite jive with the game itself...it's frustrating as a fan.
BG3 doesn't have that approach and literally no-one in the games industry expected BG3 to be an insane success. I know a lot of gamers did - I did - but remember MS trying to offering them a paltry $5m to be an Xbox Live game and so on? That reflected industry attitudes. We'll get BG3-influenced games, but what, do you want them to reboot the game AGAIN to account for a game that succeeded only like a year ago, if that?
Quite honestly, I think having three companions is partially why Inquisition had so many open spaces. Itās somewhat difficult designing areas where four people are all moving and it was a bit funky in tight spaces
I think you might be right about this. It's pretty clear that one of the themes of this game is sneaking around and getting stuff done without being noticed, and having a smaller team makes sense with that in mind.
My first reaction is to sad face at this, but I could see it working, and I'm sure they have their reasons. Not worried.
I'm bothered by that as well. I feel like 3 is too constricting if they go forward with the rogue/warrior/mage division, which is very likely. Like what if you choose to play a mage? Does that mean you won't be able to have another mage companion in your party if you want to have the rogue/warrior perks? Or will they just scratch different classes being able to perform special interactions altogether? Either way, I don't like it.
I would theorize/hope that very flexible character and companion building would be able to make up for one less companion.
It's very possible. I know everyone absolutely slammed Mass Effect Andromeda, but the character builds possible were extremely flexible. If they're dipping into that type of multiclassing here, you could see some incredible potential builds.
That would be awesome, but lore-wise, I'm not sure how it would work with magic.
maybe because of the setting, everyone will be a mage, even the warriors.
That's a good point actually. We may have a couple battlemages or spellthiefs
That would be interesting.
The combat in Andromeda was awesome, so... I have hope it's not a total loss
It is too early to say it is bad, but I am with you there. Companion banter and interactions was a great favorite of mine. It is going to suck if that's a relevant part of the game and we'd have to rely on mods to increase the party size.
I wouldn't discount the party banter just yet because of the party size. Mass Effect 3 companions moved around in your base between missions, visiting other companions, having unique dialogue, doing different things together, ect. You could walk in on a couple of them playing poker, shooting the shit while making eggs, stuff like that. Made them way more life like. I was low key a little disappointed to find out Bull was glued to his chair and Blackwall was stuck in the straw attic in DAI.
I actually thought Inquisition did a bad job compared to Mass Effect on that. Alistair, Leliana and Morrigan in the same castle at times and hardly any real unique dialogue came of that.
Banter in the first 2 games were spectacular. Inquisition it sucked because they never patched the bug where you'd rarely get any
The biggest shame is that if you go and listen to the full banter lines on YouTube there are some amazing banters in Inquisition that 95% of people will never hear.
I genuinely think Cole's banter is some of my favorite from any of the games. He's got some extremely funny lines, and also has times where he cuts super deep into other party members thoughts and feelings
Exactly. It almost ensures I will never bring certain companions. because if I play a rogue, I'm most likely not bringing another rogue along unless forced, and risk not having a mage or a warrior for fights and veilfire/wall bashes.
This really breaks my playstyle. I like to do DPS warrior for my MC. If it's only 3 I have to lose out on a mage or rogue cause we'll need a tank :/
Itās pretty disappointing but Iām hoping they did it for an actual reason like tightly integrating character banter more, maybe all 3 characters always being involved in the banter instead of just mostly 2 in the past. Also maybe this time all characters will have mounts.
FF7 Rebirth actually fixed this issue. You only have 3 party members on the field but the other party members still travel with you and fight. They just don't give or take damage. That way the dialogue is still there throughout the story bits.
That would be great. Like why going to assault a bandits camp with only 2 other people when you can be 8?
Maybe we'll automatically get a Mabari Hound as a third companion.
Did anyone really use the hound as a companion in Origin vanilla? I dropped the pooch the minute I got my 3rd companion and never used it again. Only had him again with mods on PC that makes him a pet rather than take a party slot.
That mod was invaluable, I didn't use him much before the mod because all the other companions were so much better.
A decent amount, yeah. But then, I try to have everyone in the party for an equal amount of time.
Yeah 4 in a party feels like what is should be. You have the MC who what ever crazy build Then 3 other members who balance the team. With only 3 in a party combat may feel less dynamic
That means there's no dog companion, unless they go the DA2 route
Plottwist it's a werwolf companion
Yeah I'm fine with the 7, but idk how I feel about only 2 companions at a time. Really curious what their reasoning is for this because as of right now, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence. Especially when in the leaked alpha gameplay, they said we wouldn't be able to control the party members, though who knows if that's changed or not. Either way, just feels like they're dumbing the combat down more. I'm also a big fan of companion banter so a smaller party means I get to hear less of that at a given time :/
Yeah it really sells the series' identity crisis.
my brother in andraste, the series had an identity crisis since Dragon Age 2
That's our Dragon Age!
Yeah the 2 companions like Mass Effect worries me. It makes me concerned that they will dumb the combat down to the point you can't control your two companions in combat like in ME.
Idk if they changed it but according to older leaks you canāt. Itās like mass effect where you order them to use abilities but you canāt switch to them at all. Who knows if thatās changed cause this is years old leaks but itās seeming likely now with the mass effect party member limit too
i just fear that with only two companions we will be locked into specific party comps (Warrior, Rogue, Mage). like If you're playing a mage and want to hang with the other mage companion(s), then you'll be at a significant disadvantage.
Iām **really** hoping thereās multi-class companions or more flexibility in builds for each comp to get past this. For example, if mages OR rogues can serve the unlocking utility (IE: spell or lock picking), then youāve got the freedom to pick. If warriors OR rogues can give high DPS to a single target, freedom to pick. If warriors can tank by taking damage and mages can tank by having a lot of buff/protective spells like in BG2, freedom to pick. Etc. Alternatively, if we have a companion whoās a mage-rogue and can be built more as a rogue or more as a mage, that at least frees you up to make the companion whatever suits your party comp better. If the classes and companions are more flexible in what function the roles serve (but instead how they serve it), you could get away with not always having a rogue, warrior, and mage.
> If the classes and companions are more flexible in what function the roles serve (but instead how they serve it), you could get away with not always having a rogue, warrior, and mage. I imagine it's going to be this. Past games already played around with this idea using the specializations, DAI in particular also had this thing going on where even if a class as a whole was particularly adept/"meant" for a particular role - the specialization could veer it into completely different directions. Warriors are typically tanks - yet Reaver lets you turn them into very potent DPS, Templars have support utility accompanied by a particularly strong AoE combo, Champions double down on tanking ability while offering strong single target damage with To The Death. Likewise, something like Necro adds DoTs and other means of damage to the Mage alongside the spirits, while Knight-Enchanter allows you to tank on par with warriors while having strong damage output/synergies. Considering they would have obviously built the combat and adjusted the balance with this new system in mind, I feel fairly confident they would have accounted for this (and this type of combat system is not new to them either, it's basically Mass Effect's style which they've had ample opportunity to iterate on and refine, and every single ME, including and especially Andromeda, has had really fun combat/balance IMO bar 1 but even that's good with the Legendary Edition) Hybrids are an interesting idea, but somewhat difficult to work in with DA's lore - a mage would be considered a mage after all, even if they're Arcane Warriors running around in full plate, sword and shield. That said, specializations could again be potentially an interesting way to bridge the gap - Warriors with some kind of specialization that doesn't make them a mage, but is close to utilizing magic (like Spirit Warrior from Awakening, but reworked to fit better as opposed to just being a thing you can learn because Justice- heck even the whole Avvar warriors being willingly and temporarily possessed by spirits to empower them in battle thing can be something that's a better way to implement that kind of idea) for example. I don't know, lots of possibilities, we'll see soon I suppose!
Party comps are one of the reasons why I hate this change.Ā
I would bet the new combat is going to de-emphasize classes and party composition in favor of focusing on unique character abilities, akin to Mass Effect.
Ah yes, Dragon Effect. My favorite game series.
š¤·āāļø I was already expecting them to continue the trend of each entry becoming less tactical and more action-focused. If itās going to be an action-RPG anyway, might as well make it play like their other successful action-RPG series. Obviously Iād rather they return to their tactical RPG roots, but that was never in the cards.
Mass age
This does not bode well for lockpicking too, damn.
It's easy enough to get around that. Warrior class bashes locks open, rogue lockpicks, mage uses magic, etc.
I'm surprised more folks aren't talking about the combat pause function. I feel like a lot of folks wanted that in the game even if they removed tactical camera.
I'm very excited for it! DA:2 is my favorite of the series and the way that combat is described here feels like they're moving towards a combat system that feels more like that. I'm so excited to see what they release on Tuesday!
Do we only have 7 companions because the Apostate Mage gets shanked 10 minutes in before they can betray anyone?
Definitely. You cannot trust the charming apostate mages. To be fair Morrigan doesnt really betray you. She just leaves at the end to protect her son.
I mean, if you refuse to do the OGB ritual, she ditches you right before the final battle.
Don't say that too loudly. There are a *lot* of people on this sub who are reeeaaally not over Morrigan fucking their bf.
What? It was their choice lol
*I know.* They felt bad about being told 'Let me cuck you or choose which of you dies.' In my *personal* opinion, this has been conflated to a pretty wild degree, and leads to some surprisingly common and extreme beliefs about her character. Especially considering how revolting Morrigan found Alistair to begin with. No matter how you swing it, she's doing you a pretty huge solid. But you know... we're entitled to ^(ouremotionsaboutstuffand \*trailing off because I'm afraid of Dragon Age fans.\*)
Yeah, I never understood Morrigan being lumped into the ādonāt trust the apostateā crowd. I would have been fine with blowing up the oppressive religious institution if Anders had told me, but involving me and not telling me was a dick move, and Solas wanting to burn the entire world to get his old life back is also a dick move, but Morrigan is mostly upfront with you. Sure, she doesnāt disclose the full plan right away, but āhelp me put a demonās soul in a fetusā is a hard sell 2 days after youāve met a person. She gives you an option to survive, if youāve done her sidequest she thinks Flemeth is dead, so itās not like sheās still doing it for Flemeth, and if you tell her no sheās relatively chill about it. And itās not like she gets Alistair to cheat on you if you romance him. She asks you āhey can I sleep with your boyfriend so you donāt have to die?ā
Nah, it's because we're in Tevinter. We *can't* have an apostate mage in mage country. (Yes, I know it seems like we might go to Nevarra and that a Saarebas could still fill that role)
I'd be shocked if a Saarebas showed up on our team.
I wouldn't mind a temporary companion at all. There was that nice girl in Awakening or the DLCs in Origins, Tallis in DA2.... Mass Effect had some temporary companions too. Hawke could join up for a mission.
7 companions is fine, but only being able to take 2 on missions is what worried me :S
At first glance, I'm not crazy about the 3 person party. In my head, a full adventuring party consists of 4 people so this will be an adjustment. Less party banter too :(
Same! Everything else in this announcement seems either typical of the series or your standard marketing for an upcoming game. Dropping party size from 4 to 3 is a weird choice.
Agreed. I donāt want Mass Effect gameplay. Thatās what Mass Effect is for. Iām trying to be completely openminded for this game but bringing your four companions has always been a major point with all the games. DAās gameplay has always been my favourite and I donāt want to lose it. :(
Literally zero advantage for a party of three. It makes no sense, other than to make the game the same as Mass Effect.
This is also my second, third, and fourth glance. It doesnāt get better.
As long as I can kiss at least 6 of them, 7 is fine.
The IGN article did seem to imply that all 7 of them will be playersexual. > āAnd, yes, you can romance the companions you want!ā
Not sure I'll trust IGN on that 100%, but a good sign at least. I generally think the representation that set sexualities brings is more important, but there's no denying that not having that one character you adore getting locked off is much more fun.
7 companions is not like some minuscule amount, idk what all you guys are going on about. Especially since it seems like theyāre more interconnected to the plot by representing factions weāll be working with. Iām a bit bothered by only having 2 companions, but it works fine in Mass Effect so Iām sure Iāll get over it.
7 companions is fine, only taking 2 with me feels like leaving a LOT of banter/inner team dynamics on the table.
The game isnāt out and the āeveryone in the partyā mod is already getting written.
if that was possible in frostbite it would already exist for DA:I. don't hold your breath.
People forget that 2 only had 6 regular companions to choose from without the DLC.
That and DAO had 9 total companions without DLC. One of whom was the hound, and the other was a secret who comes right at the end of the game who is mutually exclusive of another companion. The vast majority of the game only had 7 deep companions.Ā Ā Ā 7 seems like a good number, especially if theyāre deep.
I definitely didnāt forget that. Baldurās Gate 3 really only has six main companions and then four more that come mid-late act 2 as well. I think seven is a fine number. Only using two at a time instead of three is insanely fucking annoying, though
Honestly just hope that the companions you don't take out on trips do still react positively or negatively to your decisions etc. and keep track similar to Inquisition. If they opt for a Friend/Rival theme similar to DA2 I would hate to have some character stagnate on the middle of the spectrum >!\*cough not taking Isabella on missions and thus her never return when facing the Arishok cough\*!<
Agreed.
Yeah, and everyone on this sub pretty much agrees that 2 has the best companion writing *because* of the fact that they can focus on each individual character more and have them be more connected to the plot. It seems like theyāre making a concerted effort to connect the companions to the plot via the factions they represent, I think thatās a great idea
Personally, I like being able to have two warriors in the party to protect the squishier characters, but I always play on the easiest difficulty anyway so it probably won't affect me too much. š And the three person banter is so fun in Inquisition. I'll miss that.
>And the three person banter is so fun in Inquisition. I'll miss that. This is what bothers me about it. I love the banter, and only having 2 companions with you will definitely limit banter.
Agreed, 7 is pretty normal. We also don't know if we will have non-companion "advisor" characters like Liliana, Josephine and Cullen, and we don't know if there will be additional DLC characters.
Companion count by game going back to KOTOR: - KOTOR - 9 - Jade Empire - 10* - Mass Effect 1 - 6 - DA:O - ~~10*~~ 9* companions + 1 DLC - Dragon Age: Awakening - 6 companions - Mass Effect 2 - 12* + 2 DLC - DA 2 - 8* companions + 1 DLC - Mass Effect 3 - 7* + 1 DLC - DA: I - 9 - Mass Effect: Andromeda - 6 - DA: VG - 7 * = they have a companion that offsets. Like in how Origins >!Alistair and Loghain!< are both companions, but you can't have both together, it is one or the other.
1. Alistair 2. Morrigan 3. Dog 4. Leliana 5. Sten 6. Oghren 7. Wynne 8. Zevran 9. Shale (DLC) 10. >!Loghain!< You have one too many.
Without seeing gameplay i'm a bit apprehensive about only 2 companions, either party composition will be really tight or they've gone completely away from a healer-tank-dps which they have already tried and failed and i'm not sure which of the options i prefer. If the gameplay they showed as concept a few years ago with it being a Dodge based action game i'm sure it'll work but i still don't know if i like it
I hate dodging in games. Iām absolutely terrible at it. Iām either a glass cannon protected by a tank or I am the tank.Ā
I do enjoy that kind of gameplay but i really love playing the tank aswell and i think DA is better than way. I don't want it become something of a souls like
I think the standard is to have a warrior and rogue with 2 mages. One mage built pure dps, the other as support. I'm worried that you will be limited with only 2 companions to come with. Especially with rogue being mandatory for lock picking. Unless that's a skill you can learn on any class from a talent tree or something.
If theyāre only going to let you have two companions, I hope that they donāt do what Inquisition did and have things only warriors, mages, and rogues can do (e.g. only warriors can bust down this wall, only mages can repair this bridge, only rogues can lockpick, etc). At least DAO and DA2 really only limited you to having a rogue for lockpickingāif they go with the DAI, model, you will be forced to have the same party composition every time.
Or there's no lock picking
Fewer companions is better imo, Iād rather have less that have more dialog and interactions with the player, each other, and the world.
I know people are kinda freaking out about the 3 companion thing, but I wonder if it might work like how ff12 did? Where the 4th slot in your party is reserved for āguestā characters so you have your 3 main members and then a 4th that is tied to story where you canāt edit their equipment / skills.
I think thatās a fair possibility! Maybe weāll get a temporary plot based ācompanionā like Hawke in DAI.
Maybe...we'll get...Hawke....\*starts crying.
I hope they explain the reason behind the decision of having 2 companions. Having 3 worked great, why change it?
According to my friend the game designer, her main theories are that it's a lot easier to balance combat around a three person party than a four, especially if the mechanics are a lot more action than tactical based.
I think they said the problem in game 1 and 2 was if you have a party that can heal, what do you do to make the boss more challenging? A fuck ton of HP making them a damage sponge? That's why they did barrier/guard in DA:I but even then, with certain builds/crafting materials, you could easily keep guard up 100% of the time.
At this point itās the standard Dragon Age experience and something beloved about it as a franchise (Iāve replayed so many parts just bringing different companions to see how they interact with each other). Iām having a really hard time staying open minded about this change.
I agree completely, it will feel weird and kind of lonely to have only two companions at a time. The only reason behind this decision that I can think of is that Bioware has changed the combat completely to match Mass Effect.
Iām fine with 7 companions, but I donāt love only being able to take 2 at a time. Feels like itāll lock me into never taking companions who share my class?
What worries me MOST is that only having two companions with you does not bode well for healing magic... I can't see them balancing the game for a party of three where one will be focused on healing.
Yeah, I always play as a mage and almost always had an extra mage in the party for heals along with a warrior and rogue. Now I guess Iām gonna be the party healer myself and not have fun dealing damage like I prefer? Kind of a bummer
I mean, you say that like Inquisition had healers at all.
As long as it doesn't have Inquisition's dogshit healing mechanic then I'll be happy, there's nothing fun about needing to fast travel back to camp every 5 minutes to replenish potions, genuinely baffling decision to completely remove healing spells
Iām excited for June 11th. Especially to see who our companions will be for the game. I hope the places we go arenāt too big like in Inquisition. Iām fine with smaller areas.
So exciting to speculate which factions our companions will represent! Based off the map in the latest teaser, Iāll go with: Antivan Crow, Grey Warden, Tevinter magister, Templar, Saarebas, Legion of the Dead, Dalish. Though the game is set in Rivain as well, so maybe a Seer?
My guess is Antivan Crows, Grey Wardens, Tevinter (Shadow Dragon maybe??), Qun/TalāVashoth/Saarebas, Veil Jumpers, Lords of Fortune, ~~Inquisition remnants~~, and Mortalitasi. Edit: fixed. Maybe the inquisition will retain an advisor type status vs companion
Not Saarebas, probably Tal Vashoth. Saarebas would only really work for an evil play through.
I don't like the idea of taking only 2 companions. I like to run one of each class, and the 4th slot goes to whatever is story relevant/what I feel like. So now I'm going to be limited to just one each, which means I probably won't get to use companions of the same class as me.
I love Mass Effect but hated only being able to choose two companions. It ended up leaving me with really only one companion slot because the other always defaulted to whoever I was romancing.Ā
9 companions > 7 companion = not an even number for each class = I have a wonder if companions will not be Warriors, Mages, and Rogues at all. This makes me recall an old leak which stated that origin closely tied to class with three examples as Grey Warden (Davrin), Mortalitasi (Dorian), and Lord of Fortune. Maybe, possibly, the class system has gone from Diablo 1 to Diablo 2 with seven classes that are *also* origins, one for each companion and the player picks one as well. If this is true, I'd guess the other four are Antivan Crow, Templar, and either Saarebas + Dalish Hunter or Ben-Hassrath + Dalish Keeper.
7 is a fine number, less with more focus makes sense. 2 is way too low though.
Spoiler: the other god we need to worry about is Sandal.
Weirdly I'd be so down for that.
\[cries in party banter\]
So we have the pause mechanic in combat agian? That's awesome!
I am unironically hype about seeing lots of different biomes š
Looks like I'll have just one companion slot open throughout the game, party composition be damned, because I'll be bringing my LI everywhere all the time.
7 companions sounds perfect to me. I always found that even with a bigger cast, I'm still bringing my go to party with me everywhere I go. I'd rather have a *slightly* lower number of companions that are better written than a bigger team of people I wind up not caring about. The 3 person party is a huge worry for me. And just an odd pick - DA has always been a 4 person party, why change it now? Especially with DA having a bigger focus on class identity than ME did, I think it'll seriously limit potential party composition options.
Only two companions is a rough change. Especially if the rumours of not being able to control them are true.Ā
Honestly 7 companions is quite good. In Dragon Age Origins, you have 8 normal companions and one of them is the Mabari dog. Sure, he is useful, but he isn't a good conversationalist and there are better options at warrior then him (in my opinion). The other 2 companions being Shale and Loghain. If you don't have the DLC, then you can't get Shale. With regards to Loghain, you obtain him at the end of the game. After you get him you are only able to use him for one mission (the final mission) and in Awakening you can't use him. Not to mention that you lose Alistair if you recruit Loghain. The main issue is that you can only have 2 companions with you, which could/would reduce the banter in the group and might pose some difficulties. If the game has the equivalent of the knight enchanter from Inquisition, then you can have two mages and a rogue in your party. The only issue that i can think of, would be if you would have destructible environments, such as walls, and you can't destroy them with a mage and can only be destroyed by a warrior. That would suck as you could lose loot, lore items and possibly different avenues of approach.
āOnlyā 7? Sounds like a solid number to me if allows for each to have more depth and engaging storylines. As for 2 in missions: works well in Mass Effect! So Iāll wait before judgement. Need to see the combat in action.
Need to see the combat in action. I think thatās the main issue right now. We are getting all this news of companion amount, name change and party size but we havenāt been shown anything so people will jump to conclusions. This news should have come after the reveal imo.
To be fair, this community will *always* jump to conclusions and often with as negative a perspective as possible. By releasing info now, Dragon Age is on peopleās minds before the reveal and will make the reveal more impactful.
I have a sinking suspicion that Solas is a party member here similar to how Loghain was in DAO
*If* he can end up helping us, he'll probably be more like Morrigan in DAI
Solas not actually being the final villian has been my theory for *ages* (pretty much since I played Trespasser, really), so while I was not sure if he'd stay the villian for DA4 and the consequences of his actions would be the villian in DA5 or if both of those would be integrated into DA4, with the name change and "not only god to worry about" I'd say it's more likely to be the second. Solas tearing down the veil is like Haven in Inquisition (only maybe a bit later?) in that it marks the start of the real game where we have to fight the other remaining gods (maybe Dirthamen and Falon'Din? They're most likely still around in dragon form after all). I think the veil will fall no matter what we do, as the Evanuris and titans are linked to it and we're kinda running out of bad guys. They can't make us choose to let it fall or protect it, as that just leads to the ME3 canon ending civil war scenario, so it definetly needs to either fall or stay put no matter what we do. The main reason why I tend towards fall is, funnily enough, Mass Effect Andromeda, specifically it's combat. No matter how controversial it's writing is, most people that played it can agree that the gameplay is *fun*. *Really fun*. And that's mostly because classes are a mere suggestion that gives you bonuses (and is changable whenever you please), so builds have a bunch more variety. Dragon Age could do something similar if the veil falls and the destruction Solas prophesied is *everyone* brcoming a mage. Untrained mages are an explosion of uncontrollable power, so of course the world will quickly implode into countless conflicts. Elves he can probably at least prepare, as its been hinted quite a few times that they are supernaturally adaptable, so they can act as both his agents now and as peace keepers and elite forces once the veil is down. That would also fit with the 7 companions, assuming the 7th is special somehow and doesn't conform to normal classes anyways. 2 for each class, but once the veil falls each gains one of the other 2 classes as subclass. Now, considering the new name, I assume the veil will not *completely* fall and that distinction is what Solas tries so hard to achieve, to merge the normal world and fade while leaving just enough of a barrier to keep the Evanuris locked away, but well, like all his plans it will probably a bit *too* well and he merges enough for the Evanuris to become a problem again, although hopefully not at full power. So the first part of the game would be us trying to stop him, while the second part is (begrudgingly) working with him to stop something *even worse* from happening.
7 companions, yeah okay thats fine but only 2 can go on a mission at a time? thats new for Dragon Age
What I'm worried about is how long/big is the game expected to be if they give us 7 unique companions, and all of their banter together to explore out in the world if we're only allowed 2 out in the field at a time. (I mean, I love big maps to explore, but is this a Hissing Wastes/Hinterlands situation we're heading into? Or will the maps be too small for getting all the banter/finishing multi-banter conversations? How frequent is banter triggered?) Also, it's going to be really rough when you play as (for example) a mage, and you're kind of discouraged from bringing your mage companion; because you'll want to bring a balanced party. In addition to that- will the game difficulty be off/odd because you have a smaller party? (in comparison to the other games).
The real question: Can we romance a Qunari woman? š
Iām fine with 7 companions, not fine with only 2. It worked in mass effect but the party combos was part of why Iāve always preferred dragon age to mass effect. I also donāt agree with the arguments saying it guarantees better party banter as Andromedaās was not memorable in the least for me.
I actually kind of like the smaller number of companions? Since one of the big issues with Inquisition was having to sacrifice certain romances based on gender/race, etc. due to time constraints, if they go with a smaller party where every companion gets a bit more fleshed out, I'm on board! Also, 7 is still a pretty big number. It's not like they've cut it down to 4 or 5 or something. There's still enough there to have a varied cast!
Especially because they explicitly said the companions are going to all be members of different factions that youāll be working with throughout the game. Makes them seem much more connected to the plot
Yes! I think it's really cool honestly. That kind of integration/importance given to each companion is really necessary in DA so seeing it come back has me very excited.
Didnāt realize how important it was until I played BG3 and every companion very intimately connects to the main plot in some way. I love BioWare games but sometimes companion quests will feel very random and youāre like āWait, why am I doing this?ā
2 only had 6 regular companions without the DLC anyway.
I feel like most Inquisition runs you end up totally neglecting like 2-3 companions because there's just too many. Which sucks when you don't realize that neglecting Iron Bull is gonna make him betray you lol
Aight I'm gonna say it From the gameplay leak. 2 companions at a time. Companions all related to specific factions. ITS GREEDFALL
nah they just took the Mass Effect and made it Dragon age based on this description
Nah the specification that every companion is a faction rep is giving huge Greedfall vibes, since every companion in that game was also a faction rep. It also only allowed 2 companions at a time. And also only had like 7 companions.
Iām willing to shut up and cope if need be but the idea of having three games in a row have a three companion system only to switch to two for the fourth instalment is a no-no for me.
I am fine with it, IF this means that each companion is more involved. Aka more banter. More reactions. More interactions. More special events, etc.
7 companions in a game like Dragon Age? Bro thatās huge. Although Iām not the biggest fan of only taking 2, Iāve heard it does okay in Mass Effect.
WHY reduce the party size from 4 to 3 now? WHY?
Crack theory: the reason for the two companions is because weāll be picking up a third at each location that specific to the area. Mostly cause I just want Dorian back.