Dragon Age The Veilguard Criticism Thread (formerly Skepticism Thread) [Spoilers]

They've finally surpassed something more offputting and ugly than the protagonist of the Felicia Day DLC

I can't get over how weirdly inept/bad the marketing for this game has been

static0.gamerantimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/pjimage---2022-06-10T130622037.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=1100&h=618&dpr=1.5

Because DAV is essentially the end of an era transition game. Also I think they are going to work from now on with just one writing team transferring from Dragon Age to Mass Effect and back again. May be Mary Kirby indicated she wasn't interested in working on Mass Effect so they said there's the door then.

I think I agree with some of the on-line commentators when they say that visually the environments look great but they have concerns about the rest. I am generally a positive person and have been trying to be optimistic and upbeat in my response to what has been revealed thus far but I'm starting to have doubts.

It began in the most innocuous way with the colour purple. I've said on another thread how the saturation of the character screens with purple bothers me. It is the fact that it infuses everything with purple that is the problem: Emmrich's hair, Neve's hat, Lucanis' allegedly black leather armour. Yes, other games had their colour theme but somehow it didn't grate on me like the latest purple does because if it was infusing the characters and their equipment it wasn't so noticeable.

That got me thinking about other things I don't like. After first seeing the release date trailer I declared I didn't care about the game play, I'd find a way round it if I had problems with it. The trouble is you can't avoid the fight mechanics, even with the setting on easy.

I don't like the combat wheel. It will annoy me intensely if every time I pause the game to take stock of a situation, the wheel comes up automatically. Also, as other people have pointed out, it does seem as though it means the only real use for companions is to utilise in combos. How much damage are they really doing other than that? I think I can direct them to a particular foe through the wheel but it reminds me too much of the strategic camera in DAI which I hated and never used. At least there I could manually direct companions by physically taking control of them. Not any more.

I don't like the flashy fighting style with all the leaps and twirls. It is too much. I want to play a fantasy hero grounded in reality, not a super hero from a Marvel movie. I gather it is more reminiscent of on-line games, or certainly games focused on action rather than role playing. I wouldn't know because I don't play them. Yet despite all the flashy footwork the fights seem to take forever. I can understand the focus on close combat on the low level combat because you are not yet advanced enough in abilities to do more strategic stuff but where were the area effect spells at high levels? By this I mean you survey the battlefield, move to an appropriate choke point and then take out at least the lower level mooks with a firestorm or blizzard, whilst other members of the party pepper them with arrows, before letting your party loose on the remainder. I don't recall seeing anything like that.

The cinematic cut scenes look great but I realised that much of the release day trailer was just that, cinematic cut scenes. Of course, they were visually impressive but I have to admit I am a little bothered about the appearance of characters out of them. I was looking at the scene in the IGN companion reveal where they are all sitting around chatting and something doesn't seem quite right. It was the same with the scenes talking with companions in the Lighthouse. It is hard to put my finger on it but I think it is that they don't look as though they actually belong in the scene, like actors in front of a green screen and then the scenery was added afterwards (or vice versa in this case). I'm sure people are going to say it has always been the case and perhaps it has but it wasn't so noticeable. Also, when looking at an enlarged still of Emmrich and Lucanis I suddenly noticed the latter's hands around his cup. They look weird, particularly his left hand. I suppose it wouldn't be so noticeable if it wasn't enlarged but I'm beginning to see why some commentators have said characters look like they are made from play dough.

Then someone else raised the idea that perhaps it has been more designed for console and controller rather than PC with mouse and keyboard because of the way the game play seems to work and if that turns out to be the case they just won't play it. That really gave me pause for thought because I've been worried about the PC aspect ever since that other EA game came out that was virtually unplayable on PC at launch. I hope Bioware would have learned from that and it won't be that bad but nevertheless if it is too awkward to play on PC with mouse and keyboard, I won't play it either.

Whilst the characters look interesting and I have been immersed in the story up to now, it is 10 years from DAI and there are some aspects of the narrative that do bother me from a lore perspective. This has only been exacerbated by the game play reveals. I'm sorry but the floating security structure in Minrathous with the security Big Brother light does not feel like Thedas (nor was it ever mentioned in any of the lore before now). Whilst it is great that we have skipped the whole hunt for Solas thing and moved to the end game of that particular plot thread, it does leave a great many questions that need answering. Biggest one being, why the f**k didn't Solas say he was going to deal with the gods before dropping the Veil? Why didn't he say he wasn't destroying the world and it wouldn't be lethal to the majority, when he knew that was the impression he had given the Inquisitor? When did they decide on forming the Veilguard? If it was before the events of DAV, why did it take them so long? Why did events in Arlathan Forest affect Minrathous? Why did Solas leave the eluvian open so we could follow him? Why didn't Solas tell Varric what he was doing so we wouldn't interfere? Already I'm annoyed with the way the narrative has been framed and I haven't even started playing it. I always suspected that I would have to treat it as a totally new game rather than a continuation of the old one but in that case I should approach my decision to purchase in the same way. Would I buy this game if it didn't have the Dragon Age logo?

So, given that in order to play the game will require considerable expense to upgrade to a PC capable of running the game (but would cost me almost as much for a console instead even if I wanted to), I probably am going to wait and see what reviews are like. Either that, or if people are going to be showing demos from 19th September, I will be paying attention rather than going into media blackout as I originally suggested I would do. There is no point me buying a game that I won't enjoy playing and where the narrative will annoy the hell out of me.

The hair actually does look pretty good, especially for a Bioware hair. Like there is no defending Inquisitions hair, it's pretty terrible

I feel like the 10 year wait definitely had a toll on me. Like I was expecting more, even if I can't really specify what that more is. That's on me for having such grand expectations but for now, I just still dont feel it and the more I see the more concerns I have. But all this is more on the visual for now(which is not blowing me away), can't judge the story yet.

Marketing is usually doing their best to sell something, hence it is called marketing. I doubt they show some unattractive or annoying parts on purpose. On the contrary, they are supposed to show the best parts, which may imply that the rest of the game is considerably worse than what they show. It is all subjective of course, but in general should work like that. Otherwise, the marketing people would be out of business fairly fast.

If one recalls how marketing was for MEA and Anthem, it was exactly that: hiding the worst parts while exposing only something that is reasonably OKish. This especially tricked a lot of people into buying Anthem at launch, for example. Marketing also did their best to hide whatever was broken in MEA at launch. At least MEA was mostly fixed later on to about 5-6/10 where it belongs, while Anthem was abandoned and stays at around 4/10, where is also belongs. Just based on marketing, I seriously doubt that DAV is going to turn out an Anthem-scale disaster although it seems unlikely to surpass MEA on the other hand. There might be a slim chance of course that everything is going to be OK with DAV, so there is that.

That is the heart of the matter right there.  And the answer, for many people, is no.  Why would I spend money on a generic Marvel-esque looking console action game now when I normally never do?

I suppose we should give them props for packaging something somewhat coherent after their decade-long development cycle mess, but unfortunately for them, it's too little too late.  Too little because there are plenty of other, better action games out there ('Black Myth Wukong' for instance).  And too late because the woke slop doesn't sell anymore - if it ever did.  Witness the recent 'Concord' debacle...

And you are correct, the god-awful purple sparkling out of every inch of this thing is truly aggravating.  Even the location names are purple-tinged for Christ' sake!  Lavendel anyone?  I mean can you be more crass and unsubtle with the 'messaging'?!

So the bottom line is, I have waited 10 years to get the conclusion of this story and what I have seen so far is sorely disappointing.  Yet I still lurk here, and avoid pissing on the enthusiasts' cereals out of this thread, and will likely watch playthroughs of it online to see how it ends, because despite the letdown, I remain attached to what Dragon Age once was.

If MEA was called Andromeda, how many people would have bought the game?

I think it's fair to not liking the purple theme of the game as well as the focus on the menu (I'd have personally gone for the one in the leaked footage, which still had a purple/violet tone was more subtle). I seriously doubt that the reason they went for purple has really something to do with some kind of 'messaging', even less in regards of a connection with the town's names. We know that there's a town in the game from Antiva named Treviso (As far as I know, it didn't exist in the franchise' lore before the teaser of last year), which is the name of an Italian city thousands of years old. 

Putting aside Concord's debacle (Sony's live-service strategy has failed spectacularly so far between failed games and abandoned project, which goes beyond Concord), the conversation about woke is honestly head scratching sometimes. Without going too far and talking about the recent news of the Steam 'Woke' Detector, which would put another enormously successful game like Elden Ring in the category, BG3 has basically most, if not every feature that people are criticizing Bioware and Veilguard for being too 'woke', and yet it's last's year GOTY and one of the best RPGs of all time. Veilguard could've been an old-school RPG, or more similar to Origins (I do think that often people forget that Bioware had *always* streamlining things, and that Origins had been criticized by a part of the RPG fanbase for being a 'dumbed down' version of RPGs of the past), with a more realistic artstyle, and it'd could have still been full of the 'woke' content that people didn't seem to be bothered in BG3...or in other DA games. 

Veilguard could turn out to be anything from a good/great game to a truly garbage, and I do think people should be able to criticize it here or in another socials without being assaulted (the same goes for the other side, however). There's nothing wrong in not liking the direction the franchise went for, but I think some criticism can be a bit exaggerated or out of context with the issues of the game.

I was more referring to the 'woke' discussion in regards of Veilguard's being closer to Origins or classical RPGs. I don't think the two are related, and Bioware has slowly shifted towards a more action-based gameplay for a while...which is not my personal preference. I'd much have preferred a turn towards Origins, but I can live with an action-based gameplay if the story is good.

TW3's gameplay is barely decent for an action game, and definitely not my personal preference for RPGs, but I still loved it.

I might've not been clear in my post, but I think being concerned is more then fine. I have several concerns as well, although there's also a lot of things they shown that I like.

Some are more allergic to the messaging than others.  Once recognized, the signs are unmistakable.  The over-the-top color palette in this case is merely one indicator.

As for the so called 'Woke detector' on Steam, I presume you refer to Kabrutus's addon.  What it really does is indicate whether or not the infamous SBI crew was involved in the development of a given game.  Considering the track record and the quality of the projects those people were involved with I'd say the Addon does exactly what it's ultimately meant to do: help people save money.

Finally regarding BG3, I am convinced Larian was contractually bound by 'Wizards of the Coast', a notorious woke outfit, to include all the usual DEI checkboxes before being allowed to make the game.  Besides, if you have played it, you may noticed how all those woke tropes were subtly, yet relentlessly mocked in-game.  That and the fact that BG3's combat was actually fun and engaging.

But as you said, different strokes for different folks.

So let the enthusiasts rejoice and enjoy, the skeptics will go on criticizing what they dislike.  This IS the thread to do so after all.

You mentioned those signs, and I still don't think they had really anything to do with any kind of messaging. It seems to me an overreaction and overexaggeration, but if you think the name of a random town was chosen to remind people of the purple theme of the game which in turn is meant to hide a message, fair enough.


I have not played it, but I think that putting Elden Ring in the 'woke' category seems weird, but by your logic, it means 'woke' games can still be successful and sell a lot, as BG3 did...or Inquisition, to remain in topic with Bioware's games.

Consider Larian's past game and what they say and speak on numerous topics, I honestly doubt that they were forced to do anything by WoTC in that regard. We'll see for their next games how it goes, in any case. I personally think that if people are hopeful that Larian would reverse course just because they're not collaborating with WoTC are going to end up disappointed. There are devs that shown support and interest in Veilguard, in any case, with the social pages sharing friendly banter in regards of certain topics and funny images.

BG3's combat is the kind I prefer in RPGs, and I have little doubt that no matter how good for its kind Veilguard's will be, I'll prefer the former...but again, it has little to do with 'woke' content. The decision to go for the action shift in Veilguard had little to do with 'woke', and you'd still consider the game 'woke' if it had a similar gameplay to DAO or BG3.

To be clear, I'm not saying people can't criticize Veilguard or have concerns for the direction they took. I posted several times in this very thread about my concerns. I just think that sometimes every problems and concerns are being tied to a singular issue that, whether true or not, isn't actually the reason for a good number of decision the team took about the game. The combat especially.

 

So have I, noting in various posts several aspects that left me lukewarm. This is not about a single issue, even though the ideological bent we can observe is like a bad smell permeating everything else. Or, to put it differently, the proverbial cherry on top, or the last straw. Like I said, some people are more allergic to the woke crap than others. There are others who merely virtue signal as if their life depended on it.  And then there are those who actually agree with and approve of it (...)


But if you want a list of things I find disagreeable:


- the game being designed and optimized for consoles & controllers;

- the combat being of the fidgety-jump-all-over-the-place variety;

- the combat interface lifted straight from Mass Effect - a space action game series;

- the MMO inspired over-the-top visuals during combat, where you can barely see what's happening for all the flashing gizmos and circles and directional lines holding your hand to make sure you don't miss;

- the cartoonish play-doh-like character graphics;

- the immersion breaking effect the appearance of those cartoons have when they wander on screen vs the crisp looking backdrop environments;

- the neon lights and yes the goddam purple everywhere;

- the fact that you, the supposed protagonist, isn't really in charge of the story - rather the story is in charge of you: you have no choice to use (or not) this crew of diversity hires; you have no direct control over any of them during combat other than to give general instructions;

- the bland, uninspiring and frankly often ugly companions;

- the sidelining of Solas as principal antagonist;

- the apparent episodic structure of the narrative - I suppose we're meant to defeat the Evanuris after enough personal missions & personal sessions on the divan, listening to the SOB stories of this crew - all the while enduring the snarky dronings of the Egg in our heads?

etc...


But if a stalwart like Gervaise is now having doubts, it doesn't bode well does it?

Anyway, we'll see how well this sells.  That will be the real proof in the pudding.