159 réponses à ce sujet

[n7stormrunner]

Rawgrim wrote...

The cartoonish action-game combat. I had enough of it in DA2. That is my only concern, though.

I have good news and bad news which do you want first

[Rawgrim]

n7stormrunner wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The cartoonish action-game combat. I had enough of it in DA2. That is my only concern, though.

I have good news and bad news which do you want first

The good news, please.

[Star fury]

Jean-Funk Van Damme wrote...

- Origin
- Dialogue Wheel
- FF only NM. Babysitting players.
- Unrealistic/flashy combat
- Dragon Fail 2
- Making unsatisfactory encounters with the other main characters. Best would be to play them again in their precious DLC
- Making the game 'accessible' to new players.

Nice list imo, especially the bolded part.

[ManOfSteel]

Skinny Female protagonist. Hopefully they give the Human, Qunari and Dwarf females a little muscle. Female Hawke and Female Shepard had the skinniest arms, which looked ludicrous. Especially when the former is played as a Warrior. It really put me off playing them.

At the very least, the female Qunari Inquisitor should have something of an Amazonian build to her. Female warriors don't need to look like She-hulk to have a strong, tough build.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

my concerns are mostly story-based. there is very little with game mechanics that could go wrong. hell, i'll even play default human, with no ability to respec/change his armour, in 2d enviorment. i must say that even if any of those occurs in the game, it won't keep me from playing. it's bound to be epic.

when i heard they'd like to create more open world, i thought of Skyrim and caves with hostile NPCs, one bandit camp five meters away from another, seriously - shouldn't they fight each other? i fear unavoidable battles, level grinding

the other thing i disliked about Skyrim was the impact on the world killing the emperor had, i mean... one would expect empire to level the blasted island. but Bioware actually cares for the story, in their games it's just done much better. i enjoyed it in da2, having no or very little impact on the world was quite refreshing. not being the all-mighty hero who would stop every disaster before it broke - standing there between Orsino and Meridith almost coming to some kind of agreement when the chantry blew was the best scene ever, it left me speechless, angry, sad and powerless. i guess the inquisitor will have more power to affect the world, shape it, fetch socks (or Map of Occupied Kirkwall) for every damn questgiver. i really would once more enjoy protagonist with a human flair who is sometimes powerless.i fear protagonist will become powerful god-like (the one and only active) force with ability to move stars, fart supernovas. and he/she will accomplish that by doing meaningless/boring chores.


another reason i think da2 is great game is the lack of personified ominous evil. dragons, demons, bloodthirsty/mad AI - it's so obvious, so boring. give me a mob with well-reasoned stubborn xenophobe as a leader and i'll scream like a little girl.i fear they will somehow blame the whole mage/templar thing on single entity, possibly responsible for veil being torn as well.


i really loved the ending of Divinity II, it was brilliant (rest of the story was meh). the whole game you struggle to be the ultimate hero and in the and finally it bites you in the hind parts. i'd like a story in which being noble paragon always ready to please companions, do things right would sometimes left you miserable, wishing you were more pragmatic. same goes for the evil-doers - if PC chooses to do something despicable in order to gain some power/reward the story tells her/him that paragon action would bring far more rewarding outcome. somehow balance the experience, force PC to be an egoist/saviour once in a while.i fear story/approval system will compell me to choose actions i wouldn't normally take just to force me to either paragon or renegade playthrough.

Modifié par barzozwierz, 22 février 2014 - 12:35 .

[CybAnt1]

Well said. To me game development is an art. and all art is subjective. 

BTW, SR, no comment on your music, which I'm sure is excellent. (Of course, I'd have to hear it.) 

But you'll forgive me for the way that comment rubs me wrong. It is interesting that we have a very strong "taste is subjective" faction here, and I will confess yes, of course, there are always elements of it that vary from individual to individual. 

On the other hand, that view has never been taken to its extreme in the art world, which at the end of the day does seem to recognize there is a thing called quality. If it were not true ...

Then we would recognize Dogs Playing Poker and the Mona Lisa as being equally good paintings.
Then we would say the films Gigli, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Ishtar are just as great films as Citizen Kane and Casablanca.
Then we would say L. Ron Hubbard was as great a science fiction writer as Isaac Asimov. (No comment about any religions he may have started.) Or as great a writer as Charles Dickens. 
We might just as well claim Justin Bieber has the musical talent of The Beatles, and will be remembered for longer. 

Yes, I will agree with you. Making video games - well, especially within this genre - is art. And taste is subjective. But there is a reason we have reviewers and critics - and some people actually listen to them, or even rely on them. 

It doesn't mean there is absolutely no objective yardstick as to which games are better or worse. I've seen the problems with relying on Metacritic. That said, you can do something else. Simply count up the number of good or bad reviews - as long as there's a large enough and diverse enough sample. I do think it's safe to say that a game that 95 critics out of 100 found was bad, is probably a stinker. 

[Bond]

1.Combat ( it is too late to cry for changes in this department, they made a decision, we must wait to play it, i am 100% sure it is better than DAII, if it somehow worse i will stop buying games)
2. Dialogue system. I wrote so much on the subject, that i am tired. You can see my topic "Dialogue system in DAI", back in 3-4 page i suppose.
3. Animations. It does not need explaining.

Nothing more, from the new engine, through the story, to voice acting, characters...i have no worries on this part.
But ofc these are three major concerns, it is not little things. These are the meat and bones.

[Shadow Raziel]

addiction21 wrote...

Shadow Raziel wrote...

You're objective. good for you, I am as well. much respect.

I am as biased and self-serving as every other human walking the planet but I try.

I was a fan of BioWare since Shattered Steel but I didn't connect those dots until maybe BG1 or two and that happened after MDK2. BioWare other then a focus on story and characters does not stick to any one formula and I am happy they don't.

There would be no KoToR, Jade Empire or Mass Effect without that bravery.

I am more then a decade past being sick of this idealized vefsion of BioWare so many people hold onto but I give my respect to those developers that don't repeat the same thing over and over again but try to stretch their legs failures or not trying is better then being Madden.

We're on the same page... Each game should stand on it's own. sometimes people get so wrapped up in THEIR EXPECTATIONS about what they want, they lose objectivity. in the end they are mad because the developer did not make "their game"  I get that. I am a guitarist, and many people have trained their ears and minds to 4/4 and 2/4 common time signatures. and if the tune is not rooted in Em and Am then it's not as good. It's a preconceived notion. And those people are usually the most vocal; there is most definitely a paradgm shift in the gaming industry. and people will either roll with it or get left behind. Madden and COD are good examples of developers hitting on a tried and true method and milking it for all it's worth. I'm personally glad Bioware does not do that.. I look forward to DAI. and to the continued progression in development. good post man.

Modifié par Shadow Raziel, 22 février 2014 - 03:52 .

[ghost_ronin]

That it might be too ambitious, too big for the dev team. That they on the way lose focus and spread themselves too thin.

[Mirrman70]

Nefla wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Nefla wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...

I have zero concerns. I don't need games to be tailored to my tastes. I am a very flexible gamer.

You play games that aren't to your tastes, or you just don't like or dislike anything ?

How do you know something is not to your tastes until you try it? Would you put Something like CoD in the same box as System Shock or Spec Ops the Line? 

Its about judging something on its own merits. Not your preconceived expectations of what it should be because it has this vague label of RPG, RTS, or FPS attached to it.

You know if you like or dislike certain elements. If a game is full of elements and features you like, reason stands that it would be appealing to you. If a game had no features you liked and features you actively disliked, why would you buy it anyway? I know that I don't like games with little to no story. Combat is not a draw for me and neither is multiplayer, character customization and roleplaying are important to me. I have not played CoD but I don't need to play it to know It would not be to my tastes. Having no wants or concerns about a game is confusing to me. I'm imagining someone who plays any game just to have something to keep busy, not because they like it.

It's not that I don't have tastes, I do. But when I was 10 I didn't like the games that required thought, that you needed to take your time to play. As I grow older I realize that like food different games produce different sensations. An hour of GTA or Saints Row just mindlessly causing chaos is nice when I've been slightly down. Those mindless games or "stupid" or "easy" games are fun when you don't want to spend a lot of effort at them. but I also love stories, and Bioware delivers me good stories. I am not a lore-addict (but I am well versed in most lores that I interact with) so I don't need a game series to have perfect continuity or make complete since. I am ok with most retcons because I understand that a game is made by people that aren't me who want to build THEIR game and hope the masses appreciate it. I remember when people threw temper tantrums because fallout 3 was so different from fallout 1 and 2 but I didn't care. things change, twenty years from now RPGs will be drastically different from what they are now, that is simply how it will work. I could kick and scream the whole way or I could shrug my shoulders and enjoy the games for what they are.

[Rotward]

They'll cut corners on important conversations, while wasting their word budget on conversations less than 1% of the player base encounters.

[MesTarrant]

DoomHK wrote...

Skinny Female protagonist. Hopefully they give the Human, Qunari and Dwarf females a little muscle. Female Hawke and Female Shepard had the skinniest arms, which looked ludicrous. Especially when the former is played as a Warrior. It really put me off playing them.

At the very least, the female Qunari Inquisitor should have something of an Amazonian build to her. Female warriors don't need to look like She-hulk to have a strong, tough build.

YES! Or at least let the character creater be more like Dragon's Dogma where we can choose weight, height, muscle build, etc.


This qunari concept art or whatever actually does concern me. On the one hand I think the female looks great, but on the other... She looks "sexy," whereas the male looks strong and fearsome. Why can't we have a female character who is created for some value that isn't just sex appeal. We've got enough hot ladies in Dragon Age - give us some unique ones!

[Mirrman70]

MesTarrant wrote...

DoomHK wrote...

Skinny Female protagonist. Hopefully they give the Human, Qunari and Dwarf females a little muscle. Female Hawke and Female Shepard had the skinniest arms, which looked ludicrous. Especially when the former is played as a Warrior. It really put me off playing them.

At the very least, the female Qunari Inquisitor should have something of an Amazonian build to her. Female warriors don't need to look like She-hulk to have a strong, tough build.

YES! Or at least let the character creater be more like Dragon's Dogma where we can choose weight, height, muscle build, etc.


This qunari concept art or whatever actually does concern me. On the one hand I think the female looks great, but on the other... She looks "sexy," whereas the male looks strong and fearsome. Why can't we have a female character who is created for some value that isn't just sex appeal. We've got enough hot ladies in Dragon Age - give us some unique ones!

aveline did not come off as sexy to me.

[Isaidlunch]

That they are going to try too hard to pull in the Skyrim/open-world crowd. I hope to god they strike the right balance and do it right, but I'm preparing myself for the worst... every zone being a larger version of the Korcari Wilds.

[lady_v23]

that it will be short. can't stand a short game

[Hanako Ikezawa]

MesTarrant wrote...

DoomHK wrote...

Skinny Female protagonist. Hopefully they give the Human, Qunari and Dwarf females a little muscle. Female Hawke and Female Shepard had the skinniest arms, which looked ludicrous. Especially when the former is played as a Warrior. It really put me off playing them.

At the very least, the female Qunari Inquisitor should have something of an Amazonian build to her. Female warriors don't need to look like She-hulk to have a strong, tough build.

YES! Or at least let the character creater be more like Dragon's Dogma where we can choose weight, height, muscle build, etc.


This qunari concept art or whatever actually does concern me. On the one hand I think the female looks great, but on the other... She looks "sexy," whereas the male looks strong and fearsome. Why can't we have a female character who is created for some value that isn't just sex appeal. We've got enough hot ladies in Dragon Age - give us some unique ones!

The female Qunari still looks strong and fearsome to me. I know I'd never mess with her.

[Master Warder Z_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

MesTarrant wrote...

DoomHK wrote...

Skinny Female protagonist. Hopefully they give the Human, Qunari and Dwarf females a little muscle. Female Hawke and Female Shepard had the skinniest arms, which looked ludicrous. Especially when the former is played as a Warrior. It really put me off playing them.

At the very least, the female Qunari Inquisitor should have something of an Amazonian build to her. Female warriors don't need to look like She-hulk to have a strong, tough build.

YES! Or at least let the character creater be more like Dragon's Dogma where we can choose weight, height, muscle build, etc.


This qunari concept art or whatever actually does concern me. On the one hand I think the female looks great, but on the other... She looks "sexy," whereas the male looks strong and fearsome. Why can't we have a female character who is created for some value that isn't just sex appeal. We've got enough hot ladies in Dragon Age - give us some unique ones!

The female Qunari still looks strong and fearsome to me. I know I'd never mess with her.

The Qunari looks like a horned beast and it shall be put down like a horned beast!

On another note i tend to agree that the body building aspects of most characters seems...lacking, you figure two handed warriors would have forearms the size of some people's legs and yet twig boy is able to heft a twenty plus pound claymore around like it's a feather.

[Kymera X]

I'm scared of really limited CC, I'm tired of pre-set lips ¬_¬ they weren't great in in DA O,2.

[n7stormrunner]

Rawgrim wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The cartoonish action-game combat. I had enough of it in DA2. That is my only concern, though.

I have good news and bad news which do you want first

The good news, please.

good news: da: I  will be no more cartoony then da: o. 

bad news: da 2 wasn't nearly as actiony as most people think it was basically da: o but faster and less clumsy. oh and da: o was rather cartoony too

extra good news: da I looks too be far less cartoony then both

extra bad news: this doesn't mean what most people think it does. in fact I'm not sure people know what cartoony or animey means. especially animey, it a is rather broad term if you've seen anything besides dragon ball z.

[Nefla]

n7stormrunner wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The cartoonish action-game combat. I had enough of it in DA2. That is my only concern, though.

I have good news and bad news which do you want first

The good news, please.

good news: da: I  will be no more cartoony then da: o. 

bad news: da 2 wasn't nearly as actiony as most people think it was basically da: o but faster and less clumsy. oh and da: o was rather cartoony too

extra good news: da I looks too be far less cartoony then both

extra bad news: this doesn't mean what most people think it does. in fact I'm not sure people know what cartoony or animey means. especially animey, it a is rather broad term if you've seen anything besides dragon ball z.

Less anime and more JRPG. Smooth flawless features, very bright colored eyes and hair, extremely stylized combat animations, and clothing etc...I felt like the DA2 elves especially were a (IMO failed) attempt to appeal to anime fans with their skinny bodies and huge eyes.

[BobZilla84]

I can finally rant about my concerns ok here we go
1.Multiplayer
"I am not really opposed to there being MP in Inquisition I am however opposed when said MP is directly tied to the Story thus I have to stop the SP game and go play MP to keep some stupid meter at 100 % yeah I am looking at you ME3."

2.Fetch Quests
"Ok I know that fetch quests are a part of the rpg formula but seriously there can be too much as in me3 just tone it down abit and this concern is not a problem anymore."

3.Disk Swapping
"This one is a minor concern but a annoying one I am not sure if Inquisition will be multidiscs or not but I do not want to have to constantly have to switch disks to do d*** sidequests like in me3."

4.Not being able to affect the Story
"Dragon Age 2 and thats all I will say in that regard."

5.Preferental Treatment for Specific Characters/Love Intrests
"This one is a major concern I don't want there to be any Liara buisness going on period don't give us this many LI's and focus more time on certain ones over the rest like Liara was handled."

6.THe Handling of The Warden/Hawke
I am not opposed to the idea of both being brought back granted our wardens would be more difficult to bring back not as much as our hawkes but I want actual closure for both and I want to know where they dissapeared to or should I say pulling a Revan I hope we get a good reason like how my Mage Warden is even back in Thedas he went with Morrigan through the Eluvian."

[darkness4ever]

-I'm really worried about the combat system not being tactical enough. From what I've seen so far, it looks a lot like an hybrid action game rather than a fully tactical experience, it doesn't feel right either. This much control over your character might end up being harmful, specially since DAO, where the combat did focus a lot on strategy and character building.

-A fully voiced main-character is not a good thing from my perspective, specially since I'm looking into rol-play my character in depth. Same as radial dialogues menu.

-Hero-like character, having you to make decision over hundreds of lifes, which you never got the chance to get involved with. So you can't get a satisfactoty emotional experience beyond the moral choises.

-Poor character customization. Races, sex, social classes. Specially If you're gonna start your character story all the same no matter what you choose.

-Lack of multiple choises/paths on quests so to speak. The options should reflect your character's alignment, having a noticeable ingame impact.

-Bland story/character development, non charismatic dull companions.

-Extensive empty areas for no practical reason.

-Resource management doesn't get along with my rpg stye of game.

-Isometric camera view being a little bit clunky, close view.

-Poor IA, over simplified game mechanics, lame difficulty. More of a casual oriented experience. Pass.

So far the combat system, which was one the strongest points in DAO, is not looking good at DA3, here the palpable amount of action and lack of micromanagement, seems to be highly detrimental to the game expirience. Now the character is less of a build of our own, and more of an empty space we have to fill by ourselves the whole time at combat. And that might hurt players who are trying to develop a better more complex and rewarding tactical experience, yes, over the choises they make on their character's build, rather than focusing on reflexes/button mashing.

So it's probably time to kiss-goodbye my hopes on seeing a DAO worthy sequel.


Apologies for my english, it isn't my first language.

Modifié par darkness4ever, 24 février 2014 - 12:14 .

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

I only have one fear, that after innumerous playthroughs, I'll finally get bored of DA:I

[Vidpci]

The game needs to be more like Origins. That's my concern. This series had it's most success during the original PC release. If CD Projekt can make a real RPG then so can Bioware.

[Skaden]

I'm worried about them imposing the same pointless and arbitrary weapon restrictions on the classes in order to "make them more distinct", all this ever really does is limit the player from playing the type of character they want (dw warrior, rogue using swords, arcane warrior etc.). DAO was good about this, but KOTOR probably set the best precedent, even support classes such as the jedi consular could dual wield with some penalties which could later be negated by simply buying into the appropriate skill, which EVERY class had access to. So at the very least, I hope DA:I leans more towards the DAO approach to classes rather than DA2 where rogues don't know what swords are.