Didn't the developers said that most of the time was spent to build the engine of DAI and how to make it work for DAI rather than increment the quality of the quests?DA4 i presume will have the same engine of DAI so they will not spent so much time for it.
I presume you referenced to this.
Switching to a new engine was the biggest hurdle -- as it always is. Many of the games I've worked on where we've switched to a new engine (such as DAO), that's actually what the majority of the development time was spent doing: getting the underlying tech to simply work, and then figuring out how to make it work like you want it to.
coldwetn0se, AlleluiaElizabeth, Gaia300 et 1 autre aiment ceci
I'm sorry, but... what is there antagonizing or aggressive or indicative of me being mad or annoyed in saying that I'm not sure why you mention this or that or that I view things differently? I probably can't objectively assess my tone, but from where I stand, I genuinely don't see anything that is there that could sound anything other than neutral. I may be wrong, but at this point I think you may be reading something that isn't there. Maybe you mix stuff up between me and Qun00, who does seem in a more confrontational mood concerning that particular issue than I?
Do you really want me to go into this? Because it's both off-topic and directly critical of yourself. All I will say on the matter is this - no, I don't think I'm making it up, because it's something I've noticed when you engage with other people in debate. Even when you're making a point I agree with.
I don't seem to mind DA2 as much as you do, since I like the fact that they were bold enough to try and experiment with the story and do so in time they've got. Then they've shown with Inquisition that they can improve, and despite some snags I can only see things getting better - whether they will, we're yet to see.
Though it does seem tome that some things aren't creative incompetence, but merely taking routes you don't seem to approve - and this is simply not a thing that we'd be able to discuss much, when it's apparent that you seem to prefer tighter, more linear story experience, while I myself don't mind meandering, exploring, slowing down and discovering all the additional content and info there is.
Everything dealing with a creative work comes down to what the individual does or does not approve of. To put this another way - you say they didn't do anything wrong, they just did something I disapprove of. Which is true. We can reframe that by saying BioWare hasn't improved at all, they're simply making decisions that you approve of. Pointing out the subjectivity of art, while interesting, really only has merit when someone insists there's an objective standard.
So if you want to conclude this by saying "That's just your opinion," cool. But it's no more or less true for me than it is for you, or anyone else for that matter.
And lastly, while I do generally prefer a tighter and more coherent narrative, (even if it means a linear one) line I said to Qun, I like exploration and open-worlds just fine when they're done well. Generally when the entire game is built around the idea, which is why I think it works for Elder Scrolls but didn't work for Inquisition. I don't think a game needs a strong narrative to be successful. I don't think it needs a narrative at all, even - I loved Terraria, and it has no story to speak of. But I think every game, every creative work really, should examine what it wants to be, and consider getting rid of anything that draws focus away from that.
Of course it is relevant - we get the Keep, we open trading routes, we stop Imshael, we save Sahrnia, and if we pick Mages alliance we get open a quest full of dialogues and cinematics, where we learn of Samson, his armor and his Tranquil. That's the only way to create the rune to destroy his armor, which is later used during main quest.
The thing is that they *can't* do most of those things 100% absolutely relevant to the main quest or there at the forefront, because it's one of those things that depends on how we play our Inquisitor. Like... at one point or another there has to be a compromise if we get to have a customizable character characterized not just dialogue or quest options, but what they decide to do and how much they intend to expand Inquisition or help people. Aside from all the perks, quests, judgements, companion approval and influence we get i the game, most of major story quest objectives is recorded in the Keep. Whether it'd become more relevant later than, say, feeding the prisoner in DAO remains to be seen, but I wouldn't wave it away just yet.
What does saving Sahrnia change? What does facing Imshael change? These things might be important in the context of the Emprise du Lion - but the Emprise itself is unimportant. If the storyline had been completely different, nothing would've changed. If the Red Templars had been replaced with generic bandits, nothing would've changed. If the entire area were just cut and forgotten about, nothing would've changed. The story of the Inquisition would've remained exactly as it was.
Except if the Emprise were cut, maybe we would've gotten an extra scene with a few of our companions. Maybe we would've got another personal quest. Maybe we would've gotten an extra romance. And that is the core of my problem with Inquisition's open-world - because in a game where my companions feel so painfully distant, where so many character seem underdeveloped, where so many of the side-quests feel lazy and hollow - all I can think is "Maybe if they had just cut this region, we could've gotten more. We could've gotten better." Like, how many times in this thread have we said that Solas' romance, good as it is, suffers from a lack of content? Because me, I would've happily gotten rid of the Western Approach if it meant an extra scene with Solas. I would've been ecstatic if they decided to cut the Storm Coast so that we could have that quest where you and Solas go to the Templar stronghold to deal with Envy's after effects. If it meant more content like what we got with all the companions, all the romances, all the main quests - I'd have gladly done away with every pointless region in the game.
And it's not like that means the game is completely linear. It's not doing away with any semblance of choice or customization. Origins had those things. DA2 had those things. Mass Effect had those things. All the rest of BioWare's games allowed player choice without an open-world.
So It's not a matter of customization. It's about giving as many resources as possible to what you do best - and in BioWare's case, that's characters. It's always been characters.
I will agree with all of this. Although I truly don't recall any scanty armor in DAO unless you're talking about the leather sets which left some of the neck/upper chest area open. Oh, there were a couple of mage robes with cleavage down to the navel, right?
Edit to add: There were other leather sets too. I think mostly the dalish sets? I didn't really use them.
Yes, I was mostly thinking of the Dalish leather armor and the mage chasind robe. I also thought the armor with obvious breasts were rather stupid. Now, obviously there are way worse examples to be found in other games, but I expect better from BioWare.
Two examples for those who have forgotten:
We saw an upgrade of the female armor already in DA 2; the Warden armor set from that game also happens to be one of my favorite armor sets. The move towards more practical armor was then more or less finalized in Inquisition. Mind you, I don't judge anyone who wants to use a "less is more" approach to picking armor, but if those options are going to be present I would prefer if they are present for both sexes (not just mostly women). It would make me even more happy if those options also had some kind of explanation as to why they are functional.
Edit* I have never had such a hard time linking images on this site, what do they mean with "this image extension is not allowed"? I tried several different google links to no avail...
In my gameplay, I chose to redeem or "not give up on Solas" and provide proof that there is a better way than destroying the world. Here are some of my thoughts on the approach.
1. In contrast to what Solas believes, Human arrival did not cause the Elfs to lose immortality. Therefore, human existence will not cause Elfs to regain immortality.
Again, Abellas suggested that the wars were already lost before the Tevinters came. The actions through hatred, wars, and "lust for power" contaminated both the physical world as well as the Fade. If Solas goes through with more of his plans, by this logic, Elfs will lose even more immortality. Furthermore, the ancient elf society was not perfect - with the "corruption" of the Elf mage-king immortals so by bringing back the old ways, the same corruption or "cycle" may occur again with a different set of "mage-king immortals". The problem is not resolved from the root cause.
2. Bring back the ancient elves through recovery of ancient ruins/cities in the physical world and in the Fade
I fail to believe that everything "ancient elvan" was destroyed.
There are lands untained by shems, as hinted by Abellas. If these can be recovered
the existing Elves can learn from them and return to the way it was. Perhaps
we will see Abellas again in the next installment serving as "evidence" or "witness" that the ancient ways can be "recovered" in this world.
3. I think Cole will play a greater role in the next installment since he is the spirit of compassion. The fact that Solas is drawn to him in DAI shows that a part of him does not want to go through his acts, unless it's the last resort.
4. Solas needs to define his own purpose. Unlike his counterparts in the parthenon,
Sola's representation is ambivalent. Some feel that he is the God of treachery, others the God of rebellion. The truth may be somewhere in the middle, depending on the perspective (as Solas may not consider all the consequences to his actions for all parties). This is hinted by his own comment about the Emerald Knights quest that the truth is usually in the middle.
5. Civilizations require the balance between individual thought and proper governance. If a psycho wants to kill, should they be free to do whatever they want? or do we want laws and magistrates to govern this? 100% individual thought without governance in society is dangerous, especially if everyone is contaminated.
I think it's going to be emotionally challenging to be fighting Solas as world's "common enemy" in the next installement. I don't see the statistics of the choices made by players, but from what I see, there is a large following of this character (either as a friend or romantically). No matter what happens - even if Solas kills the inquisitor, or the entire inquisition party, or the whole world to make people hate him so that he "becomes" the enemy, it will be hard to remove the emotional entanglements from 180+ hour gameplay with this character in DAI. Players may become bitter trying to defeat him.
Think the next installment will be bigger than Solas (e.g. meaning he is not the ultimate adversary), although he will be critical character and we will see him evolve into something that will satisfy the players. Would also be great if the themes/stories can be tied into what we see with current events today.
Do you really want me to go into this? Because it's both off-topic and directly critical of yourself. All I will say on the matter is this - no, I don't think I'm making it up, because it's something I've noticed when you engage with other people in debate. Even when you're making a point I agree with.
Spoiler
Ok, this is getting bizarre - you have some sort of nebulous problem with something I say or the way I say it. I ask what's the problem, because genuinely I can't see it, so I can't address it - and now suddenly I'm the sole source of problems again, when I'm addressing an issue you brought to light?
If you want to tell me that I can get confrontational or a bit snarky wen I sometimes discuss things... I don't think I was even making it a secret or something. I'm a fairly straightforward person all things considered. The thing is that you're saying that I'm doing this all the time when I disagree with someone... but I've disagreed with people on many things, here or somewhere else, and most people don't react to me the way you do and don't assume I'm mad or annoyed.
All things considered, the issue in this particular case is that you've ascribed to me things that were not there, nor I think I wrote them in any specific way that would let you assume that they were - slightly irksome, especially considering how annoyed you grew at Qun00 for basically doing the same thing to you.
Everything dealing with a creative work comes down to what the individual does or does not approve of. To put this another way - you say they didn't do anything wrong, they just did something I disapprove of. Which is true. We can reframe that by saying BioWare hasn't improved at all, they're simply making decisions that you approve of. Pointing out the subjectivity of art, while interesting, really only has merit when someone insists there's an objective standard.
Er, where did I say "they didn't do anything wrong"? I said, explicitly, that SOME things aren't creative incompetence - I didn't say anything about it being a purely a matter of subjectivity. It's not like I don't have issues with any DA title - but from what we've discussed over here it does seem that some of the issues you have with DA come to tastes. I enjoy, for example, larger zones where I have stuff to explore even in tightly narrative-driven games - you, apparently, not so much. So we're not really going to get to any sort of consensus here. I mean, at best we can both hope that if there are zones or elements of open world the content in them will be interesting for both of us.
And lastly, while I do generally prefer a tighter and more coherent narrative, (even if it means a linear one) line I said to Qun, I like exploration and open-worlds just fine when they're done well. Generally when the entire game is built around the idea, which is why I think it works for Elder Scrolls but didn't work for Inquisition. I don't think a game needs a strong narrative to be successful. I don't think it needs a narrative at all, even - I loved Terraria, and it has no story to speak of. But I think every game, every creative work really, should examine what it wants to be, and consider getting rid of anything that draws focus away from that.
See, this is what I'm talking about - for you, apparently, a narrative-driven RPG with open world elements is apparently something you don't find attractive. For you it "draws focus away".... I just don't see things that way. And this is really a matter of personal tastes now. I like stories when I just take a bit of my time and experience bit more of a realistic pacing - in fact my major problem with many movies or sometimes games is that they move too fast, shattering my suspension of disbelief. Even in tight narrative story I like taking bit of my time, taking detours, exploring, adventuring, growing, building relationships and so on. I find that immersive. And while I think the side content for DAI somewhat uneven, overall I find it enjoyable and fitting to the story - I greatly enjoy that I can walk around and do stuff, other than just observe dark dots on a map and being thrown into a small zone for some fight or narrative bits like DAO (or yet another maaaasive dungeon to crawl for portions of main quests). It's way more "choppy" for me - DAI simply flows more naturally IMO, as I'm the one who has larger influence on that flow.
Like I said - it's personal tastes and all. I'm not saying that things can't be done differently or that you're somehow 'wrong' for liking otherwise.
What does saving Sahrnia change? What does facing Imshael change? These things might be important in the context of the Emprise du Lion - but the Emprise itself is unimportant. If the storyline had been completely different, nothing would've changed. If the Red Templars had been replaced with generic bandits, nothing would've changed. If the entire area were just cut and forgotten about, nothing would've changed. The story of the Inquisition would've remained exactly as it was.
What does not recruiting Blackwall change? What does kicking Sera change? Aside from being able to use them as companions, the main story of Inquisition remains exactly them same.
The fact that the main story goes on if we "cut" some content doesn't make such additional content less relevant in the overall picture. Both our recruited companions and visited zones open new opportunities for us to say our specific Inquisitors' story. They flesh out, provide details that go beyond crit path and who knows how they may or may not be relevant later on.
Except if the Emprise were cut, maybe we would've gotten an extra scene with a few of our companions. Maybe we would've got another personal quest. Maybe we would've gotten an extra romance.
And that is the core of my problem with Inquisition's open-world - because in a game where my companions feel so painfully distant, where so many character seem underdeveloped, where so many of the side-quests feel lazy and hollow - all I can think is "Maybe if they had just cut this region, we could've gotten more. We could've gotten better." Like, how many times in this thread have we said that Solas' romance, good as it is, suffers from a lack of content? Because me, I would've happily gotten rid of the Western Approach if it meant an extra scene with Solas. I would've been ecstatic if they decided to cut the Storm Coast so that we could have that quest where you and Solas go to the Templar stronghold to deal with Envy's after effects. If it meant more content like what we got with all the companions, all the romances, all the main quests - I'd have gladly done away with every pointless region in the game.
Errr... no, we likely wouldn't get more romances or companions. David Gaider said so himself on this very forum:
Spoiler
There is, however, not one single batch of "resources" that you allocate.
There are different people with different skills, and different kinds of content require different people to work on them. One cannot necessarily work on another. The main storyline quests, for instance, are very cinematic-heavy...if you cut content that has no or little cinematics, you can cut to your heart's content and you will not free up any resources for the main storyline. You will have a lot of level designers twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to work on whatever they've created.
That's how it works. We're quite aware of the need to balance our resources -- insofar as whether the team "learned" anything about balancing the amount of exploration content vs. cinematic content, I suppose you'll have to wait and see what Mike and co. do in the years to come. I think they've been pretty up-front about the focus on exploration content, so I suspect you'll see refinement and iteration rather than a complete axis shift on that front...but who knows? DA is sort of the Aliens franchise of the gaming world, in terms of its willingness to redefine itself.
Plus, do we really needed another romance in DAI, given the number and diversity between them? I know that people always come up with some they want, but didn't DAI have the biggest LI pool form them all?
And it'd be another content that would be walled away from everyone who chooses NOT to romance that particular person. Expensive, cinematic-heavy content most people won't have any access to. I mean, even if we consider that Solavellan was one of more popular romances, how many people do you think romanced Solas and how many people would enjoy what would be effectively a few minutes of content?
As it stands zones can be visited by everyone - most quests can be done by everyone. It's not something dependent on anything other than willingness to do stuff and it brings resources, influence and activities our organization needs. It illustrates single Inquisitor's effort in growing their Inquisition and I don't see how it's "irrelevant" to the story as it is. Most romances or personal quests aren't *horrendously* relevant - some are, but not all, because hey - varied world-states and all.
And it's not like that means the game is completely linear. It's not doing away with any semblance of choice or customization. Origins had those things. DA2 had those things. Mass Effect had those things. All the rest of BioWare's games allowed player choice without an open-world.
So It's not a matter of customization. It's about giving as many resources as possible to what you do best - and in BioWare's case, that's characters. It's always been characters.
It is a matter of customization. Open-world content simply provides another venue for it.
Plus, DA has pretty decidedly has ben about the world as it has been about characters. And since DAO it was pretty apparent they've had leanings towards opening-up their world - it's just that the tech wasn't there, hence painfully generic, empty zones or mini-zones with one or two encounters or a cutscene. The environmental or visual storytelling just... wasn't there much. And that's what I love about ones in DAI (naturally I'm biased, considering that I'm a visual artist). Each told us something about the world, not just through quests available in it, but just how they felt and looked. The world finally came alive.
TBH in previous titles I waited for the next cutscene or exchange... because there really wasn't much I could look at or extrapolate information from. Hence their focus on exchanges, IMO - some of them not even sophisticated cutscenes, merely closeups with a few gestures or facial expressions thrown in. There are more of legit cutscenes between companions - each individually crafted - between companions in fact in DAI than there are in, say, DAO. The only difference between those is they are dispersed over longer time-frame in a game that is - and feels - bigger. Naturally the inclusion of things like zones or war-table contributes to that. DAI simply feels more epic - which is appropriate given that the scale of endeavor is way bigger than it ever was.
In my gameplay, I chose to redeem or "not give up on Solas" and provide proof that there is a better way than destroying the world. Here are some of my thoughts on the approach.
1. In contrast to what Solas believes, Human arrival did not cause the Elfs to lose immortality. Therefore, human existence will not cause Elfs to regain immortality.
Again, Abellas suggested that the wars were already lost before the Tevinters came. The actions through hatred, wars, and "lust for power" contaminated both the physical world as well as the Fade. If Solas goes through with more of his plans, by this logic, Elfs will lose even more immortality. Furthermore, the ancient elf society was not perfect - with the "corruption" of the Elf mage-king immortals so by bringing back the old ways, the same corruption or "cycle" may occur again with a different set of "mage-king immortals". The problem is not resolved from the root cause.
Just touching on this point really quick. Solas does not believe that the arrival of humans caused elves to lose their immortality. He flat out admits it was his putting up the Veil that caused it. What he appears to believe is that removing the Veil will restore the elven people to what they had been which might seem like a logical outcome but is not guaranteed. His goal isn't to remove humans from existence, his goal is to "restore his people" (whatever that may entail, we don't know) and a side affect will (most likely) be the destruction of the current world. If he's friendly/in a romance with the Inquisitor it's something he deeply regrets but sees as unavoidable.
We also don't know that the Evanuris contaminated both the physical world and the Fade. It is a theory that they somehow unleashed the Blight. It's a theory I happen to agree with but we have no direct proof or statements in game.
Solas also knows that ancient elf society is not perfect. His goal isn't to restore the elven empire but to restore his people to what they had been - which would seem to be that direct connection to the Fade they lost when the Veil was created. I agree that the cycle of immortal god-kings seems likely to re-occur, however.
AlleluiaElizabeth, midnight tea, Arshes Nei et 1 autre aiment ceci
Solas also knows that ancient elf society is not perfect. His goal isn't to restore the elven empire but to restore his people to what they had been - which would seem to be that direct connection to the Fade they lost when the Veil was created. I agree that the cycle of immortal god-kings seems likely to re-occur, however.
Just to be somewhat nitpicky... it could be argued that the cycle itself has pretty much repeated itself in the Veiled world already.
In Elvenhan a few powerful, power-hungry individuals ruined the fun for most people and (possibly) either unleashed the Blight or were about to unleash it.
In Veiled world a group of powerful priest from power-hungry country, just to demonstrate their might, ruined fun for most people by tearing the Veil, travelling to Golden City and unleashing the Blight on the world; the final result of that is yet unknown.
Just to be somewhat nitpicky... it could be argued that the cycle itself has pretty much repeated itself in the Veiled world already.
In Elvenhan a few powerful, power-hungry individuals ruined the fun for most people and (possibly) either unleashed the Blight or were about to unleash it.
In Veiled world a group of powerful priest from power-hungry country, just to demonstrate their might, ruined fun for most people by tearing the Veil, travelling to Golden City and unleashing the Blight on the world; the final result of that is yet unknown.
Actually I was talking about the whole, "generals became respected elders, respected elders became kings, kings became gods" ... who then had their people worship them and enslaved a large portion of the population. Who's to say this won't happen again if elves regain their immortality?
Although now that I'm thinking about this ... since ALL elves were immortal you'd think there'd have been people still around who remembered when the Evanuris were simply generals or elders or kings. Unless they went around systematically murdering everyone who had also been around at that time.
Actually I was talking about the whole, "generals became respected elders, respected elders became kings, kings became gods" ... who then had their people worship them and enslaved a large portion of the population. Who's to say this won't happen again if elves regain their immortality?
Hard to say - though I'd say that it does seem like Solas (as does Flemeth) seem as if they want to take some of the secrets of ancient world with them to their graves. Question is that - if they succeed - anything at the scale and threat of Evanuris is possible, even if people start repeating the same mistake with hero worship all over again.
Although now that I'm thinking about this ... since ALL elves were immortal you'd think there'd have been people still around who remembered when the Evanuris were simply generals or elders or kings. Unless they went around systematically murdering everyone who had also been around at that time.
Well... I think there's the reason why mythical rivals of Evanuris in remaining lore were called the FORGOTTEN Ones That, plus all the hints about the Titans and how Evanuris made them FORGET about stuff... And since the Fade is all about memory... and since we see beings both preying or taking them away (Nightmare, Cole, Solas...)... you know...
This right here ... I'll admit, the only reasons I didn't like it were the animal hair on the shoulders and the colour ... bleh that green. Mostly because for mages, eh it doesn't really matter how much or how little they wear if they're only going to be wearing robes anyway. One layer of cloth isn't going to protect them from anything other than chills, might as well make it as much or as little as they'd like.
I definitely like how mages in DAI could wear actual armor though. That made me happy.
Well... I think there's the reason why mythical rivals of Evanuris in remaining lore were called the FORGOTTEN Ones That, plus all the hints about the Titans and how Evanuris made them FORGET about stuff... And since the Fade is all about memory... and since we see beings both preying or taking them away (Nightmare, Cole, Solas...)... you know...
True .. and Solas seems to indicate that the Evanuris, being among the first of the elves to exist, were more powerful. I admit I had forgotten (hah!) about their ability to make people forget.
I mean, it's hard to argue that it's AS revealing, but I fail to see how a boob window is functional on either sex.
And yeah, the Dalish armor being that much more revealing on women was weird....
I remember taking one look at that armor on a guy, thinking "wtf?", and putting something else on. The furry shoulders, the boob window (not that I don't like male chests but really?), and those lines that look like they carved scars into their arms.
Ok, this is getting bizarre - you have some sort of nebulous problem with something I say or the way I say it. I ask what's the problem, because genuinely I can't see it, so I can't address it - and now suddenly I'm the sole source of problems again, when I'm addressing an issue you brought to light?
If you want to tell me that I can get confrontational or a bit snarky wen I sometimes discuss things... I don't think I was even making it a secret or something. I'm a fairly straightforward person all things considered. The thing is that you're saying that I'm doing this all the time when I disagree with someone... but I've disagreed with people on many things, here or somewhere else, and most people don't react to me the way you do and don't assume I'm mad or annoyed.
All things considered, the issue in this particular case is that you've ascribed to me things that were not there, nor I think I wrote them in any specific way that would let you assume that they were - slightly irksome, especially considering how annoyed you grew at Qun00 for basically doing the same thing to you.
Okay, real talk - do you just have a problem with me or something? I was trying to say that I don't want to be rude and get into this argument, and you come back at me with accusations of hypocrisy. Over a completely different thing, given that Qun assumed my opinion and then ignored me when I tried to correct him, while I explicitly said that I was wrong to assume it was annoyance with me in particular and conceded that I was reading too much into it.
Spoiler
See, this is what I'm talking about - for you, apparently, a narrative-driven RPG with open world elements is apparently something you don't find attractive. For you it "draws focus away".... I just don't see things that way. And this is really a matter of personal tastes now. I like stories when I just take a bit of my time and experience bit more of a realistic pacing - in fact my major problem with many movies or sometimes games is that they move too fast, shattering my suspension of disbelief. Even in tight narrative story I like taking bit of my time, taking detours, exploring, adventuring, growing, building relationships and so on. I find that immersive. And while I think the side content for DAI somewhat uneven, overall I find it enjoyable and fitting to the story - I greatly enjoy that I can walk around and do stuff, other than just observe dark dots on a map and being thrown into a small zone for some fight or narrative bits like DAO (or yet another maaaasive dungeon to crawl for portions of main quests). It's way more "choppy" for me - DAI simply flows more naturally IMO, as I'm the one who has larger influence on that flow.
Like I said - it's personal tastes and all. I'm not saying that things can't be done differently or that you're somehow 'wrong' for liking otherwise.
???
I think you're trying to argue with something I didn't say, because basically the entire middle of my post was saying that, yes, it's all a matter of taste. But you're continuing to repeat that as though I don't agree, and didn't state my agreement in the post you quoted.
What does not recruiting Blackwall change? What does kicking Sera change? Aside from being able to use them as companions, the main story of Inquisition remains exactly them same.
The fact that the main story goes on if we "cut" some content doesn't make such additional content less relevant in the overall picture. Both our recruited companions and visited zones open new opportunities for us to say our specific Inquisitors' story. They flesh out, provide details that go beyond crit path and who knows how they may or may not be relevant later on.
By pointing out the irrelevancy of Blackwall and Sera, you're only supporting my point that the companions this time around were rather weak and disconnected from the plot. But anyway - while I agree that some things do not need to be vital, that still doesn't justify pouring so many resources into something that's so largely irrelevant. Being able to cut content and still have a workable story is one thing. Being able to cut 60 -80% of your entire game and stillhave a workable story, when "story" is your main selling point, is quite another.
Spoiler
Errr... no, we likely wouldn't get more romances or companions. David Gaider said so himself on this very forum:
Spoiler
Plus, do we really needed another romance in DAI, given the number and diversity between them? I know that people always come up with some they want, but didn't DAI have the biggest LI pool form them all?
And it'd be another content that would be walled away from everyone who chooses NOT to romance that particular person. Expensive, cinematic-heavy content most people won't have any access to. I mean, even if we consider that Solavellan was one of more popular romances, how many people do you think romanced Solas and how many people would enjoy what would be effectively a few minutes of content?
As it stands zones can be visited by everyone - most quests can be done by everyone. It's not something dependent on anything other than willingness to do stuff and it brings resources, influence and activities our organization needs. It illustrates single Inquisitor's effort in growing their Inquisition and I don't see how it's "irrelevant" to the story as it is. Most romances or personal quests aren't *horrendously* relevant - some are, but not all, because hey - varied world-states and all.
The romance was a single example among many I provided. Picking it out and ignoring the rest does not dismantle the entire argument. I'm not going to say anymore on that point because I don't feel like it's worth arguing - I don't care about including another romance in particular, I simply put it forward as an example of story content we could've had. If you continue to ignore the larger point to attack a single example in it, I'm going to assume that you concede the debate and will not reply further.
Spoiler
It is a matter of customization. Open-world content simply provides another venue for it.
Plus, DA has pretty decidedly has ben about the world as it has been about characters. And since DAO it was pretty apparent they've had leanings towards opening-up their world - it's just that the tech wasn't there, hence painfully generic, empty zones or mini-zones with one or two encounters or a cutscene. The environmental or visual storytelling just... wasn't there much. And that's what I love about ones in DAI (naturally I'm biased, considering that I'm a visual artist). Each told us something about the world, not just through quests available in it, but just how they felt and looked. The world finally came alive.
TBH in previous titles I waited for the next cutscene or exchange... because there really wasn't much I could look at or extrapolate information from. Hence their focus on exchanges, IMO - some of them not even sophisticated cutscenes, merely closeups with a few gestures or facial expressions thrown in. There are more of legit cutscenes between companions - each individually crafted - between companions in fact in DAI than there are in, say, DAO. The only difference between those is they are dispersed over longer time-frame in a game that is - and feels - bigger. Naturally the inclusion of things like zones or war-table contributes to that. DAI simply feels more epic - which is appropriate given that the scale of endeavor is way bigger than it ever was.
How was the technology for open-world not there at the time? Daggerfall came out a decade before Origins. Morrowind and Oblivion all came out before Origins, too. Wind Waker came out before Origins. GTA came out before Origins. The technology for open-world games was absolutely there - but Skyrim hadn't sold a billion copies yet, so it wasn't the hot PR gimmick that every corporate suit was trying to stuff in their game.
And yeah, the environment design in Inquisition was miles above Origins. Props to them for that. Origins lack of budget and awkward graphics are painful, and they've only gotten more painful as time's gone on. But don't mistake pretty graphics and strong environment design as justification for being open-world. You can have good environmental narrative without sandboxes.
As for the quality of cut-scene animation in Origns vs. Inquisition - Inquisition may have more customized animated cut scenes, but I'd think that the quality of the animation is secondary to the quality of the story they tell.
I mean, it's hard to argue that it's AS revealing, but I fail to see how a boob window is functional on either sex.
And yeah, the Dalish armor being that much more revealing on women was weird....
I was going to link that pic and comment on it, but for some reason it was "not allowed". Yeah, that robe was stupid on both men and women, but as you said women got an even shorter end of the stick (at least the male thighs were covered). And the Dalish armor was obviously not made with practicality in mind...
Didn't the developers said that most of the time was spent to build the engine of DAI and how to make it work for DAI rather than increment the quality of the quests?DA4 i presume will have the same engine of DAI so they will not spent so much time for it.
Yes, I recall them saying that a great deal of their dev time was put into creating systems in frostbite that hadn't existed before. DAI ended up a lot more polished than DA2, obviously. Like HUGELY more polished. But I can see the comparison from that aspect. Makes me excited for MEA and DA4, if DAI is what we get when they're new to the engine.
Okay, real talk - do you just have a problem with me or something? I was trying to say that I don't want to be rude and get into this argument, and you come back at me with accusations of hypocrisy. Over a completely different thing, given that Qun assumed my opinion and then ignored me when I tried to correct him, while I explicitly said that I was wrong to assume it was annoyance with me in particular and conceded that I was reading too much into it.
Spoiler
I'm confused, because it appears it's you have problem with me and as much as you say "you don't want to be rude" you start antagonizing me for no specific reason, keep saying that there's a problem with me only to refuse to specify it. And no - what you said is not that "you're reading too much into it" - you've explicitly stated that I have some sort of problematic manner of interacting with people I disagree with, which you ascribe first to me probably being a non-native English speaker, only later to say that, and I quote - "I don't think I'm making it up, because it's something I've noticed when you engage with other people in debate. Even when you're making a point I agree with."
... So I'm now trying to figure out what that "something" is And what apparently is in my manner of speaking that makes people assume I'm apparently annoyed with them or something, when from my perspective it's an entirely neutral and calm exchange about a topic we have somewhat different opinions on...
By pointing out the irrelevancy of Blackwall and Sera, you're only supporting my point that the companions this time around were rather weak and disconnected from the plot. But anyway - while I agree that some things do not need to be vital, that still doesn't justify pouring so many resources into something that's so largely irrelevant. Being able to cut content and still have a workable story is one thing. Being able to cut 60 -80% of your entire game and still have a workable story, when "story" is your main selling point, is quite another.
... Most companions in DA-verse are disconnected from the plot. I mean, what was Leliana's relevance to the bigger plot in DAO (she has much bigger role at the end of DAI, lol)? What was Ogren's? What was Zevran's? DA2 is the same. It's a moot point. It only supports the fact that in most games with varied word-states and companions we can have various relationships, or even kill them/not recruit them most of them will ultimately not be an intrinsic part of the plot. There are exceptions and varied degrees of relevance across all titles, obviously, but majority is mostly brought as cameos or mentions.
Also - "story" is not one thing. If you're talking a specific, especially personal story (like in, say, 'The Last of Us') then we can talk just how irrelevant the open-world content is. But DA is not just a story of one person, or a narrative focusing on one or two specific things - it's a whole story of the world and a story of Inquisition rising to power, which includes variety of tasks we have to/can perform around the South. As much as character, and especially companions, are important, they're not the only tool to tell that story.
The romance was a single example among many I provided. Picking it out and ignoring the rest does not dismantle the entire argument. I'm not going to say anymore on that point because I don't feel like it's worth arguing - I don't care about including another romance in particular, I simply put it forward as an example of story content we could've had. If you continue to ignore the larger point to attack a single example in it, I'm going to assume that you concede the debate and will not reply further.
Eh... you're doing the very thing now you think you're saying I'm doing to you - you ignore the entire point I was making by approaching it as if I just cherrypicked something from your response and just left it at that.
Thing is I haven't done anything of the sort. I've focused on Solas as an example ultimately because it illustrated general problems for other things you've mentioned, which were more companion quests or personal quest.
You don't get companion content without either recruiting or befriending them, which is another content locked behind walls. Same with personal quests - the example you've mentioned was a quest specifically after picking Templar alliance (besides, we don't even know how big that quest was supposed to be. The cut dialogue specifically mentions "collecting behavior" and "task with simple goals", so it might as well never went as far as... collecting something else aside from shards or mosaics or wine bottles )... Which ultimately means there'd have to be at least two very different quests for each alliance... See the problem I'm talking about?
How was the technology for open-world not there at the time? Daggerfall came out a decade before Origins. Morrowind and Oblivion all came out before Origins, too. Wind Waker came out before Origins. GTA came out before Origins. The technology for open-world games was absolutely there - but Skyrim hadn't sold a billion copies yet, so it wasn't the hot PR gimmick that every corporate suit was trying to stuff in their game.
Er... where did I specify that I was talking about "technology wasn't there overall"? I meant technology used in Bioware. You yourself bring lack of budget... Not to mention that back when DA and ME were still in development Bethesda already had multiple open-world titles under their belt (yet none of which had a story structure like DAO) as well as a different engine. Bioware hadn't. Even the quote Lunatica brought at the very top of this page has Gaider mentioning that they've had the same hurdles of getting tech to simply work when creating DAO itself.
I mean, come on - Oblivion came out... 3 years earlier...? Yet it looks (unmodded) way better than almost anything in Origins. It's obvious they were still figuring stuff out on their own, especially when it comes to designing visual side or game levels.
And yeah, the environment design in Inquisition was miles above Origins. Props to them for that. Origins lack of budget and awkward graphics are painful, and they've only gotten more painful as time's gone on. But don't mistake pretty graphics and strong environment design as justification for being open-world. You can have good environmental narrative without sandboxes.
But DAI isn't a sandbox. A few open zones and ability to explore some of them in whichever order we please does not a sandbox make. Sandbox is more about game mechanics than free-roaming and exploring a few available zones, especially with all the restrictions we have, either stemming from story or quest progression or lack of points to unlock them.
And please don't trivialize my point to "pretty graphics" - I'm talking about experience as a whole and what each zone tells about the world through our exploration of it. Hising Wastes for example - dwarven ruins on the surface. Different interactions between companions when we find those ruins. The strong indication that there's possibly a Titan underneath with all the red lyrium mining and it sprouting from under the sand. Strange green Fade rocks that we later see mentioned in Varric's letter in Trespasser. Bizarre pilgrims who leave us with cryptic message and a strange bow if we manage to find them randomly a few times...
Like... how do you do that in a tighter story - how do you introduce so many things without becoming overwhelmed? Exploring all those sites helps all those things to sink in, and do so in a more relaxed pace, without competing with crit path for a space just to breathe .
Yes, I was mostly thinking of the Dalish leather armor and the mage chasind robe. I also thought the armor with obvious breasts were rather stupid. Now, obviously there are way worse examples to be found in other games, but I expect better from BioWare.
Two examples for those who have forgotten:
We saw an upgrade of the female armor already in DA 2; the Warden armor set from that game also happens to be one of my favorite armor sets. The move towards more practical armor was then more or less finalized in Inquisition. Mind you, I don't judge anyone who wants to use a "less is more" approach to picking armor, but if those options are going to be present I would prefer if they are present for both sexes (not just mostly women). It would make me even more happy if those options also had some kind of explanation as to why they are functional.
Edit* I have never had such a hard time linking images on this site, what do they mean with "this image extension is not allowed"? I tried several different google links to no avail...
There are only two kinds of approach to picking armor: The practical one and the I don't mind getting stabbed type.
We also don't know that the Evanuris contaminated both the physical world and the Fade. It is a theory that they somehow unleashed the Blight. It's a theory I happen to agree with but we have no direct proof or statements in game.
What ARE the theories on that, by the way? i tend to lean towards "The Blight is a rot born from murdered Titans." but I'm interested in what other ideas there are.
What ARE the theories on that, by the way? i tend to lean towards "The Blight is a rot born from murdered Titans." but I'm interested in what other ideas there are.
I think its basically a Titan immuno-response to the foreign invasion of the ancient elves into its body, originally. And its magical cus Titans are magical.
This idea basically resulted b/c of how the whole broodmother thing (both how they're made and how they become darkspawn factories) strongly reminds me of viral reproduction. And it explains to me why the darkspawn seemingly avoid titans. It'd be friendly fire, so to speak.
I don't exactly have a super fleshed out theory beyond that. Just be my biology minor rearing its head. lol
Retour en haut
That, plus all the hints about the Titans and how Evanuris made them FORGET about stuff... And since the Fade is all about memory... and since we see beings both preying or taking them away (Nightmare, Cole, Solas...)... you know...
And what apparently is in my manner of speaking that makes people assume I'm apparently annoyed with them or something, when from my perspective it's an entirely neutral and calm exchange about a topic we have somewhat different opinions on...
.
