16 réponses à ce sujet

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

As much as I love the DA franchise there are some things Im hoping you guys at Bioware will improve (though this is probably too late for DA:I atm). I will try to keep it constructive

 

(Note that although some of this may seem negative, it is simply because I love the Dragon age universe. Alltogether the good things about it vastly outnumber what I consider bad, but these are the things I think need improvement)

 

Edit: My native language is not english, so I apologize for any spelling errors.

 

Mages

 

In the DA universe if I understood it correctly - mages are supposed to be a rare thing in the population when counting mages against normal people. This is represented well in combat (often just one mage per 10+ other mobs). However in the storytelling in general, quests gives a feeling that maybe 30%-40% of the population are mages. They are simply over-represented. We all know mages and templars are central to the story of the universe, but the quests involving mages and templars in DA:2 was simply an overkill when counting mage/templar quests compared to other questlines.

Blood mages

 

Another thing I think you could do better, is showing more mages that oppose you that does not turn to blood magic. I might be wrong here - but I think every single mage that went bad in the DA:2 quests ended up doing blood magic. The representation of mages going bad that does not use bloodmagic or raise the dead - or allow himself to be possessed - is too low. 

Why isnt there more mages going bad or desperate that doesent use blood magic, but simply regular powerful spells? You are basicly painting people black and white instead of depicting them realistically as human beings. Mages could refuse to use blood magic for a multitude of reasons from not having to - to having personal principles opposing blood magic, or not knowing how to do it.

Too heavy focus on mages vs templars
 

Yes its central to the plot. But when you are fed up and sick of yet another mage vs templar conflict quest before you are even halfway into the game - then you are either overdoing it or adding too few other quests which are not related to this conflict to balance it out. Thats it for mages and templars.

Companion interests or world-views overly dominant in conversation and banter

 

Throughout the earlier dragon age games, companions tend to be obsessed with a few key points. It is all good anchoring the companion personalities to such strong opinions they may have, but the problem here is lack of diversity in character development. 

Worst offenders I guess are Anders and Fenris, they will literally not talk about anything else than mage vs anti-mage attitudes throughout the entire game. It makes them one dimensional and uninteresting because every time they open their mouth nothing new, fun, interesting or new info about them is added. I can already forsee this happening in DA:I. I'll take Sera as an example. Yes - she loves the little people. I can already bet one kidney that 75% of all conversations and banter will revolve around her talking about social justice, hating the "big people" (powerful ones abusing power) and her wanting to help those who are just victims in all these war, politics and conflicts.

 

It is perfectly fine for these character to discuss this alot - as they are character defining characteristics and it anchors them when it comes to personality. The problem here is that the dosage makes the poison, there is simply too much of it. Like mages and blood mages, this is another example of overdoing it.

Few dialogues having any other outcome than combat

 

I think dragon age origins was the lesser offender here, but way too many many dialogues doesent have any other outcome than combat. It is unrealistic that 90% of encounters with conflict - cannot be solved through intimidation, diplomacy, bribes, character actions or other means than combat. Sometimes it feels like the game is just trying to create combat for the sake of combat.

Worst offender here as an example - Hawke is the champion of kirkwall. He/she - after all the quests, killing and so on - should be more known to the general populace. However some thug on the street - despite your reputation (thus should know he stands no chance in killing you) does not hesitate to try and kill you despite your infamy.

Combat can be fun, but when almost every encounter has combat as the only possible outcome - it sort off kills of the immersion at times, especially when you sit there thinking "I know of 10 ways my character couldve persuaded that person to another course of action" - it becomes frustating.

Lack of dialogue that forces you to think 

 

 

Look at 12:45. This is from Deus Ex Human Revolution. Conversation/diplomacy here is based on what you say and is also based on the personality of the one you are trying to convince. The options also states what you want to say. This type of conversation system forces you to think Instead of being a dead giveaway of what will happen. 

 It is way too easy to forsee the consequenses of your options. And you never get to say anything more complex either. Usually a diplomatic option consists of 3 words, with your character then holding an entire speech - leaving you with a big "Uhmm... ok?" on your face. Not to mention that the game kinda forces you to go 100% diplomatic, blunt or humorous/sarcastic in DA:2. If you want bonus solving options later on, you cant say what you want to say but you are rather forced into one personality type.

Forced morality

Anyone here ever played Neverwinter nights: Hordes of the underdark? When you encounter the last boss these are your options:

Ive come to stop you
Ive come to join you
Ive come to replace you

That pretty much makes for the best endgame options I have ever seen in a video game. And Ive played video games for over 20 years. These simple representations of your character goals pretty much fills all desires from a good to evil axis of allignments. Please dont yet again force our hero to become the morally rightious saviour of the people with completely selfless motives and a complete lack of ambition or want for power. RPGs doesent need more cliche hollywood endings.

Thats all. For all fellow forumites or Bioware employees - feel free to come with opinions, thoughts, counter-arguments to the points Ive made or any agreements or disagreements you should have if you actually read this wall of text

Modifié par BioWareMod02, 07 août 2014 - 04:03 .

[Silcron]

I think it's sad when my first thought after reading this is: "Wow, that was actually constructive criticism, and even polite."

 

I agree with everything for the most part. I don't exactly think in DA2 there was too much mage vs templar stuff, just too much of it grouped together, specially in act 3, which is why I nowadays I don't play any dlc until that point, to spread the mage vs templar content more evenly and not be sick of it.

 

The blood mages? Oh yes! There were some exceptions (Wynne and her apprentices if you decide to kill them in DA:O didn't use blood magic, and in DA2 if you want to count some random encounters, which I don't tbh, as they don't have a narrative in which you get to know who you're killing).

 

That is always hard for me to bear, as I can't stand fanatics. So while roleplaying I always found funny that Anders or Fenris would call me friend, even if technically since their intro mission (Hawke did need money and the map) I haven't talked or brought them in my group, and that was well into Act 2 when they asked for help again and eh, why not help them? I usually do them more for being against slavery or for saving those mages (one could be Bethany) than the companions themselves. So yeah, all in all, I'm not saying every character has to be likable, but even very principled people are not obsessed over their principles, usually.

 

From what I've seen in DA:I people will react to you acordingly to the position you have (Inquisitor), like in the Hinterlands demo when they entered a camp an npc said "Inquisitor, we are honored." so that is nice. In Act 3 being the champion, well, I would have liked some reactivity to it, specially since it wasn't something you could avoid. For example, in the opening cutscene Meredith can mantion how your mother died, at which point I wanted to punch her in the face and shout how she shut down the investigation of a templar who was actually doing his job and how I had to clean up their mess and even loose my mother due to her incompetence. And I should be able to get away with it because I AM the Champion of Kirkwall, at that moment in the city there are four powers with four representatives. Templars: Meredith, Mages: Orsino, Chantry: the Grand Cleric (I don't remember her name) and the nobles with the Champion. Meredith stepping up into the sort of viscount position never made sense to me, since a) the nobles could easily ask Hawke to take that position or even kick Meredith out. Thanks to Aveline I havethe guard on my side, and even if not, the guard would take the side of the nobles, since it's not a case of nobles vs common folk. And c) if not Hawke why not the assistant the viscount had? He's still alive. Sorry about the rant, but I'd have loved for that kind of reativity, not just being called champion and having an armor set. Though this point seems kind of moot, since in DA:I it appears people are not only going to react to our positions but race and if they have reason to know our specialization too...and now I realise I kind of went on a tangent. Sooo, just a last note. Solving a situation through dialogue should give as much experience as with combat, that way you don't feel like for roleplaying reasons you picked the right option, but gameplay wise you lost something, you wouldn't get to loot the bodies obviously, but still you would get the xp.

 

In DA the morality has been better than in other games, like the werewolves vs elves, both sides had good and bad things about them and you could even make argument as to why you should not do the option that saves them both (lifting the curse I mean). In DA2 there weren't those kind of situations, at least not that large, which was kind of sad. In DA:I I'm hoping I'll be able to shoft the focus of the Inquisition, from being there to help the people to even being like our real world one (being spanish I kind of know it well from history lessons).

 

And finally thank you for this, it was refreshing to find someone that writes the reasons as to why he doesn't like something or how he thinks it oculd be done better. It was a pleasure to read

[AlanC9]

I don't see the problem with running into a lot of mages and templars when playing a a game that's fundamentally about a problem with mages and templars.

[matticusiv]

Fantastic post.

I agree with every point here, and it's very constructive.

 

The first three points are kind of combined for me. I found the way mages were portrayed extremely annoying(mostly in DAII). There was definitely not a lot of grey area explored here, and not a whole lot of reasons to relate or like either side of the Templar/Mage conflict.

This also ties into your fourth point. I HATED Anders with a fiery passion because he would do absolutely nothing but whine and moan about how bad the mages had it. Ultimately that's what brought me to side with the Templars, even though I didn't really like them either. I much more enjoy writing of characters that explores them as people, not just as representations of their ideals. Although their ideals of course play into it. That's why I absolutely love shows like Firefly and Game of Thrones. Every character is unique, they're a PERSON, not just an opinion.

 

I do agree with your point about dialogue, although I understand why they do it that way. I enjoyed Deus Ex dialogue(grabbed the social enhancer first), but this is a different game. I would love a wider array of results to interactions though.

 

And to your last point, ABSOLUTELY. Older RPG's(Bioware's included) had a lot more of this, and it's absolutely beautiful. In a game where you're roleplaying your own created character you should be able to make your own decisions. In a game like The Witcher series it makes sense to have more constrained limitations, because you're in the shoes of a man who's lived a certain life. I think there are two main reasons they've shifted to "good/neutral good/******* with good intentions sort of" morality options. One being that they're too worried about branching storylines now that they've introduced games in which choices carry over throughout the series, and the more extreme you're allowed to go the more work for them it is. Two being an increase in popularity of games where your choices are supposed to be ambiguous because it seems grittier and more mature. Again in The Witcher series, or a Telltale game, this works. But in a straight up player character role playing game, you should be able to at least fit the DnD alignment options.

Once again, great post, I hope Bioware sees this kind of feedback.

[Marshal Moriarty]

Mages

I don't know about this one. I feel like they are rare enough. You will encounter such people more often, because you are going to places where you will expect to find them. The common man can probably go for months and not see any mages (or not know that they were mages anyway). DA: Origins has plenty of places and quests with few mages (Redcliffe has only Jowan and Connot I suppose, the Dalish Quest has only Zathrian and his first, the Orxammar quest has none really etc etc). Out in the world, mages who turn apostate need protection, and bands of adventurers are happy to offer that in return for the powerful benefits of having a mage on their side. In DA2, the whole overarching plot was about mages, and how Kirkwall's bloody past was acting as a kind of magnet to draw them in and corrupt them. Combined with the extremely zealous Templar presence making sure that none slipped the net and ended up in the Gallows, you could expect to see lots of mages.

 

Blood mages

For me, the problem is that they are somewhat inconsistent in explaining exactly what Blood Magic *is* and why it is so used. In Origins, Niall speculates that Uldred must have *also* dabbled in demonology as well blood magic. That implies the 2 don't necessarily go hand in hand. But then Niall doesn't really know anything about Blood Magic. Some people like Jowan and Merril insist that its just a different way of fueling magic, but their opinions are somewhat questionable, given that they are blood mages themselves. The stigma seems to arise from the fact that Blood Magic gives mind and body control powers, which are things you would only seek to possess if you had malicious intent (or rather its highly likely - its like wanting to own a rocket launcher and Sherman Tank for home defence).

 

What appears to be true is that Blood Magic's use of well, blood, is a very powerful and dangerous thing, even more so than other magic. It appears to be so powerful that even rather minor mages can beat experienced ones, and in some number. It appears to be much more difficult to counter than regular magic, and much quicker and easier to use (though not necessarily in a safe way). The implication is that this combination of great power, ease of use, great flexibility (its good for destroying and controlling people), make for a heady concoction that most mages simply won't have the willpower to resist. Its that tiresome old standby of 'Magic is like Drugs'. In a world where mages are persecuted, its held up as the obvious route for any mage to take when threatened, because it so powerful. Saying people should not use it, is to ignore the heavy persecution mages face. It simply isn't as easy as saying 'Don't!'

 

Too heavy focus on mages vs templars

I agree entirely that they focus far too heavily on the mages and templars. It deflates me to no end to see it mentioned so prominently in DA:I.For one thing is means the villains will be demons, and that is such a depressingly boring choice. Because they will be the darkspawn style 'monster bad guys', and there will no nuance to it. No points of view, just save the world from the evil monsters. And Bioware always write demons so badly - they always end up sounding like WWE heels.

 

And as for the mages themselves, and their 'plight'. Uhh... As the rest of the party make plain in DA2, no matter how worthy or vital the cause of mages suffering might be, we don't want to be hit over the head with it all the damn time! That in turn highlights how uncaring most people are of social issues (or at least we care as and when it suits us and only for long as we deign to), which makes us feel pretty rotten about ourselves. To be more specific, I would hope that most people *do* care about injustice in the world. I care about such things, but at the same time what have I done about it? Nothing - because I have my own problems. Yes, if you weigh my first world problems against the suffering of people in Syria, or those with terminal illness, those who face daily persecution, torture etc then there is no comparison. But that doesn't mean I can just drop everything and start marching in protest. I can't do it, and I don't want to. I'm forced to admit that I don't want that kind of hassle in my life, and that as bad as I feel for these people, I'd really rather not think about it at all. That doesn't make me feel good about myself, but that's how the world is. 

 

Basically, we get it already! Mages are persecuted. They are locked away, told they are filth and dangerous. They are constantly monitored, treated as liabilities that are permitted to exist only because of society's generosity etc etc. There are real abuses, bullying, beatings, rapes by Templars. It is a terrible thing, just as all segregation and persecution is. Anders is not wrong about this, just as Fenris isn't wrong over the evils of unrestrained magic use, blood sacrifice, and of course the whole issue of slavery. But we don't come to these games to get unending lectures on how uncaring we are, and how we should be doing more. We *should* be doing more I agree, but we don't. We *should* care more, but (miserably) we don't. Because we all have our own lives, full of our own problems, and sometimes we just want to get away from that - hence the gaming. Pointing the finger at our inaction does no good. Trying to shame people like this just angers them.

Companion interests or world-views overly dominant in conversation and banter

Already covered this, but yes. We want characters who are people, not just social issue demagogues. We don't want characters who are 'wikipedia node on X issue or Y race'. If they only ever talk about a small set of very specific things, then it just becoems wearing. This also applies to LI characters, who never talk of anything but your relationship etc. Remember Liara T'Soni,the Protehan expert from Mass Effect? The one who was in 3 games, and who you only actually got to talk to about Protheans in a DLC for the final game?! Because she fell into the LI trap - that they are LI first, last and always. If your character isn't in a relationship with them, they basically have nothing to say about anything.

 

Few dialogues having any other outcome than combat

Combat is the usual outcome, because all the mechanics and abilities deal with combat. There aren't really any stealth mechanics, and the whole Persuade/Intimidate thing was always very lightly handled. The fact is that these games deal with your guys fighting great danger. You *must* be good at fighting, because that's the only way you are allowed to defeat the menace. I mean, you mention Deus Ex, but that game really wasn't all that different. You got this huge inventory, money to buy upgrades etc, but 95% of the stuff, items, upgrades, augs etc were combat related. Your inventory would be bursting with weapons and ammo, and nothing else really. Sure, there were a few ways to get around it, and you could go without killing anyone. But then why even have an inventory at all, why visit any of the shops, why bother with most of the augs? Especially as you can stealth and spot enemies just fine without the relevant augs, and there are so many Nuke and stop Worm viruses, that you don't need the hacking assist augs either.

 

Basically, these are the times we live in. Call it dumbed down, streamlined, whatever. Its all about combat these days. Mass Effect saw the technical stats (Electronics, Charm, Intimidate, Decryption, First Aid, Medicine etc), dropped so that everyone only had combat abilities. Dragon Age has 3 classes, but they are all fighters to varying degrees. Rogues don't allow for some super stealthy playthrough, they just let you get some backstabs and a bit more treasure from locked chests - not open up whole new routes etc. Mages don't have lots of chances to visit astral planes, or commune with otherworldly entities beyond the ken of mortal man etc. They're just healing and fireball guys, with a huge inventory of game breaking disruption/assassination spells. The powers they have are very potent, but they're still all essentially just forms of direct damage, healing or paralysis. They're not transforming into gianr dragons, or summoning typhoons or anything. The classes just offer slightly differing ways of managing small scale brawls - because that's what most of the gameplay is.

 

And whether you think that's right or wrong, it would a huge amount of work to change that. It would require a whole new approach to making the game. And given the very story driven, scripted nature of the encounters in Bioware games, that's unlikely to happen.

 

 

Anyway, must dash. Basically, I agree that Bioware games have become very simplistic and like they're poured out of the same mould. Here are the template characters who represent this problem, that nation, that social issue. Here are the villains who act as the catalyst to let us globe trot and solve everyone's social issues by just shouting 'Wake up - there's an invasion, you can persecute your gays, black folks, ethnic minorities later, you racist fools!' And have everyone just go 'Hey, they're right. We were all intolerant, but after speaking to you, we've decided not to be. Thanks so much for showing us the error of our ways...'

 

The world is what it is. Full of fools who don't need to be told how hideous their behavior is, because if they don't already know, they never will. Shouting at us from a soapbox won't change this. Its one of the few areas where I admire a game like The Witcher. Because it puts us all these disgraceful kinds of people, world views etc and just leaves it at that. It isn't condoning such behaviour, and most gamers will rightly balk at such people. But the world has these kinds of people, and that's just the way things are. They aren't going to magically change, because some hero wanders up and lectures them on the evils of social injustice.

[aTigerslunch]

Lionheart, an old game I barely remember now, but  don't open if don't want to see its end

Spoiler

the end dragon, it would of been a fight but there was a way to avoid it, by talking, didn't fight the dragon, later found out could of, I think, cant remember now and have to confirm that, but I know I avoided a fight

 

My first play throughs I do tend to try diplomatic/nice or sarcastic/friendly then go for completely mean, rude, vile, the worst I can do options. Yes, agreed that conversations to escape fights is alright to me in some cases.

 

But that magister is dead...dead, dead, dead, at least in my first play through, he can surrender but I plan on chopping his head off.   Trying to torture Leliana.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Problem is, once you start allowing for a lot of non-combat finishes, persuasion skills quickly become overpowered. New Vegas is the shining example of this.

 

As far as the mages vs templars, it's not the fact it was done, but how it was done. Asunder is a pretty good example here, DA2's a bad example. Kirkwall is full to the brim of blood mages - and though there's a reason for it, it's shoved in codex entries. Then both Meredith and Orsino are barking mad, which doesn't help matters. If Bioware really wanted to make it a priority, both siblings should have survived, and gone Mage/Templar respectively after the first act, giving Hawke a reason to care.

 

As far as my own entry:

 

The toning down of mind control as a plot device.

 

Bioware does this. A lot. Indoctrination in the ME series. Darkspawn Taint and the Calling. Blood magic. Red Lyrium. Demon possession. While I don't mind the occasional "evil for evil's sake" boss - I don't want to be having moral discussions with the friggin' Archdemon - it gets to the point of absurdity. NPC X isn't evil, they're evil because something else is making them be evil.

[wintermoons]

I completely agree with everything OP said, but especially companions needing to be more then their political views. I felt this especially with Anders--in DA2 I hated him because all he did was whine. He could have talked about being a doctor, his favorite spells, literally anything else. When I got around to playing Awakening I was shocked at how funny and likable Anders was!

I felt this with Fenris as well and found myself wishing he'd shut up about how much he hated mages as he took every avalible moment to remind me. Like Anders Fenris had a life that he never talked about--trying new wines, new books he liked, those games of Wicked Grace he 'never missed'.

In DA2 there was a lot of fleshing out of the characters that just never happened and that makes me sad, because the DA2 companions were my favorite.

[Marshal Moriarty]

The problem with wanting characters like Anders and Fenris to talk about other things and basically just 'lighten up a bit and stop moping' is that they are entirely justified in what they are doing. They *have* suffered the most extreme persecution and traumas (personally in the case of Fenris, and Mages in general for Anders). If you had been a slave subjected to who knows what horrors, with what Fenris points out is an existance that is literally a minute by minute, second by second ordeal, waiting for the next order, abuse etc, then asking them to just 'get over it' isn't really going to work, is it? He has no past to call his own, he was victimised the whole time he does remember, and was made to feel so powerless to resist that even when he did escape, he still thought it was inevitable that he would be recaptured and abused again.

 

With Anders, he is pointing out the uncomfortable reality of mages in Thedas. We can play as a mage, but we don't have the same situation as other mages. The Warden and Hawke to a lesser degree have infinitely more freedom and options availble to them. The things he rails against are true and it is scandalous that people go along with it. But it doesn't apply to us - even if we are mages ourselves. Yes, they try and give some idea of what its like with Hawke, Bethany etc in Act 1 particularly. But you never feel the kind of oppression that Anders is talking about, in either game. After the Magi Origin, most everyone in DA:O talks to you as a Grey Warden, deals with you on that basis. Most don't care in the slightest that you are a mage on the outside, and nobody ever refuses you a quest or anything like that. Just as the whole 'demons, abominations always threateing mages' is something that has no relevance to us either, because that doesn't happen to mage characters. We just roam about, happy as you please, slinging spells and there is never any of this supposed demonic temptation or threat of possession.

 

So when characters start going on about mage oppression and the dangers of magic, dangers of blood magic etc etc, it makes no impact on us, because that is not our experience of it. The only way to make it feel real would be to impose such harsh restrictions on mages in game, and you can imagine how well that wouldn't go down. If every time you cast spells, you turned entire communities hostile, or at least had your party thrown out of town because people didn't want the trouble, or you had to leave because you'd masscred the Templars that were called after you in broad daylight in front of everyone. If every time you cast spells (particularly Blood Magic), there was a chance your character could be possessed and die, And obviously they could never lock you up in the circle, because then there would be no game.

 

The closest they get is the situation with Hawke and family in Act 1 of DA2. And there are so many other problems associated with this situation that act as a barrier to making people care about this issue. Many people didn't really care about Bethany, your Mother etc, being annoyed that the game saddled you with them and told you that your character *did* love them etc etc, The issue is that it gave the players no choice in this, where Origins gave you so much choice that you got entirely different intro levels. It felt to many like their side in the Mage/Templar conflict was picked for them before they even began, because Hawke either is a Mage or has a helpless sister who is one.  And for mage characters, there was the constant awkward incongruity of supposedly being on the run from the Templars, yet happily able to cast spells in front of members of the public (one of the first things you do when you arrive in Kirkwall is use magic to beat some mercs *in the Gallows Courtyard!*

 

All these issues do not work in practice. The gamer has to have his freedom to roam, freedom to choose his own path, and people will not take kindly to such freedoms being infringed. They want to play as mages, they want to include mages in the party, and they don't want to have to hear endless grief on 'The Mage's Plight' and 'The Torment of being a Slave'. If you don't let those characters talk passionately about those issues, then it isn't being true to the reality of those characters - Bioware aren't wrong that Fenris and Anders would act like this. They absolutely would. But by the same token, this just shows how unsuitable they are to be party members in these kinds of games. Anders and Fenris are *so* passionate and self absorped in their own private crusades, that they are loners and not ripe characters to roll about with a happy go lucky band of fortune hunters, who (in many player's cases) want nothing more grand than to see the world, make some money and get as much action (of all kinds) as they can.

 

Its like going up to people who are heading out of a Saturday night to have a good time, and having Syrian activists go with them, showing them photos of the slaughter and oppression and bombarding them with questions about how they feel about it, why they aren't doing something about it. You might try to politely explain at first that you just want to have a good time, but if they kept it up, how long would it be before someone snapped and said 'Look, will you just SHUT UP about it, for God;s Sake - does this look like the right time for this?!' When of course the reality is that the killing is ongoing at that moment, if not now then when etc etc. But again, that's just the way of the world. Could we really condemn those folks for just wanting to live their lives and not be given the problems of everyone in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, everyone who has Ebola, everyone who has AIDS, all child abuse victims, etc etc etc.

 

Only a complete monster doesn't care about these things, but we cannot help and nor should we should be lectured/shamed into thinking we should. We'd all go completely insane if we did. If people choose to get involved, devote their time, money etc to such worthy causes, then that's a fantastic and commendable thing. I genuinely admire that, but you can't force people or browbeat them like this. Our daily problems may be minor compared to the big social issues and crimes going on in the world, but they are real to us, they matter to us and that is what we must devote our time to. We have a duty to those we know, and to ourselves to keep ourselves happy, motivated and productive for our own futures. If that sounds selfish, maybe it is. But its how the world works. Maybe it sucks and shouldn't be like that, but it is. Whatever the reason, we don't want to spend every waking moment in adventure, RPG games hearing about social justice woes.

 

If they want to be in your party, then characters like Fenris and Anders would have to learn some restraint on this. It sounds really heartless to say it like that, but its the truth, Most of the characters are not without some sympathy for them (even Varric and Isabela who try to stay out of such things), but neither do they want their every minute devoted to it. If you were to indicate that you were interested and wanted to hear more, then that's different. Fenris generally tries to keep his concerns to himself, but his steadfast refusal to integrate into the city because of his traumatic past, creates its own problems (Aveline is under pressure to justify allowing his illegal seziure of the mansion, Varric often tries to help him blend in and make some contacts but gets burned with a 'What could you possibly know of my PAIIINNNN?! style response etc etc).

 

Nobody is denying these people have suffered, but the old expression of 'You brought the rain with you' applies. Bring everyone around you down, and you'll soon find yourself alone.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I completely agree with everything OP said, but especially companions needing to be more then their political views. I felt this especially with Anders--in DA2 I hated him because all he did was whine. He could have talked about being a doctor, his favorite spells, literally anything else. When I got around to playing Awakening I was shocked at how funny and likable Anders was!

I felt this with Fenris as well and found myself wishing he'd shut up about how much he hated mages as he took every avalible moment to remind me. Like Anders Fenris had a life that he never talked about--trying new wines, new books he liked, those games of Wicked Grace he 'never missed'.

In DA2 there was a lot of fleshing out of the characters that just never happened and that makes me sad, because the DA2 companions were my favorite.

 

Carver had the best line about this.

 

Anders: Carver, why do you hate me? Is it because you hate mages? How would Hawke feel about that?

Carver: No, it's because you won't shut up about it.

[Realmzmaster]

Dialogue: please drop the dialogue wheel. I'd like to choose from reply options even if i cannot choose a reply that suits me, i'd like to have control over what my char is saying.
Characters: let them dead if they die in battle, relive them later if you want them back. No unconsciousness anymore please, and especially no possibility that they stand up if i run away from the battle and lure the enemy away. Also don't give me possibility to pick all party members in one playthrough and then store them in a container and run around in the Container after the levelup to get to know them. Make it like in BG please.
Inventory: no list inventory please, let me shuffle the items around my party as i see fit and equip them on the 'puppet'.
Make it like you did in the BG series, you can do it !

 

The dialogue wheel is here to stay at least for DAI. I actually prefer the keyword system used in Wizardry 8. I do not want to see the entire line of dialogue the protagonist will speak barring that I will stay with the paraphrase system.

 

I like the list inventory. I simply want to be able to click on what I want the party member to wear and then keep moving. I do not need to drag and drop to a puppet. If a puppet is used just let me double click on the item and it appears on the puppet.

 

I want to be able to revive a character in combat if a party member has the means which was also possible in BG2. Or use the method employed in TOEE (Temple of Elemental Evil) where a party member with the first aid skill could stabilize an unconscious member before the injured member died. The healer would then have time to cast a healing spell to bring them back into the fight.

 

Even in BG series you could get all the party members in one playthrough. Bioware has always allowed that option. Also remember that BG has far more potential party members than DA. (BG1 had 25 but not all of their stories were fleshed out well). I prefer DA where the party members are fewer but more fleshed out and have better stories.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like the list inventory. I simply want to be able to click on what I want the party member to wear and then keep moving. I do not need to drag and drop to a puppet. If a puppet is used just let me double click on the item and it appears on the puppet.

Except you have to find it first, which typically involves scrolling. That's why I prefer a grid to a list.

I agree with you about the need to drag and drop, however. Luckily, a grid doesn't prevent that (as demonstrated by BioWare's best inventory UI, NWN).

[Realmzmaster]

Except you have to find it first, which typically involves scrolling. That's why I prefer a grid to a list.

I agree with you about the need to drag and drop, however. Luckily, a grid doesn't prevent that (as demonstrated by BioWare's best inventory UI, NWN).

 

I have no problem with the grid if it has tabs for all. armor, potion etc. I can just click on the armor tab or icon and only armor shows. I can live with either list or grid if it allows me to pick what I wish to see and sort it different ways.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have no problem with the grid if it has tabs for all. armor, potion etc. I can just click on the armor tab or icon and only armor shows. I can live with either list or grid if it allows me to pick what I wish to see and sort it different ways.

I have never seen a list that lets me do that. Not enough to be helpful.

[Mr. Homebody]

I completely agree with this criticism. Especially when it comes to mages. In DA 2 crazy blood mages were literally everywhere. I had the impression that they were more numerous than ordinary citizens of Kirkwall. Hawke had to slaughter them all and I felt like he was killing numberless goblin minions. 

 

There was no respect for the "mystery of magic" in DA 2. 

 

Another good point: Hawke "the champion" of Kirkwall. Yet he was also the most powerless person in Kirkwall. Always too late on the party, always couldn't do anything about anything except killing everyone in the room. And his primary job was "courier services".

[RevilFox]

I LIKE the Dialog wheel, much more than I like the way DA:O handled it.