I wouldnt really consider Lady Insanity impartial... At least not anymore
Well, from the numbers of conversations Angry Joe needed to skip just in the prologue for his video to avoid spoilers, I'd say DAI's story density should be rather high. Compare that to Skyrim: if a video showed the prologue, that would not tell you much. It's like almost every other TES game they made, only in a different part of their world.
Well, from the numbers of conversations Angry Joe needed to skip just in the prologue for his video to avoid spoilers, I'd say DAI's story density should be rather high. Compare that to Skyrim: if a video showed the prologue, that would not tell you much. It's like almost every other TES game they made, only in a different part of their world.
Well, aren't Skyrim and Dragon Age kind of two RPGs with completely different goals in mind? I mean, I look at Skyrim as a great game for some deep hardcore roleplay of your character; while I myself prefer to do that with pen & paper and real life friends, I can't deny that some create a really great story by immersing themselves in Skyrim's world (best example I have seen is the roleplay season Zemalf have made on youtube, I could never do that outside of pen&paper roleplaying with friends). Meanwhile Dragon Age is a RPG driven by a set narrative, so it needs more cutscenes etc. to bring that story out; this is the story and you have this role, there is really no discussion other than how you complete your task; sure you can still immerse yourself in the world and story, but if you don't connect with the story, you can't really start to create you own instead.
Both can work within their framework for the games goal, but depending on your RPG preference you will probably enjoy one more than the other. I think due to the diversity of gamers, both frameworks have a place in the market. Both have stories, it's a question of do you create the entire story yourself or have the narrative already been created for you and you have to fill in the blanks.
I think they just lost DA's identity. They need to find it and stop messing with it. fans liked DA:O, and all fans wanted was DA:O v2 with improved combat and less brown and perhaps a voice.
Me3 > me2 > me1. there was a very notable progression there. it improved each time. (Lets just forget about the me3 ending and the fact that it was rushed)
Yes, technically me2 might have been better (its subjective.. i think me2 was probably the best in the trilogy), but speaking figuratively, me3 did improve upon things, and could have been the better game.
I just wish they'd do this with DA instead of stepping backward all the time. each iteration should improve upon the previous ones.
Well, aren't Skyrim and Dragon Age kind of two RPGs with completely different goals in mind? I mean, I look at Skyrim as a great game for some deep hardcore roleplay of your character; while I myself prefer to do that with pen & paper and real life friends, I can't deny that some create a really great story by immersing themselves in Skyrim's world (best example I have seen is the roleplay season Zemalf have made on youtube, I could never do that outside of pen&paper roleplaying with friends). Meanwhile Dragon Age is a RPG driven by a set narrative, so it needs more cutscenes etc. to bring that story out; this is the story and you have this role, there is really no discussion other than how you complete your task; sure you can still immerse yourself in the world and story, but if you don't connect with the story, you can't really start to create you own instead.
Both can work within their framework for the games goal, but depending on your RPG preference you will probably enjoy one more than the other. I think due to the diversity of gamers, both frameworks have a place in the market. Both have stories, it's a question of do you create the entire story yourself or have the narrative already been created for you and you have to fill in the blanks.
Of course. I was writing in response to claims that DA had lost its identity as a story-driven rpg by being more open-world than its predecessors, by pointing out the apparent amount of story in the prologue compared to games that aren't story-driven like Skyrim.
I just wish they'd do this with DA instead of stepping backward all the time. each iteration should improve upon the previous ones.
I see quite a bit of improvement. An impressive, fantastic amount of improvement, in fact.
I see quite a bit of improvement. An impressive, fantastic amount of improvement, in fact.
On da2, sure.. But burnt bread is also an improvement on dirt. I'm 98.9% sure this will not even be in the same league as da:o.
Right now I'm just seeing meaningless sidequests and flashy lights. But I'll reserve my opinion for when I play, as should you.
Well, aren't Skyrim and Dragon Age kind of two RPGs with completely different goals in mind? I mean, I look at Skyrim as a great game for some deep hardcore roleplay of your character; while I myself prefer to do that with pen & paper and real life friends, I can't deny that some create a really great story by immersing themselves in Skyrim's world (best example I have seen is the roleplay season Zemalf have made on youtube, I could never do that outside of pen&paper roleplaying with friends).
I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by "deep hardcore roleplay." I find role-playing almost impossible in a TES game, since there are no real constraints on what my character can do. I can write a story and make my avatar act it out, sure, but by definition I'm out-of-character when I'm doing that.
Another example would be by JUICE.
rofl...
'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' came out at the same time. During that period of time, 'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' competed for 'Game of the Year'.
'Skyrim' won. Period.
Regardless about what some of the 'Dragon Age' loyalists think, the majority of the players chose 'Skyrim' over 'Dragon Age 2'.
Nothing will change that reality.
BioWare also won 'worse company of the year' for two years in a row.
Nothing will change that reality.
When it comes to 'Dragon Age: Inquisition', I don't buy into the over all hype. I will wait to see player reviews. I can careless about critic or 'bought' game magazine reviews. Adding 'bought' magazine quotes to videos stinks of desperation. I want to see the average gamer videos and reviews.
'Skyrim' has a great 'open world' and 'multi-storyline' experience. It won 'Game of the Year' for a reason.
...and, BioWare knows this reality.
Here we go again...rofl...
'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' came out at the same time. During that period of time, 'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' competed for 'Game of the Year'.
'Skyrim' won. Period.
Regardless about what some of the 'Dragon Age' loyalists think, the majority of the players chose 'Skyrim' over 'Dragon Age 2'.
Nothing will change that reality.
I don't think story-driven rpgs are dying at all. In most cases that element is getting better. It is the other things about rpgs that are dying.
I don't think story-driven rpgs are dying at all. In most cases that element is getting better. It is the other things about rpgs that are dying.
I think the traditional western-style rpg experience is dying. MMORPGs may have caused a drag on western-style rpgs.
'Dragon Age 2' and 'Star Wars: The Old Republic' are also two reasons why western-rpgs are dying.
Here we go again...
GOTY...I wouldn't put to much weight on that. Dragon age 2 still had the better story.
...but, you are in the minority.
Regardless about how many people come to your defense, the camp you are sitting in is in the minority.
BioWare knows that 'Dragon Age: Inqusition' is a make-it or break-it moment.
They are not dying, they are evolving.
rofl...
'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' came out at the same time. During that period of time, 'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' competed for 'Game of the Year'.
'Skyrim' won. Period.
Regardless about what some of the 'Dragon Age' loyalists think, the majority of the players chose 'Skyrim' over 'Dragon Age 2'.
Nothing will change that reality.
BioWare also won 'worse company of the year' for two years in a row.
Nothing will change that reality.
When it comes to 'Dragon Age: Inquisition', I don't buy into the over all hype. I will wait to see player reviews. I can careless about critic or 'bought' game magazine reviews. Adding 'bought' magazine quotes to videos stinks of desperation. I want to see the average gamer videos and reviews.
'Skyrim' has a great 'open world' and 'multi-storyline' experience. It won 'Game of the Year' for a reason.
...and, BioWare knows this reality.
EA* not bioware. bioware was simply acquired by EA
Da2 was bad. congratulations. skyrim beat bioware's worst work!
The only thing that's dying Is my tolerance for BS.
rofl...
'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' came out at the same time. During that period of time, 'Dragon Age 2' and 'Skyrim' competed for 'Game of the Year'.
'Skyrim' won. Period.
with an opponent like DA2, even the lamest game could win the GOTY. HECK EVEN IF BETHESDA CREATED A GAME LIKE "BURN THE ROPE" COULD HAD STILL WON.
Skyrim play hours extend to days with ease, while DA2 makes god to roll my self control on my own real self just dealing with the cast there... and if you think i'm aggressive remember that there were dead menaces to anyone involved in that crap.
But what's done is done... from what i've seen DAI is definitively redemption, still trying to not go berserker by sissy weapons for rogues and less "pen and paper" elements but the last thing, the script, has been revealed and it's like DAO where choices really matters: people will left the party, NPC's will react as living again, and so on.
DA has more in common with Final Fight Saga than it has with TES... stop doing stupid comments please since IT DOESN'T EVEN COMPARE.
I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by "deep hardcore roleplay." I find role-playing almost impossible in a TES game, since there are no real constraints on what my character can do. I can write a story and make my avatar act it out, sure, but by definition I'm out-of-character when I'm doing that.
Fair enough, my wording probably isn't the best. I compare roleplaying in a TES game like Skyrim with roleplaying in a pen & paper adventure; so you have a setting (Skyrim), a high level narrative (Dragonborn and civil war) and then you're free to make your own adventure. While I personally can't get into a digital character the same way I can with a character in pen & paper, my point is some can and are roleplaying that character and making their own adventure to a degree they couldn't do in a RPG like e.g. the Dragon Age franchise.
What I meant by "deep hardcore roleplay" was my thought that games like Skyrim are at their best if you're able to really get into the head of your character and are able to create your own story. For a game like the Dragon Age franchise it is easier to sit back and enjoy the already written story like a movie for lack of a better description.
...not sure I made that make more sense, but hopefully it's a bit better 
Well, from the numbers of conversations Angry Joe needed to skip just in the prologue for his video to avoid spoilers, I'd say DAI's story density should be rather high. Compare that to Skyrim: if a video showed the prologue, that would not tell you much. It's like almost every other TES game they made, only in a different part of their world.
Oh agreed... The E3 2014 gameplay trailer convinced me of that... That one scene with Alexius pretty much got my purchase
Fair enough, my wording probably isn't the best. I compare roleplaying in a TES game like Skyrim with roleplaying in a pen & paper adventure; so you have a setting (Skyrim), a high level narrative (Dragonborn and civil war) and then you're free to make your own adventure. While I personally can't get into a digital character the same way I can with a character in pen & paper, my point is some can and are roleplaying that character and making their own adventure to a degree they couldn't do in a RPG like e.g. the Dragon Age franchise.
What I meant by "deep hardcore roleplay" was my thought that games like Skyrim are at their best if you're able to really get into the head of your character and are able to create your own story. For a game like the Dragon Age franchise it is easier to sit back and enjoy the already written story like a movie for lack of a better description.
...not sure I made that make more sense, but hopefully it's a bit better
That partially depends on what kind of DM you have. Some DMs are more narrative-minded and want to tell a story, so when the PCs start to go off the narrative rails, they'll give them an incentive to get back on. However, other DMs are just content to let the party go dungeon diving. Either way, the player is making their own story. The DM is. The players are more reacting to what the DM says is happening. Neither is more "hardcore" in the roleplaying aspect. Bethesda is a DM who just doesn't care. Bioware is a narrative-minded DM, who wants to tell a good story.
The only thing that's dying Is my tolerance for BS.
Mine died a couple of years ago,between DA2 and ME3.
BioWare also won 'worse company of the year' for two years in a row.
Nothing will change that reality.
Except that it isn't reality. EA won worst company not Bioware.
I think the traditional western-style rpg experience is dying. MMORPGs may have caused a drag on western-style rpgs.
'Dragon Age 2' and 'Star Wars: The Old Republic' are also two reasons why western-rpgs are dying.
...but, you are in the minority.
Regardless about how many people come to your defense, the camp you are sitting in is in the minority.
BioWare knows that 'Dragon Age: Inqusition' is a make-it or break-it moment.
I love this bias. Really, I do.
"Everyone that agrees with me is the majority, and everyone that doesn't is in the minority!!!"
I think they just lost DA's identity. They need to find it and stop messing with it. fans liked DA:O, and all fans wanted was DA:O v2 with improved combat and less brown and perhaps a voice.
Yep. I'm pretty sure we would have gotten a DA:O 2 if EA wouldn't have bought Bioware.
Everything just kind of went to sh*t sometime after EA assumed direct control.
Me3 > me2 > me1. there was a very notable progression there. it improved each time. (Lets just forget about the me3 ending and the fact that it was rushed)
I disagree. This is how I see it:
ME1 was fantastic.
ME2 was pure awesomeness (best in the series despite the toned down RPG elements).
ME3 was a really weak game with an atrocious ending. It felt rushed straight from the beginning.
Yep. I'm pretty sure we would have gotten a DA:O 2 if EA wouldn't have bought Bioware.
Everything just kind of went to sh*t sometime after EA assumed direct control.
It wasn't necessarily EA, there's a pretty clear delineation of when it happened. It was Brent Knowles leaving and others taking over control of the franchise direction.
Retour en haut
