253 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't even get how "confusion" is bad. It's inevitable in a setting like Dragon Age. Even a short introduction can potentially be MORE confusing than not talking about it all.

Is BioWare supposed to change the game to accommodate the occasional drama queen that is too impatient to discover the story of a goddamn 150-hour roleplaying game? They knew what they were getting into when they joined the game at the third installment.

Bah...

You used The Witcher 2 as an example of a game you picked up mid-franchise.

The Witcher 2... which gave you a twenty minute tutorial about navigating, using your powers, the perception and benefits of being a mutant/Witcher, then gave you in-depth combat tests, THEN started you in a story with tons of dislogue and explanation before you even start swinging a sword.

Did you know everything there was to know about Geralt or the world you were in by the time you started making big decisions? Of course not. But you had a grasp of the mechanics, the setting, the events in play and everything else you'd need to attach basic motivations.

That's a good example. And that's a game that starts the game in the middle of a war.

[Heimdall]

Fair enough, but again you don't even participate in the Mage/Templar conference at the mountain. You are simply a survivor with a mark on your hand. 
Haven't we been told that you get to play a little before the Breach happens? That should be enough, if true.

Doesn't matter, they were there whether as a spy or accompanying someone or a mercenary or whatever, it's still the reason the PC is there and why the Divine is there to get killed.

Actually we've heard the opposite, the character created starts after the explosion, when the PC is already in the Fade.

[Lebanese Dude]

The Witcher 2 gave you plenty of context. Before you've even spoken with the king you know that you're Geralt, you have amnesia, you're a monster hunter for hire, there was another Witcher that tried to kill the king, and the current battle is over royal bastards. Most of that you learn before leaving Triss's tent.

Nobody's saying they need to provide a whole history of the world, just some explanation as to goings on directly relating to why you are there at that moment.

In DAI, before you deal with the Mage/Templar sub-plot, you've spoken to Cassandra, you have amnesia, you have a glowing hand that marks you as important, and it apparently can be used to close the Breach. This happened at a summit between two factions. 

 

What else do you need to know?

The same minimal context to understand the current situation is given. Everything else is introduced when appropriate.

 

---

 

I totally understand what you are saying. I'm not arguing AGAINST putting additional content in the prologue. I'm simply saying that's incompletely unnecessary and DAI is following a different story progression. That is all.

[Melca36]

Not surprised by the fetch quests being mentioned. Considering the areas we explore will be much more expansive, I am guessing Bioware did not have the budget nor the time to make a ton of more quality, in depth quests. I assume there will be some quests like that, but to fill up the space in these areas for things to do, fetch quests is the easiest way to do it. As much as I dislike those types of quests, it's something I can deal with and not let it ruin the game for me.

 

These fetch quests look far more interesting than the ones in DA2.  I have no issue doing fetch quests as long as they are interesting.  The ones in DA2 were ridiculous.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fair enough, but again you don't even participate in the Mage/Templar conference at the mountain. You are simply a survivor with a mark on your hand.

Haven't we been told that you get to play a little before the Breach happens? That should be enough, if true.

According to the known videos, the game doesn't start until after the Breach has blown.

[Lebanese Dude]

Actually we've heard the opposite, the character created starts after the explosion, when the PC is already in the Fade.

 

According to the known videos, the game doesn't start until after the Breach has blown.

 

 

Alright thanks.

[bluonblu]

In previous Dragon Age games you would assign orders and then let it play out, according to these guys it doesn't work like that anymore in this game. DA:I is allegedly designed around selecting a character and then swiping away in 3rd person mode, while only occasionally entering tactical mode to issue orders for teammates.

 

BTW, you should probably play the game before you claim as a fact that tactical mode has vastly improved. 
 

You killed bears and bandits in Lothering for maybe 30 minutes in DA:O, not six hours. These guys played DA:I for six hours and said that they ran into numerous fetch quests during this time.

 

In previous Dragon Age games you would assign orders and then let it play out, according to these guys it doesn't work like that anymore in this game. DA:I is allegedly designed around selecting a character and then swiping away in 3rd person mode, while only occasionally entering tactical mode to issue orders for teammates.

 

BTW, you should probably play the game before you claim as a fact that tactical mode has vastly improved. 
 

You killed bears and bandits in Lothering for maybe 30 minutes in DA:O, not six hours. These guys played DA:I for six hours and said that they ran into numerous fetch quests during this time.

 

Hmm, I'll have to see the game for myself. 

 

I love DAO (and am mildly annoyed with DA2, despite my resolution to finally complete at least a single playthrough by the time DAI comes out), but it did have its fair share of "fetch" quests. Not just around Lothering either - and it was done in a way that made it "OK" (not the best part, but OK) even in the midst of the Blight storyline.

 

Plus - and this may just be me - the quests you get (as shown in Youtube videos) made sense: getting ram meat for a camp of refugees for instance. It made sense in the context of that particular situation, so fine. About not being able to start the quest? Well, there's always the chance to simply ignore it.   

[Melca36]

I watched their video before, and they seemed to complain about things that seemed kinda silly far as I remember.

 

I couldn't take it seriously, haha.

 

At this stage...people are looking for any excuse to nitpick, complain, and put The Witcher Series on a pedestal.

[bluonblu]

Hmm, I'll have to see the game for myself. 

 

I love DAO (and am mildly annoyed with DA2, despite my resolution to finally complete at least a single playthrough by the time DAI comes out), but it did have its fair share of "fetch" quests. Not just around Lothering either - and it was done in a way that made it "OK" (not the best part, but OK) even in the midst of the Blight storyline.

 

Plus - and this may just be me - the quests you get (as shown in Youtube videos) made sense: getting ram meat for a camp of refugees for instance. It made sense in the context of that particular situation, so fine. About not being able to start the quest? Well, there's always the chance to simply ignore it.   

 

And by "About not being able to start the quest? " I actually meant: not being able to not pick the quests. 

[Heimdall]

In DA2, before you deal with the Mage/Templar war, you've spoken to Cassandra, you have amnesia, you have a glowing hand that marks you as important, and it can be used to close the Breach. Most of that you learn before you start the game proper.

That what they throw you into, and that's the problem. Waking up and being told your hand is important and pointing to big whole in the sky doesn't help a whole lot in explaining context. Marching them up a mountain telling them to close rifts is all well in good, but the player has to fumble through it with only the faintest idea as to the significance of the events that have just transpired. Giving context before throwing the player into the main plot helps them understand the significance of what's going on, instead of just feeling confused.

[Lebanese Dude]

You used The Witcher 2 as an example of a game you picked up mid-franchise.

The Witcher 2... which gave you a twenty minute tutorial about navigating, using your powers, the perception and benefits of being a mutant/Witcher, then gave you in-depth combat tests, THEN started you in a story with tons of dislogue and explanation before you even start swinging a sword.

Did you know everything there was to know about Geralt or the world you were in by the time you started making big decisions? Of course not. But you had a grasp of the mechanics, the setting, the events in play and everything else you'd need to attach basic motivations.

That's a good example. And that's a game that starts the game in the middle of a war.

 

Do you really think DAI will not have tutorials?

 

Does the order really matter anyway? Do you really care why you are attacking random Fade creatures before understanding what they are?
 

I honestly don't get it. "Kill things first ask questions later" is a perfectly good story setup, and I have every confidence that DA will ease you in regardless.

[Lebanese Dude]

That what they throw you into, and that's the problem. Waking up and being told your hand is important and pointing to big whole in the sky doesn't help a whole lot in explaining context. Marching them up a mountain telling them to close rifts is all well in good, but the player has to fumble through it with only the faintest idea as to the significance of the events that have just transpired. Giving context before throwing the player into the main plot helps them understand the significance of what's going on, instead of just feeling confused.

 

Do you really need any context other than "you are the chosen one, help us overcome this immediate threat and we'll explain what happened later"?

 

Like I said, I completely understand the desire to want to know more. I just don't think it's necessary and DAI has opted to go another route with the story progression.

[Paul E Dangerously]

At this stage...people are looking for any excuse to nitpick, complain, and put The Witcher Series on a pedestal.

 

Maybe because the last games in both series got vastly different receptions. Bioware's got a harder hill to climb with all the recent stumbling, while the Witcher devs have more goodwill at the moment.

[Heimdall]

Do you really think DAI will not have tutorials?
 
Does the order really matter anyway? Do you really care why you are attacking random Fade creatures before understanding what they are?
 
I honestly don't get it. "Kill things first ask questions later" is a perfectly good story setup, and I have every confidence that DA will ease you in regardless.

Some people prefer to know what's going on. Sure, stories can work that way, but they all run the risk of turning away players for whom the action wasn't compelling enough to make up for confusion and lack of explanation for what was going on.

[Fast Jimmy]

Do you really think DAI will not have tutorials?

Does the order really matter anyway? Do you really care why you are attacking random Fade creatures before understanding what they are?

I honestly don't get it. "Kill things first ask questions later" is a perfectly good story setup, and I have every confidence that DA will ease you in regardless.

Given the fact that the videos of guy who have played the game for five hours made it seem like they didn't even know how to properly use the pause and play feature AND given that these same people felt lost enough on the plot five hours in to point it out in their review suggests otherwise.

It may not be a concern for you, as someone who is a veteran of the series and it likely will not harm your enjoyment.

But don't come in saying criticism is invalid and huff "people on these forums" when people with actual experience with the game say otherwise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd be content to get dropped in the world with no explanation, but then I have to be free to wander off and do whatever I like.

If the game expects me to do something specific right out of the gate, it needs to give me a good reason to do it.

[Heimdall]

Do you really need any context other than "you are the chosen one, help us overcome this immediate threat and we'll explain what happened later"?
 
Like I said, I completely understand the desire to want to know more. I just don't think it's necessary and DAI has opted to go another route with the story progression.

In a Roleplaying game? Playing as a character that would know at least the broad strokes beforehand? Extremely. Not to mention, being told that they're the chosen one and thrown into combat doesn't help new players get a handle on the franchise at all. As we've said, a little bit of context would go a long way to making their experience easier to get a handle on.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

I thought Dark Souls plopping you in a cell, explain nothing, and expect you to go kill was quite awesome. The intense feeling of not knowing WTF was going on was pretty cool. If DA:I can pull it off, I'm cool with it.

Agreed. Dark souls storytelling is absolutely perfect. It is pure art when the entire world story is subtly told without even having to utter a single word or letter.

[gangly369]

Given the fact that the videos of guy who have played the game for five hours made it seem like they didn't even know how to properly use the pause and play feature AND given that these same people felt lost enough on the plot five hours in to point it out in their review suggests otherwise.

It may not be a concern for you, as someone who is a veteran of the series and it likely will not harm your enjoyment.

But don't come in saying criticism is invalid and huff "people on these forums" when people with actual experience with the game say otherwise.

 

And yet, other reviewers/sites/people seem perfectly capable of figuring this out and have not been lost in either the gameplay or story.

 

While it is fine to have criticism of a game (especially in regards to how a story is presented to you), game journalists do impact people by what they are saying. If they are missing obvious tutorials, or skipping over stuff, only to complain later that there is no context and they weren't taught how to properly play the game, they are giving a bad impression to potential consumers which could turn people off. All because they weren't paying attention to the game they are paid to be playing. I know this has been a particular pet peeve of mine in regards to IGN coverage the last few years, as they have consistently butchered the lore and given out false information

 

For what its worth, I agree with you that I would prefer a slower opening with more context as to what is going on in the world of Thedas. It would've been cool to play as the elf spying on the attendants at the summit, or a qunari guarding and making sure nothing bad happens. But I think everyone is giving this article waaaay to much credit, and that it should be compared with what other people have been saying (i.e. other people are praising the combat, are not feeling lost in the story, etc.)

 

It would be cool if someone could round up all of the previews and see what the general consensus is, however

[Giantdeathrobot]

Your argument is irrelevant. The critique was "someone new to the series that haven't played the other games will get easily lost." If your response is "new people shouldn't be new to the series without playing the other games" then that is not addressing the criticism.

Explaining the Breach is not material. You or I would not get lost in the intro, because we know the backstory. Someone new does not have any backstory. Throwing them right in the middle of not just action, but the fireworks of some of the most historic and involved events in the history of Thedas is, understandably, quite confusing.

 

Uh, the point is that you will (and frankly deserve to) get lost if you start any series at the third installment with no prior knowledge, unless a convenient plot summary is written out (like Tolkien did in LOTR). That's just how it friggin works. And fortunately, Inquisition offers a rare example of a video game giving you a plot summary in the form of the Keep.

 

Also, and let's remember it people, we haven't seen the entire intro. Joe made a point of skipping all the cutscenes, of which there were several. What tells us that there wasn't any explanation as to the Inquisition, the Mage-Templar war, the peace summit, etc? If not immediately at the intro, then at Haven which seems to be a moment of calm after the storm? Let's at least play through the entire prologue before declaring it newbie-unfriendly, especially when the only sample we had is that of someone who purposefully skipped the cutscenes.

 

EDIT: also, The Witcher 2 added the tutorial months after release, because many people said the early game was kinda confusing and incredibly difficult. So that's not what I would call a good example.

[Gothfather]

I am not sure these guys understand how open world video games work. Have they ever played one?  Open world video game are FILLED with "filler" quests and side quests that have zero to do with the main quest. It the whole ADVANTAGE of the open world enviorment.

 

They gushed over the open world and then turn around and complain the story wasn't in your face with quests relevant to the story. Maybe because you have to BUILD the Inquisition before you can change the world? Maybe becaues you got side tracked in this huge enviorment which the whole POINT of the open world envoriment design concept.

 

I get that you might not like the open world concept in games but to say how great it is and then complain about it made them appear rather unknowledgeable.

 

As for combat I am rather confused do people not understand the time forward button on the tactical camera? If you want more tactical combat you stay IN that camera mode for the battle you don't enter it give one set of orders then jump into twitch combat and expect a tactical experience. Stay in tactical camera mode press the time forward button, watch your orders being exceuted, pause, issue a new set of orders, rinse and repeat. That is how people who WANT a more tactical game get it.

[Lebanese Dude]

I am not sure these guys understand how open world video games work. Have they ever played one?  Open world video game are FILLED with "filler" quests and side quests that have zero to do with the main quest. It the whole ADVANTAGE of the open world enviorment.

 

They gushed over the open world and then turn around and complain the story wasn't in your face with quests relevant to the story. Maybe because you have to BUILD the Inquisition before you can change the world? Maybe becaues you got side tracked in this huge enviorment which the whole POINT of the open world envoriment design concept.

 

I get that you might not like the open world concept in games but to say how great it is and then complain about it made them appear rather unknowledgeable.

 

As for combat I am rather confused do people not understand the time forward button on the tactical camera? If you want more tactical combat you stay IN that camera mode for the battle you don't enter it give one set of orders then jump into twitch combat and expect a tactical experience. Stay in tactical camera mode press the time forward button, watch your orders being exceuted, pause, issue a new set of orders, rinse and repeat. That is how people who WANT a more tactical game get it.

 

This is the only negative review I have seen so far. I wouldn't place much faith in their jury.

[Lebanese Dude]

I'd be content to get dropped in the world with no explanation, but then I have to be free to wander off and do whatever I like.

If the game expects me to do something specific right out of the gate, it needs to give me a good reason to do it.

 

Cassandra: You walked out of the Fade and our soldiers found you, the only one who escaped a blast that  killed thousands. And you have no idea how you survived? At this moment, you are the only threat I see.

 

*Cassandra holds a sword at your throat*

 

Good enough reason for me.

[XMissWooX]

They're certainly better that DA ]['s "oh look here are these mouldy trousers, they must belong to a Dwarf in Lowtown."

Hawke was obviously just doing his/her best Sherlock impression:

Hawke: "Hmm, a pair of trousers. Judging from the shortness of the legs, I'd say they belong to a dwarf. A man, going by their size. The waist is unusually stretched, so I'd say we're looking for a podgy fellow, though the excrement stains on the backside suggest that whilst he eats a lot, he has a poor diet. There's a strong smell of urine coming from them too, so quite likely he resides somewhere unsanitary - I'd say Darktown but the dirt marks are drier and lighter, more akin to those commonly seen in Lowtown. There's alchohol too, which suggest an addiction to drink - possibly he spends his nights drinking himself into a stupor in Lowtown's taverns. And the odour is an exact match for Corf's special brew, so I deduce that we can find the owner of these trousers near The Hanged Man tonight and return them to him."

Varric: "That's great Hawke. We killed the dragon, by the way. Though Aveline could have used your healing *before* she passed out. It's fine, I doubt she'll be angry at you when she comes to."


...At least, that's how I'm headcanoning it.
Shepard is just a stalker, I guess.

[Lebanese Dude]

Shepard is just a stalker, I guess.

 

It's funny how I interpreted it as Shepard being helpful to those in need, rather than a stalker

 

Also thanks for the laugh (rest of the post). I needed it