81 réponses à ce sujet

[Selea]

Selea's generally right about DAO being extremely overrated. I literally can't replay it, and I only really made myself go through it once to get my own unique save state (which now I can't use because of issues with DAI - ugh).

 

Have I ever said that DA:O is overrated? Please don't try to put things in my mouth to try to prove me wrong. I just said that DA:O combat had its share of problems and many people nowadays seem to completely ignore it for nostalgia.

Moreover it's fun to notice how you people that insist that I'm wrong completely overlook what I said about the control scheme on DA:I and how it should work on paper.

[Selea]

Thanks for proving my point. I'm out, have fun discussing this with yourself. I'm sure you'll find it both fascinating and productive.

I didn't "prove" your point. I proved the exact contrary. I'm sorry but only someone that really doesn't understand nothing about certain things can insist that an open world environment can adopt a full point & click interface. And even if you know nothing about pathfinding and the like try to consider even for a second the complexity of something like that. Maybe you will understand why it's almost impossible (maybe not impossible but the results - apart taking a lot of time to even make it work - will be full of bugs and inconsistencies) to ask for something like that out of a game like DA:I given the context.

There are some things that are objective and have nothing to do with opinion. If you cannot stand others pointing out objective fallacies in your arguments (if present) then you should neither start a debate to begin with.

[Hexoduen]

The people that made Baldur's Gate 2 don't even work at BioWare any more.

 

Mark Darrah was the lead programmer on Baldur's Gate 2.

[Terodil]

I didn't "prove" your point. I proved the exact contrary. I'm sorry but only someone that really doesn't understand nothing about certain things can insist that an open world environment can adopt a full point & click interface. And even if you know nothing about pathfinding and the like try to consider even for a second the complexity of something like that. Maybe you will understand why it's almost impossible (maybe not impossible but the results - apart taking a lot of time to even make it work - will be full of bugs and inconsistencies) to ask for something like that out of a game like DA:I given the context.

There are some things that are objective and have nothing to do with opinion. If you cannot stand others pointing out objective fallacies in your arguments (if present) then you should neither start a debate to begin with.

 

I'm usually loathe to do that... but... I have to lol at all your conviction and arrogance. Seriously.

 

Let me burst your whole "objectivity yadda yadda I'm right and you're dumb" bubble by providing a simple counterexample. WoW is open world and has extensive point-and-click support.

[Selea]

I'm usually loathe to do that... but... I have to lol at all your conviction and arrogance. Seriously.

 

Let me burst your whole "objectivity yadda yadda I'm right and you're dumb" bubble by providing a simple counterexample. WoW is open world and has extensive point-and-click support.

Oh yes, because WoW open world environment is as complex as the one of DA:I, isn't it? OMG.

Listen: at last ponder for even one single second about what you are about to say next, want you?

[Efrim]

I'm usually loathe to do that... but... I have to lol at all your conviction and arrogance. Seriously.

 

Let me burst your whole "objectivity yadda yadda I'm right and you're dumb" bubble by providing a simple counterexample. WoW is open world and has extensive point-and-click support.

it also sucks. :x

[Terodil]

@Selea: *roaring laughter* You win, I lose, I am humbled in your presence.

 

Edit @Efrim: I didn't say it was perfect, but it is a lot better than what we have in DA:I atm. I didn't use it much, somehow controls were fluid with wasd + right-mouse-key + the occasional click for picking up stuff or attacking mobs. Don't know why DA:I failed so utterly at providing a somewhat smooth gameplay experience, at least for melees. Ranged is okay-ish as it is.

[Selea]

*rumbling laughter* You win, I lose, I am humbled in your presence.

 

Edit: I didn't say it was perfect, but it is a lot better than what we have in DA:I atm.

I would just want you to consider what you ask from developers before pretending it. Your example of WoW  is complete bullshit because the environments of WoW even if open world are no more complex than a non-open world environment (as DA:O was). When I spoke about "open world environment" I naturally implied a certain kind of complexity that is inherent in modern open world engines (as Frostbite), not certainly a basic MMO style open world as WoW offers.

Probably I was wrong on pretending you to understand what I implied for "open world" but if you just did ponder a little more on what I said maybe you would have get why your WoW example is a complete facepalm.

[Efrim]

*rumbling laughter* You win, I lose, I am humbled in your presence.

 

Edit @Efrim: I didn't say it was perfect, but it is a lot better than what we have in DA:I atm. I didn't use it much, somehow controls were fluid with wasd + right-mouse-key + the occasional click for picking up stuff or attacking mobs. Don't know why DA:I failed so utterly at providing a somewhat smooth gameplay experience.

 

Well it will be interesting to see how they address the KBM complaints. They have announced they plan to do something about it in future patches, so I guess we'll see. Frankly there is quite a bit of difference between wanting better KBM play and wanting the game to be Origins. I can agree with the former but detest the notion of the latter.

EDIT * accidentally added my bit to your quote. cleaned it up.

Modifié par Efrim, 22 novembre 2014 - 01:08 .

[Terodil]

@Efrim: we're d'accord. I don't mind a new control scheme as long as it's sufficiently ergonomic and effective.

 

Just for those wondering about the impact of 'open world' on pathfinding... considering today's computing power, the impact is minimal. Game logic is set apart from game presentation; you can see that if you ever use development kits or similar tools and look at stuff in the wire mesh viewer. Pathfinding as part of the game logic has relatively simple rules (chiefly collision testing) that doesn't give a flying eff about 'open world' or 'next gen' stuff. It's misleading to use the term 'open world' in this context because it is a term used to describe a certain approach to game content, not game logic (at least w.r.t. pathfinding). Older games didn't use 'closed worlds' to reduce pathfinding complexity, but to reduce efforts they would have had to invest into game design in general, graphic assets and writing in particular.

[scrutinizer]

 

Games and Companies move on, god i have had my fair share of companies i loved moving in directions i never cared for, but well i moved on, i thanked them for the great time i did spend with them an moved on to other companies whose games attracted me, very easy process tbh, surprised more ppl dont do it.

A valid point. It is exactly why I restrained myself from jumping on the hype-train and pre-order. I've seen this game at my friends (owe him a few beers for buying it first) and am not impressed at all. Which pretty much means that as a customer I'm through with Bioware products. They had multiple chances to prove me wrong, and they did not. Not buying anything from them, unless it's dirt cheap.

 

DA:O struck me as being fairly bland when it came out, and I didn't see how it looked different from anything else.

Hard to disagree when you consider the whole picture. The story is uninspired, the setting basically borrows from other works and blends it all together (no new quality here). However, the attention to details and overall aesthetics of the game somewhat propelled this game to overcome those shortcomings. I, for one, enjoy the DA:O combat in particular, as it indeed is tactical (on higher difficulty setting), but I'm a Jagged Alliance addict, so go figrue.

 

They listened to the fans and improved upon BG1. And subsequently made the best game of all time IMO.

Indeed. Now, as someone rightfully pointed out, BG2 received its share of criticism, but it was rather minor, as opposed to DA:O vs. DA2 case. At the end of the day, BG2 is considered as one of the best cRPGs ever made (if not THE best). How many of you would say the same thing about DA2?

 

No. You obviously know nothing about art and science and it shows. "Little enhancements" don't bring you anywhere to form a proper theory. Maybe you should research a little on how breakthrough in science (as the big bang model or the Lamba-CDM one) took place so you can understand how things works a little before trying to disprove something you obviously understand nothing about.

To chime in on this art/science and DA:I case. 

1) DA:I is no art nor science, so I suggest you drop criteria that apply to them when discussing DA:I. To use an allegory, a device you seem to be fond of: playing a Call of Duty or Battlefield game does not make you an actual soldier that has seen actual war. To elaborate, so we do not have a misunderstanding here: one value does not equal the other value at all.

2) Art and science is a continuum of points which are directly intertwined and cannot be ignored. D comes from C, which comes from B, which comes from A. You always have to look back.

3) Granted, in this particular case, Bioware could have made progress. They know of the legacy of DA:O. They know that the experimentation with its formula led to DA2, which was more or less a failure. Being aware of that, they chose to implement a lot of mechanics from DA2, while ignoring what made DA:O a cult-classic. I don't call that progress. When you can truly move forward and have the means to, you inexplicably and consciously chose to move backwards. 

4) Imagine you are a sci-fi writer. Your sci-fi books sell well and receive universal critical acclaim. One day, you decide to write a detective novel. This time, however, the reception is bad and people suggest you stick to sci-fi, because that's what you are good at. What do you do? You write another brilliant sci-fi novel. or another dectective novel? You see, some people are talented in certain areas of life. They should capitalize on it, not move away from it.

 

Sure. It's easy to extrapolate a thing from the context and seeing the "dumbing down" in some particulars by cherry picking; you could do it with everything. I could consider the Faust of Goethe a "dumbing down" of the one of Marlowe too using this method. Sadly this way of approach to things is used only by people that have a biased view and cannot be objective in their judgment.

But even if it was as you say, the hatred against Bioware is completely out of hand. As I repeat TW2 was (in the same way, using your cherry picking) a "dumbing down" of TW1 and yet nowhere in CDProjekt RED forums there was the outrage you see here.

Whose work you read first? Marlowe or Goethe? It plays a huge role in assessment.

As for The Witcher. The first game kind of came out of nowhere, and, despite some issues, was a success. CDProjekt RED decided to change certain aspects in the sequel, but were frank and straightforward about it from day one. Therefore, as the game arrived, no one was disappointed or surprised. Moreover, CDProjekt RED support for their game after the release is exemplary (the main issue after the release was poor optimalization), as they not only fixed bugs, but also provided new content for free.

Now, if I am to pay this much for a game (referring to DA:I, in my country it costs the equivalent of two new games. It's the historically highest price for a videogame ever here.), I expect the product to be of the highest quality and fulfill the promises of the developers. From what I gathered, it does neither.

 

DA:O had so many problems in the combat scheme that it would take a full page to list them all (...) Moreover I cannot fathom how people cannot understand a simple thing as that an open world engine cannot adopt a full point and click control scheme. Is it really possible that people are so dumb as to not understand all the problematics an huge world like the one of DA:I can give to a full point and click scheme?

Well, care to elaborate? All you do is throw vague, unspecific statements. Give me the details, and then we can talk.

 

In all seriousness I'm not spending $60 on the same game under slightly different wrapping and interface.

 

Hm. What if you were offered a fantastic, deep new storyline, memorable and relatable characters, more options than in the original (gameplay-wise), slightly improved graphics - in general, 100h of great game, which mechanically would be similar to the previous installment in the series? Would you rather spend the same amount of money on an unknown quality that only promises to be different? I would not.

 

 And even if you know nothing about pathfinding and the like try to consider even for a second the complexity of something like that. Maybe you will understand why it's almost impossible (maybe not impossible but the results - apart taking a lot of time to even make it work - will be full of bugs and inconsistencies) to ask for something like that out of a game like DA:I given the context.

Yeah, games like Ultima or above mentioned BG2 or Jagged Alliance nailed it right, and I guess they did not have all those technical marvels and tools. It's moving from point A to B (no matter the scope of a given area, it's still A to B, and a matter of few algorithms stating behaviors when a given type of obstacle is encountered). If you, as a game developer, cannot do it properly, you do not deserve the money you are charging.

 

Consider. Divinity Original Sin is a soaring success, despite not being hyped as much and not having as much resources as Bioware products. What Larian Studios did was take proven elements that are fun, mix them seamlessly, listen to the fanbase, adjust accordingly, and release a game that is an absolute gem and a blast to play. CDProjekt RED has the same procedure. It just seems to be healthy and works. Can you really say the same for Bioware.

 

Peace.

[CrystaJ]

Hm. What if you were offered a fantastic, deep new storyline, memorable and relatable characters, more options than in the original (gameplay-wise), slightly improved graphics - in general, 100h of great game, which mechanically would be similar to the previous installment in the series? Would you rather spend the same amount of money on an unknown quality that only promises to be different? I would not.

 

No.

 

I don't want it to be mechanically like DA:O, because DA:O's mechanics are part of the reason why I don't enjoy replaying it.

 

I'm totally down with something completely different if it works - I don't fear change; I'm already taking that same leap of faith when I decide to check out a new game franchise anyway. And I didn't come into DA:I thinking it was promising to only be different - it was promising all those things minus the stuff people complained about (and the combat system was one of them). Whether or not it delivers is another issue.

[vapor]

Yes, sure. Let's turn every next title of a franchise in an exact copy of the previous one with just some little enhancements. This is all we need for progress.

If science and art were to be lead by people like you (and 80% of those on this forum) we would still be cavemen engraving graffiti on stone while looking at the sun thinking it is a god.

Apples and oranges much?

[vapor]

Oh yes, because WoW open world environment is as complex as the one of DA:I, isn't it? OMG.

Listen: at last ponder for even one single second about what you are about to say next, want you?

What? I want to understand your point, but...what?

[Battlebloodmage]

Dragon Age Origins was good for its time, but an exact game like that wouldn't be as well received. Even if it is, I don't want the exact same game, we'll end up with Dynasty Warriors. 

[scrutinizer]

No.

 

I don't want it to be mechanically like DA:O, because DA:O's mechanics are part of the reason why I don't enjoy replaying it.

I see. So my next obvious question is, do you consider yourself an avid cRPG gamer?

 

I'm totally down with something completely different if it works - I don't fear change; I'm already taking that same leap of faith when I decide to check out a new game franchise anyway. And I didn't come into DA:I thinking it was promising to only be different - it was promising all those things minus the stuff people complained about (and the combat system was one of them). Whether or not it delivers is another issue.

I agree on the 'if it works part', However, I've noticed that you and other people defending DA:I portray change in its broad, deep and abstract sense, apply it to something as trivial as developer's decisions over a video game, and imply that the other party just fears change. At least, that's the feeling I am getting. Regardless, I don't fear change. I fear change for the worse, and think everyone should, instead of passively accepting it. Since we've been talking about games, let's look at some successful franchises, that are universally praised - let's see how many of them started as a relatively good game, but the next installments became staples of the series, because all they did was improve upon the original and don't mess with the proven formula. 

Age of Wonder -> Age of Wonders: Shadows of Magic

Assassin's Creed -> Assassin's Creed 2 -> eventually Black Flag.

Batman Arkham Asylum -> Batman Arkham City

Borderlands -> Borderlands 2

Darksiders -> Darksiders 2

Dark Souls -> Dark Souls 2

Oblivion -> Skyrim

Divine Divinity -> Divinity Original Sin

Europa Universalis III -> Europa Universalis IV

Far Cry 2 -> Far Cry 3

Galactic Civiliztions -> Galactic Civilizations II

GTA -> GTA 2

GTA 3 -> GTA Vice City

Heroes of Might and Magic -> HoMM II -> HoMM III

Hitman Codename -> Hitman Silent Assassin -> eventually Blood Money

Jagged Alliance -> Jagged Allinace 2

Mafia -> Mafia II

Max Payne -> May Payne II

Metro 2033 -> Metro Last Light

Portal -> Portal 2

Risen - Risen 2

Shadowrun Returns -> Shadowrun Dragonfall

Civilization IV -> Civilization V

Thief -> Thief II -> Thief III

Commandoes -> Commandoes 2 -> Commandoes 3

Disciples -> Disciples 2

The Witcher -> The Witcher 2

Realms of Arkania -> RoA 2 -> RoA 3

Fallout -> Fallout 2

Icewind Dale -> Icewind Dale 2

Baldur's Gate -> Baldur's Gate 2

 

I guess the list goes on, but these are the game I had the opportunity to play. There are a lot of franchises known worldwide. In these games, the developers did not mess around with the core formula that make their respective first game shine. Look what happened to Assassin's Creed - they introduced forced changes with Unity, the game is rejected by players. HoMM tried to shake things up with the HoMM4 - rejected by players, which resulted in subsequent HoMM5 which was much more rooted in the original ideas. And then HoMM6, in which again they experiment and the players deem it a failed one.

And this is my overall point. If you have a working product, don't change it for the sake of change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Anyways, I do believe Bioware had its hand forced - EA wanted to cater for consoles players needs, becuase that's where the money at. I believe this is the reason why we received a product that is neither neither an RPG nor an action game. The majority of players on consoles play FPS or 3rd person shooters/action games, so it only makes sense that EA wants a product which will appeal to the largest audience possible. Why bother creating a proper RPG? And before you start, the first game in this series was an RPG. Then it went sour, looking to milk as much money as possible, praying on hope and gullibility of its longtime fans.

Peace. 

[xJokerz]

OK, so here is what I want you to do. I want you to go and change your car so that instead of having round wheels, it has one round wheel, one square wheel, one triangular wheel, and one wheel which changes shape based on the mood of your passenger. That's change! Was it good? Please stop back and let us know...

 

That was beyond awful. If an Iphone was a car it'd be the same car every new one with the same BHP. You don't change the wheels, you change everything else. You're not using logic, you're just being stupid with that comment.

[SNascimento]

Dragon Age Origins is far from being a masterpiece or even a example for other RPGs. 

[ShinsFortress]

One thing that pops up to me in now that I am here less after deciding not to buy is: who is responsible for Bioware's QA and testing?  I though Casey Hudson dropped one or two balls, especially with ME3, but basic QA/testing is not getting any better at Bioware.  At least not from my point of view.

[ShinsFortress]

 

 

*snip, though it was all good*

 

 

Hm. What if you were offered a fantastic, deep new storyline, memorable and relatable characters, more options than in the original (gameplay-wise), slightly improved graphics - in general, 100h of great game, which mechanically would be similar to the previous installment in the series? Would you rather spend the same amount of money on an unknown quality that only promises to be different? I would not.

 

Yeah, games like Ultima or above mentioned BG2 or Jagged Alliance nailed it right, and I guess they did not have all those technical marvels and tools. It's moving from point A to B (no matter the scope of a given area, it's still A to B, and a matter of few algorithms stating behaviors when a given type of obstacle is encountered). If you, as a game developer, cannot do it properly, you do not deserve the money you are charging.

 

Consider. Divinity Original Sin is a soaring success, despite not being hyped as much and not having as much resources as Bioware products. What Larian Studios did was take proven elements that are fun, mix them seamlessly, listen to the fanbase, adjust accordingly, and release a game that is an absolute gem and a blast to play. CDProjekt RED has the same procedure. It just seems to be healthy and works. Can you really say the same for Bioware.

 

Peace.

 

 

/salute

[Gel214th]

We need to understand that games are now all about profit. The profit is in the Console market, and in fast action games. 

 

They take less effort to make, once you flash some great graphics, big explosions and movie like production effects you can get by with a good marketing campaign. Millions in the bank. That's where the series is heading, it is obvious from DA:O to DA:2 and now DA:I. 

 

They want to take the series into Shadows of Mordor, Witcher, Skyrim Action RPG territory. Perhaps even just focus on a single character instead of a party of characters. That lowers costs significantly, appeals to far more people, and therefore is more profitable.

 

You can't argue with the numbers.

 

Imagine the conversation, here you have a great team of developers with a great franchise that needs to be milked: "Why are we spending millions coding Party AI and companion tactics? If we stopped doing that who's going to compete with us and pull our market share, there is no one else doing games like this at our level." 

 

There is only ONE Bioware, there is only ONE company producing games like Dragon Age: Bioware. There are one or two publishers with the money and marketing logistics to drive a AAA title like Dragon Age. EA is one of them, UBISOFT is another. 

 

Party control, AI, if/then tactics are difficult in an engine that was not designed for them. Who knows how much time was already spent retrofitting conversations into this Frostbite engine?? If they could just go all multiplayer and reasonably make as much money they would.

 

When one tries to understand the reasoning that led to the design decisions we see expressed in DA:I, these are the conclusions that one reaches.

 

It's all about the money, and unless sales and user feedback signal a loss of money in the future, there will be no action. EA is a behemoth that must feed to survive. If they can eat ten million more, they will never accept 5 to "make players happy".

 

They are Galactus, I'm not sure we have a Silver Surfer on our side.

[ShinsFortress]

We need to understand that games are now all about profit. The profit is in the Console market, and in fast action games. 

 

They take less effort to make, once you flash some great graphics, big explosions and movie like production effects you can get by with a good marketing campaign. Millions in the bank. That's where the series is heading, it is obvious from DA:O to DA:2 and now DA:I. 

 

They want to take the series into Shadows of Mordor, Witcher, Skyrim Action RPG territory. Perhaps even just focus on a single character instead of a party of characters. That lowers costs significantly, appeals to far more people, and therefore is more profitable.

 

You can't argue with the numbers.

 

Imagine the conversation, here you have a great team of developers with a great franchise that needs to be milked: "Why are we spending millions coding Party AI and companion tactics? If we stopped doing that who's going to compete with us and pull our market share, there is no one else doing games like this at our level." 

 

There is only ONE Bioware, there is only ONE company producing games like Dragon Age: Bioware. There are one or two publishers with the money and marketing logistics to drive a AAA title like Dragon Age. EA is one of them, UBISOFT is another. 

 

Party control, AI, if/then tactics are difficult in an engine that was not designed for them. Who knows how much time was already spent retrofitting conversations into this Frostbite engine?? If they could just go all multiplayer and reasonably make as much money they would.

 

When one tries to understand the reasoning that led to the design decisions we see expressed in DA:I, these are the conclusions that one reaches.

 

It's all about the money, and unless sales and user feedback signal a loss of money in the future, there will be no action. EA is a behemoth that must feed to survive. If they can eat ten million more, they will never accept 5 to "make players happy".

 

They are Galactus, I'm not sure we have a Silver Surfer on our side.

 

Almost entirely true.

 

That doesn't automatically make it right or mean that one shouldn't express one's dissatisfaction.

[scrutinizer]

ad. Gel214th.

 

Agreed.

Though I will defend The Witcher 2 - sure, the combat focus became more actionish (actually the first game was like that too, to an extent), but the quality of writing, the truly branching story that truly affects your game experience and attention to detail are the main selling points. Hard to not call TW2 an RPG.

 

Regarding your post in general. I think the only way to combat molochs such as EA/Bioware is to simply refuse to buy their game before the release. Wait for the reviews (I mean the opinions and impressions of players) and you can get a reading whether they made a great game, or went for the money again.

I have seen just too many 'oh man, I jumped on the hype-train and pre-ordered. Wish I didn't' on this forums, and sadly all I have to say is that those people are responsible for the incessant money flow for EA. Just wait them out. Only then they will see that the sales are not where they are supposed to be, and only then they will actually look with honesty at their product, asking a question 'what can we do to truly improve this game?'. If the money is flowing, they could not care less.

 

Now, I understand the frustration and disappointment. But unless you ask for a refund, it is to late. The machine keeps devouring your money and it only strengthens its resolve that this is the way to go. Hope that they will implement drastic changes is misguided. They will stand by their artistic vision, just as they stood by ME3. At best, they will fix a few bugs. My guess is, they are preparing to launch a DLC for a hefty price. (BTW when I'm here. I need to vent about Bioware Points for PC. Bioware is so shamelessly greedy, that 1600 points still cost the quivalent of 20$ in my country, years after that price was established. For that price, I can purchase one, 2-3 hour-long DLC. Granted, I still do not own any DLCs for DA2 or ME3, and becuase of the company's strategy, I do not intend to.)

Peace.

[BroBear Berbil]

Dragon Age Origins was good for its time, but an exact game like that wouldn't be as well received. Even if it is, I don't want the exact same game, we'll end up with Dynasty Warriors. 

 

Origins is 5 years old. Have gamer's standards plummeted as low as you suggest in just 5 years?

 

You can have sequels and improve upon things without taking a sledgehammer to proven aspects of a game.

 

You mock Dynasty Warriors, but it's a franchise that's seen steady improvement in the core of what it is. Some bits and bobs, like equippable items and bodyguard systems have seen different iterations or have been lacking entirely, but the gameplay has been improved so much that I wouldn't think of playing a past installment over DW8. More characters, better combat, and more enemies on screen. DW has a formula that it stays true to and a fanbase who keeps supporting it.

 

Dragon Age, on the other hand, seems like a franchise that can't decide what it is - or how it should look, for that matter. Origins was made in the same vein as classic CRPGs and is acclaimed, yet the franchise is steadily headed towards some kind of single-player action MMO. There are things I do like in Inquisition, like the large open areas but plenty of things that just leave me asking, "why"?

 

Did auto-attack really need to be removed?

 

Did the "tactical camera" really need to be made into a separate kind of combat mode? It was seamless in Origins to zoom out, issue commands, and zoom back in. If you try that in Inquisition, your party members will simply disregard what you just told them to do. Even something as simple as holding position is a headache with this new system. I don't even think fights like the battles with Corypheus or Malvernis in DA2 Legacy would be possible with this clunky system.

 

For that matter, did the ability to select your entire party at once need to be removed?

 

Did healing need to be gutted sequel after sequel to the point where it is now? Is chugging potions and running back and forth to a camp really an improvement worth stripping away an entire role for groups? It actually seems like support in general has lost most of its tools, which I suppose does make the few that are left more valuable. Still, it's like I'm playing GW2 sometimes and I actually stopped playing GW2 because support had only a token role in that game. The fact that I can heal in Origins - and not just heal, but heal in conjunction with blood magic will always put its mage gameplay well above DA2's or Inquisition's for me.