Guest_john_sheparrd_*
And ME1/2 took 6 six hours. I think ME3 was pretty long with 12.
I share you concerns, but i wouldn't say "hate" is a suitable word.
silly comparison there were many interesting side quests in those games
and on a higher difficulty the games took be about 75 hours to complete
I loved my first playthrough. But when I tried starting my 2nd playthrough, I found that there was nothing worth experiencing twice after act 1. There's just a severe lack of good story wise sidequest like what we had with DA2 and DAO.
I loved my first playthrough. But when I tried starting my 2nd playthrough, I found that there was nothing worth experiencing twice after act 1. There's just a severe lack of good story wise sidequest like what we had with DA2 and DAO.
The problem for me is that the game doesn't let you actually characterize your Inquisitor as much as you could your Warden. When playing these games, I'm always looking for alternate routes, and thinking "man, it would be cool if I were this other class and my character believed these things, then I could make this option and that would be really fun." I just don't see anything like that here, other than perhaps being an Elf vs any other race.
So then the only thing that would make me go through the game again would be if a different class's playstyle is different and intriguing enough, and I'm not sure if that's the case, either. I'm going to try a dual-wield Rogue, but 'm not confident it will last.
My only big gripe with the game is the botched ending. All the needed to do was have it be a bigger battle, before the final boss, and throw in some companions abandoning you last minute, and it would have been much better.
Or for it to have had a break after What pride Hath Wrought. If those two operations had been combined into one, I think the ending would have felt a lot stronger - but then complaints would be that there weren't enough story quests. So I guess either one more story quest or a stronger ending quest would have been the solution.
All my other gripes are small - UI is pretty bad. I miss the obviously diplomatic, funny, or aggressive dialog choices (it seems more like all Inquisitors have the same personality, but can say different things instead) from DA2. Playing as a 2W rogue is more complicated than it should be compared to DA:O and DA2. That's about it so far.
I thought it was a great game and disagree entirely with the OP. When compared to Dragon Age Origins, sure it lacks somewhat in depth and the combat is more action oriented. They made this change to appeal to a wider audience and to make it easier to develop for consoles. I thought the open world implementation was great, it really worked for a Dragon Age game and I think they succeeded in appealing to Elder Scrolls fans. I hope to see Bioware try something different in the expansions or in the next 2 games. It would have been nice to have had more rewards for completing collectibles, sort of like how collecting shards increased resistances. I will add that the characters in Inquisition were some of the best written to date. I finished the game and am now going through DAO (all DLC), DA2 (all DLC) and Inquisition yet again for the full Dragon Age experience. By the time I finish this, I assume an expansion/DLC will be released. Inquisition succeeded in getting me back into Dragon Age more than ever, ended up buying all the books I could get my hands on (World of Thedas, Art of DAI, comics, etc)
Positive, 'professional' reviews got me again, just like with DA2 (I did enjoy ME3 though).
My issues with the game after having completed it.
1) The main story-line can be completed in under 15 hours if you avoid sidequests (took me 17 with random sidequests here and there).
2) The ratio of side-quests to the main plot is ridiculous. It felt like I was playing a single-player mmo, (where the majority of side-quests are fetch quests).
3) I haven't started a second game, but I get the feeling that my decisions don't really matter and that the conclusion to the game would be largely the same regardless of my choices (contrasted against an older RPG like the Witcher 2, where you could miss HALF the game because of your choices - now that's roleplaying. Witcher 3 is supposed to have over 30 different endings...)
4) The main storyline is TERRIBLE. Felt like I'd already heard this story with the Oblivion gates... Only I can save the world - blah,blah,blah - constant RPG tropes. I expected more from Bioware.
5) Controls are brutal on PC - I realize this dead horse has already been beaten... but even the controller setup ain't great. My ranged units still just sit there firing arrows into the distance while getting pummeled by melee enemies.
6) The romance plot-lines are ridiculous - poorly written fanfiction is what they remind me of.
7) Unintuitive UI and menu after menu after menu.
8) A closed 'open' world where I'm constantly trying to find out how the hell to get past invisible barriers. The world just feels like a crap-ton of beautifully created corridors that funnel me in random directions.
Tons of other issues I had with the game, but honestly, feels like regression on Bioware's part - like they're now chasing the RPG industry rather than innovating. I enjoyed DA:O, but even that game paled in comparison to BG2. I also enjoyed ME for its storyline/setting, but this team that's been working on the past 2 Dragon Ages... my word. It's like they've never played any of the games that made Bioware the RPG standard in the first place. Compared to the ME series, that series felt connected throughout its iterations. Choices truly mattered game-to-game, while here? Blights and Breaches and personal stories in between - there's hardly any connection at all - it's like Bioware is just throwing random plot-lines and mechanics at the wall and seeing what sticks, with a few dragons thrown in here and there to justify its namesake.
The KillScreen review on Metacritic is the only that really hits on most of my qualms with the game, and even that review was far to generous in my opinion with its 75% score. While I'll be in the minority here, I wouldn't give this game higher than a 5/10.
Indeed to the points raised above but I still enjoy the game since it scratches my RPG itch untill witcher 3 comes out, and I like DA but this is definitely a two steps forward one step backwards approach for bioware for which I would like to raise further points from the games dumbed down features and features I think should have been included to add depth.
1. Companion AI Behavour settings have been completely dumbed down from previous iterations in DA:O you had way more choices in tweaking how individual party members behave and you even unlocked more, (play DA:O) once I had tweaked my party it was far more tactical and I could focus on the action not worrying so much on my party during combat; in DA:I it's just frustration with party members constantly putting themselves in situations that endanger themselves SOLAS! GET OUT OF MELEE RANGE DERP! etc.
2. questing as mentioned in quote spot on, I don't want a game full of filler quests I want my choices to matter to the main story line is all I really care about and If my choices carry on into succeeding games (think ripple effect). That in turn influence the main story and the worlds tangible state.
3. War room: why is there a time restriction on completing advisor missions It's pointless in it's current state doing nothing but forcing me to wait; heres how to make it actually matter Bioware affecting the choices you make and making it feel like your actually effecting the world state through tough decisions making multiple playthroughs worthwhile (I don't have time to play 200+ hr games twice Usually); some missions not all based on the logical request and urgency of the expressed situation should have time limits themselves forcing you to make decisions on which missions you choose, furthermore to add more depth the time taken for an advisor to complete a mission should also be a factor e.g mission time remaining vs time taken to complete based on advisors available this makes sense for e.g the mission: Secure route through the frostbacks (Mire); depending on advisor different perks should be awarded e.g If chosen cullen the perk should be reduced time for all operations across the world map meaning time taken to do missions is reduced giving you more flexibility on mission time limits etc.
4. Looting my god this game is a kleptomaniac or an OCD's wet dream, I love loot as much as the next person but having to stop every 2 paces to pick up herbs GODAM ELFROOT! and things costing so many of those recources like potions etc makes it a mandatory grind almost. Also that search scanner function makes me stare at the ground most of the time instead of enjoying the actual game.
5. Naming mounts and wheres my Mabari hound!?
6. Subtitle options: Why can't I choose to have Ambient only subtitles?
stop dumbing down games if it's a hardcore RPG then make it a Hardcore RPG/Game stop trying to cater for everyone it dilutes the game as a whole, and to the publishers YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND AT ALL! what the consumer wants if you took the time to make a proper deep meaningful game people would respect you so much more and also want to buy your products ergo make more money haven't you heard the saying you gotta spend money to make money, publishers are greedy idiots whom sit on their pedestals.
these were my main gripes with the game that irritated me to write this rant. 
I thought it was a great game and disagree entirely with the OP. When compared to Dragon Age Origins, sure it lacks somewhat in depth and the combat is more action oriented. They made this change to appeal to a wider audience and to make it easier to develop for consoles. I thought the open world implementation was great, it really worked for a Dragon Age game and I think they succeeded in appealing to Elder Scrolls fans. I hope to see Bioware try something different in the expansions or in the next 2 games. It would have been nice to have had more rewards for completing collectibles, sort of like how collecting shards increased resistances. I will add that the characters in Inquisition were some of the best written to date. I finished the game and am now going through DAO (all DLC), DA2 (all DLC) and Inquisition yet again for the full Dragon Age experience. By the time I finish this, I assume an expansion/DLC will be released. Inquisition succeeded in getting me back into Dragon Age more than ever, ended up buying all the books I could get my hands on (World of Thedas, Art of DAI, comics, etc)
Yeah, I was buying all that stuff. I refuse to support Bioware at all anymore though, just not making the kind of games I like anymore. Which is fine for me. Imo Dragons Dogma is a much better action game than DA:I will ever be.
So many negative nancies on here. Most of the complaints I see is that it isn't DAO. I've played DAO several times and it's still very dear to my heart, but some of you people need to move on. DA:I isn't perfect obviously, but it isn't a terrible game either. The story, characters, acting, environments etc were all well done IMO. Combat was a bit wonky at times, but still better than it's predecessors. Just my opinion anyway.
PC port was shameful but I enjoyed the game immensely.
Was the story great? No. Was the gameplay perfect? Definitely not.
But it was fun, engaging, and touching (in some parts) and honestly it's what Bioware needs after Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2. This game proved they still got it even after the last 4 years.
Positive, 'professional' reviews got me again, just like with DA2 (I did enjoy ME3 though).
My issues with the game after having completed it.
1) The main story-line can be completed in under 15 hours if you avoid sidequests (took me 17 with random sidequests here and there).
2) The ratio of side-quests to the main plot is ridiculous. It felt like I was playing a single-player mmo, (where the majority of side-quests are fetch quests).
3) I haven't started a second game, but I get the feeling that my decisions don't really matter and that the conclusion to the game would be largely the same regardless of my choices (contrasted against an older RPG like the Witcher 2, where you could miss HALF the game because of your choices - now that's roleplaying. Witcher 3 is supposed to have over 30 different endings...)
4) The main storyline is TERRIBLE. Felt like I'd already heard this story with the Oblivion gates... Only I can save the world - blah,blah,blah - constant RPG tropes. I expected more from Bioware.
5) Controls are brutal on PC - I realize this dead horse has already been beaten... but even the controller setup ain't great. My ranged units still just sit there firing arrows into the distance while getting pummeled by melee enemies.
6) The romance plot-lines are ridiculous - poorly written fanfiction is what they remind me of.
7) Unintuitive UI and menu after menu after menu.
8) A closed 'open' world where I'm constantly trying to find out how the hell to get past invisible barriers. The world just feels like a crap-ton of beautifully created corridors that funnel me in random directions.
1. How is this different than the previous two Dragon Age games?
2. How is this different than the previous two Dragon Age games?
3. Witcher 2 had five chapters, 4 of which would be completed in a single playthrough. By the numbers you miss 20% of the game in one playthrough due to the branching acts. Even if you exclude the prologue you still have four acts, three of which are played per playthrough which would mean 25% of the game's content was missed. As for Witcher 3, I doubt most of those endings will be unique... more likely you'll have say 4 truly unique endings and 26 minor variations of those 4... either way though your pure speculation on a game you haven't played yet is not a foundation for you to stand on while accusing a game you have played of not having enough unique endings.
Essentially you like the idea of 30 endings so you are willing to assume Witcher 3 will conform to your hopes and wishes of the game but you will likely be disappointed in the end if you cling to that notion.
4. I disagree. It may not have been the most original story but it was not terrible.
5. I agree, very annoying, but still relatively easy to get used to. I can't say I still see my allies doing what you have described anymore.
6. Perhaps, perhaps not. I have never enjoyed romance in Bioware's games... or in games in general. So much hype for what amounts to being full censored awkward sex as though this is the end game of any relationship a person might enter.
7. This is redundant. You essentially said the same thing in point number 5 considering the difficulty to get the game to do what you want it to do is almost always caused by a poorly designed ui.
8. There are invisible walls in most open world games due to the need of keeping players in areas where the actual gameplay takes place. If Bioware removed boundaries your number 8 statement would probably read "The game doesn't reward exploration. There is too much open space with nothing to do."
Despite my criticisms, I don't hate DAI, I'm just very frustrated by the combat mechanics, which have really wrecked my enjoyment of the game. I wanted to play a tactical RPG designed for PC, and instead Bioware has made an action RPG for consoles. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with with an action RPG for consoles, it's just not what I was hoping for in a Dragon Age game. Having said that, I can acknowledge that there are lots of good things about DAI; it's beautiful to look at, the characters are all interesting and well written and acted, and the story is full of interesting story lines, but for someone who was hoping for gameplay more in the style of DAO, it's pretty disappointing.
So many negative nancies on here. Most of the complaints I see is that it isn't DAO. I've played DAO several times and it's still very dear to my heart, but some of you people need to move on. DA:I isn't perfect obviously, but it isn't a terrible game either. The story, characters, acting, environments etc were all well done IMO. Combat was a bit wonky at times, but still better than it's predecessors. Just my opinion anyway.
I don't care that its not DAO, but it doesn't do anything I can't find better somewhere else. Semi Tactical action style battles..Dragons Dogma all day long, difficulty and limited healing - Dark souls, Lords of the Fallen and Blood Bourne, Story and Choices that matter - Witcher, open exploration - Skyrim..this game is a watered down hybrid that does everything okay, but excels at nothing. I'll be interested to see how it keeps it's legs when more options begin to come out after the new year.
...and they thought there will be backlash because of LGBT content. rofl
Which is fine for me. Imo Dragons Dogma is a much better action game than DA:I will ever be.
Rinse and ****** REPEAT!
...and they thought there will be backlash because of LGBT content. rofl
He did say action game, not RPG.
8) A closed 'open' world where I'm constantly trying to find out how the hell to get past invisible barriers. The world just feels like a crap-ton of beautifully created corridors that funnel me in random directions.
So much this.
And the combat is terrible. Just everything is wrong with it. I wish that DA:I was the game that Bioware tried story mode with instead of ME3, because I would have actually used it here.
And the whole Well of Sorrows thing was terribly stupid. Will is a product of living souls. It isn't a thing in and of itself. And if it's just mind control, why can't I resist that? THen Solas says something like he warned me not to drink it. Uh no you didn't bub, you warned me not to let Morrigan drink it implying that you thought I drink it. And why didn't anyone there recognize Solas? Why wasn't Samson wearing any special armor? There was this whole questline I finished about Samson's indestructible armor, but when I get there, he's wearing the same leather and half plate mail every single other Templar wears. Or how about the fact that everything we did was to get an army together, an army which apparently consisted of 8 guys and Cory also only had about 8 guys, all easily dispatched by me. Why did we even need to bring our 8 guy army with us again? For that matter, how did the Red Templars even manage to get through the gate that was locked when I got there? Why did the old elven lady drag us through a bunch of secret tunnels when it would have been way faster and easier for us to just kill the 4 Red Templars in our rather than wasting 10 minutes running around them. Why didn't we just attack and smash Cory when we got here? I mean that was our ultimate endgoal and he was right there. There was no point at all in not killing him. Even if he switched bodies, we could just keep on killing him until he ran out of bodies and then bye bye Cory. I could go on, because it was utterly terrible, but I'll stop here. All I will say is this was the same crap as we saw with ME's Kai Leng.
Yeah, I was buying all that stuff. I refuse to support Bioware at all anymore though, just not making the kind of games I like anymore. Which is fine for me. Imo Dragons Dogma is a much better action game than DA:I will ever be.
Indeed.
A Dragon's Dogma clone would have been much more enjoyable than this peculiar single player MMO with atrocious combat, but Dragon's Dogma didn't sell 20+ million copies, so I guess they never even considered it.
Rather harsh title imo.
Anyway, the only minus I give to this game is the replayability.
There's a lot of grinding in this game that it sometimes feels like an MMO, with all the sh*tty loots and over-dependence on crafting. --- Which I guess is also another minus, make that two minuses.
If you've worked your way up to the 20s then do you even want to start all over again? Get mauled by a bear all over a again? Die at the slightest hits (all over again?)
I mostly agree with OP. I kept playing the game to the end though, searching for the BioWare game that surely had to be hidden somewhere underneath the pile of rubbish design choices. Aesthetically it's a wonderful game and if you like action arcade fantasy and play on a console then I guess it's not the worst you can do. However...
Dragon Age Inquisition fails miserably as a true RPG and is utterly undeserving of the BioWare legacy.
Dragon Age Inquisition fails miserably as a true RPG and is utterly undeserving of the BioWare legacy.
But that's like, your opinion man.
I started the single player campaign and stopped it. Bioware´s problems with plot holes seem to increase with every new game title. My most profound problem: Similar to DA2, plotwise, this whole campaign is made for a human non-mage: I just cannot imagine how people, scared by events, which are obviously of magical nature and most likely caused by mages, might support a mage, of all, as Andraste´s Herald? I also cannot imagine, how people would possibly turn to a lowly Elf, akin to a middle-age jew, and one who even rejects the Chantry´s teachings, as Andraste´s Herald. Or, of all in the world, a fugitive surface dwarf. As it is, the plot feels similar to playing DA2 with a mage Hawke, killing the Qunary leader in a public court battle by blood magic. Just ridiculous. There are other logic fallacities like this and it indeed makes me loose my suspension of disbelief at some points and thus, the story utterly unenjoyable.
The romances, what can I say, as in the previous titles, somehow there seem to be only one remotely good romance for a female character (Solas). Romancing either Leliana or Cassandra feels like going out with your secretary. That other option, the spanish chick, is just too much of clichée even for a fantasy game. Oh, how I miss my Viconia, Jaheira, or just Aerie!
A female elf seems to promise a great story, but this again does not seem to fit at all with this whole inquisition stuff. Besides, "Inquisition". I shudder a bit ot have a name of a historically branded institution being resurrected this way. Next game, we become the Führer of the Nazis, who are made saviours from some evil je-cough-elves?
As usual, an absolutely crappy inventory management. Bioware never learns, it seems. No, they get worse. The tactical view is catastrophicly bad. Also a bad balance of classes, not really necessary, but at least in D&D mages were exeptionally weak in the beginning, to compensate for their later overpoweredness. Here, a mage is similar to a superhero, the other classes are for just for a role player´s fancy (but not a different experience!).
The puppets and models still feel as awkward as they did in DA:O. Mass Effect has much better animations and I wonder why DA is not up par to that quality.
On top, there are severe problems with the network connectivity. 6 out of 10 tries to enter a multiplayer group fail. When creating a new character, importing data from Dragon Age Keep fails regularily.
I am very annoyed that such a AAA title dares to offer such low quality. The only saving grace is the grand scope of the game. But, frankly, this is something they had already promised for DA2, and this game accordingly just feels like 5 years late, design-wise.
But, what can I say, look at the latest Assassins Creed title and you find similar low quality crap. It seems like big industry always degrades into producing stupid and ridicously expensive hollywood busters. If you read all those reviews closely, this and the usual spread of characters, the mere fact that they "have character" and extensive dialogues are the only positive points left.
I do not necessarily hate the game, but I am very disappointed and cannot get really "into the mood" with it.
Retour en haut
