392 réponses à ce sujet

[dantares83]

No sure if this should be here but I really do not get people's obession with living in the past...

 

All the complaints are because people are saying how great BG and DAO are and how all the new games are "DAI is NOT DAO", "BG2 has much better content than DAI", "DA2 sucks soooo much compared to DAO".

 

BG1/BG2/DAO: perhaps they should just keep making remakes/graphical overhual of them and spend less time thinking of new ideas since people would compare and not like it. And remakes/remastered are excellent money-grabbers nowadays (both GTA V and Last of Us Remastered are selling very well). And surprise surprise, gamers are giving great reviews on them.

 

they somehow failed to see that new ideas are progressive. I think most people would want to see the new elements being introduced instead of having the same old thing again and again. I am pretty sure if the game mechanics remained the same throughout, people would say Bioware staff are not progressive and have run out of ideas blah blah blah.

 

Here is how I see it:

 

DAO: main complaint was the combat as it is not fast enough and offer little 'excitement'

DA2: they upgrade the combat system and make it faster and more flashy

 

DA2: lack of quests, lack of areas, repetitive areas, poor story (too linear and your choice does not matter), droves of enemies falling from the sky

DAI: full of quests (even though they are sidequests), areas too large to be explored, non-repetitive areas, a definite improvement in story-telling and cinematics, NO MORE enemies falling from the sky

 

but now we have:

 

DAI: awful controls and fps, SLOW! it plays like a MMO! the story is too 'over-the place' because of the boring neverending fetch quests

 

Haiz...

 

People are just never satisfied even though Bioware did try to take in the comments and try to improve.

 

I expect DA4 will be without any fetch quests, mostly linear, turned-based combat (to prevent awful tactical cam controls) and plays exactly like a JRPG. But expect complaints on those as well.

 

if you are sooooooooooooooooo good, please make a game and make sure it is a hit even after 20 years (much like BG and DAO).

 

if not, just stay in the past and be content with DAO and played it till the end of time because DAO is never coming back (though I wouldn't mind a remake).

Modifié par dantares83, 24 novembre 2014 - 06:19 .

[Majestic Jazz]

MajesticJazz approves

[Eelectrica]

My only real complaints is the interface - which they're addressing and the tactics system which was damn near perfect in DA2 was removed.

Combat in normal mode is far too easy but I can't crank it up because I don't have the level of control needed over my party members. Fix that and we're golden.

I guess the point is they did a lot of really good things in this game, but why scrap things they did really well in past games? Use those past games as building blocks.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

What past? I played DAO, for the first time, 2 years ago and still think it's one of the best games ever made.I'm loving DAI so far but DAO is extremely hard to top for me.

[Ieolus]

Take a look at BG1 to BG2 to see what was expected of a sequel.

[Natureguy85]

Right, how dare people hold a company to a previously set standard and comment when the fall below what they did before!

As far as people complaining when Bioware attempts to address a complaint, there is the possibility of overcompensating. For example, my biggest complaint in FarCry 2 was having to drive through the same outposts over and over to get anywhere with enemies respawning quickly.

Farcry 3 went too far in the other direction in that, while when the enemy controlled outposts there was a good number of enemies spread around, once you took an outpost, there were almost no enemies in that area. The enemy would also never threaten to take back land and outposts.

 

As far as people wanting new ideas or the same thing over and over, that depends on how much new you mean. Look at titles like FIFA and Madden. As Frank Caliendo put it, people shell out money every year for what is essentially the same game.

 

Some changes and additions are expected, but I don't expect a sequel to change the games mechanics so much that it is no longer the same style of game. Origins and DA2 were tactical RPGs where Inquisition seems to be more of an Action RPG. However, Action RPGs are mostly, if not all, with one character, not a party, so it's rather odd.

 

Finally "you go do better" is a weak argument. People have their own jobs where making games is the people at Bioware and EA's job. Not being able to code a program doesn't mean a person doesn't have good ideas on what one should do. Most paid critics are not creators of the things they critique. Also, what does Origins and Baldur's Gate being long standing classics have to do with Inquisition?

[frylock23]

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily progress. Sometimes, things are the way they are for a reason, and if something is good, great even, then changing it isn't necessarily going to be progress.

 

This is how I feel about what they did with the DA:I tactics system although I'm not sure what's left can actually be called a "tactics system." Of all the things they could have messed with in an attempt to imprive DA:I, tactics was one thing that I never heard much complaint about.

[Wolven_Soul]

No one is saying to make more remakes of BG.  We would just simply love more games in that style.  Quite simply put, they were simply better games.  You can say that we are living in the past all that you want, but sometimes, the way things were done in the past is better.

 

DA:O was the spiritual successor of those games, and it did a great job.  What you call slow and unexciting combat, was much more strategic, much more tactical.  You take the tactical mode of DA:I and put it into combat like DA:O, and you got perfection.  This combat we have now is just dumbed down from that.  Sure it's faster and more flashy, but it has little in the way of substance.

[Ponendus]

I think you have the description of the progression spot on. However, you also point out a potential flaw. Things seem to go to the complete extreme with each iteration.

 

DAO - great game, but slow combat

DA2 - ok let's completely speed up the combat to satisfy everyone - reaction: but you forgot the big world! The environments!

DAI - ok let's now create the largest open world in a BioWare game ever and see how that goes - reaction: but it's too big! Too many filler quests! I don't know where to go! No path to follow! (Many of these are knee-jerk reactions, I have totally settled in now and it's really not 'bad' at all - but it's a legitimate criticism nonetheless).

 

The point is that Bioware with what is I am sure the absolute best intentions in the world, tends to ramp things up to 150% instead of just 100%, bless them. NatureGuay85 above has it right, it is somewhat overcompensating.

 

I think that those of us who are able to look at these things objectively are asking for one simple thing: balance. Yes they needed to open up the world more and make a big, epic sweeping masterpiece to recover from DA2 and backpedal a little to where DAO was, but the world doesn't have to be so big that it is full of filler quests in order to justify how big it is. Bioware has always been about 'the most emotionally engaging games in the world', seriously it's right there on their website, it is their Vision Statement. I'm not saying DAI isn't emotionally engaging (I'm pretty sure I've been in tears at least twice now and I'm nowhere near finished yet), I'm just saying that DAO and to a lesser extent DA2's charm is that there is a fantastic story around every corner - an experience over every hill - this game provides that over half the hills and corners, I think simply because the environments are too big to fill with more. I referred to this point elsewhere as 'story per square metre'.

 

I really love DAI, don't get me wrong. What I would like to see from the next one is big environments, sure - but make each part of the environment exist for a reason, otherwise from a roleplaying point of view, why go up that mountain? Isn't there more important things for the Inquisitor to focus on right now?

 

At the moment, the story per square metre is about 50% (its not 'game-breaking' or anything, this is just a polite criticism), I just would personally like to see either:

- Same size, but more story per square metre (70%-ish), or

- Smaller size, same amount of story, which will mean more story per square metre (70%-ish)

 

Again, DAI is probably my favourite Bioware game ever, but nothing is perfect. Just my two cents.

[Natureguy85]

I really love DAI, don't get me wrong. What I would like to see from the next one is big environments, sure - but make each part of the environment exist for a reason, otherwise from a roleplaying point of view, why go up that mountain? Isn't there more important things for the Inquisitor to focus on right now?

 

Sten agrees.

[AshesEleven]

 

 

I really love DAI, don't get me wrong. What I would like to see from the next one is big environments, sure - but make each part of the environment exist for a reason, otherwise from a roleplaying point of view, why go up that mountain? Isn't there more important things for the Inquisitor to focus on right now?

 

 

 

But you don't have to go up that mountain, and that's the point.  It's up to the player to play the way he wants.  Some like to stick mainly to the plot and not deviate from it, others like to leave the saving the world business to later, because ooh look there's more Elfroot.  That hill exists so that players can choose "Hey, I wonder what's up that hill?  Maybe there's something beneficial to the Inquisition.  Maybe we'll get a good view of the area.  Maybe there's more Elfroot.  Ha, there's definitely more Elfroot."

 

Actually, I find that there IS a good reason to explore every part of the environment.  I can't remember a quest that I've done yet that doesn't tie into my purpose as an agent of the Inquisition (haven't become the Inquisitor yet).  They're all about increasing my power and influence.  There IS a reason to go up that hill, because the Inquisition needs a camp up there, or there's a rebel mage up there that's been causing trouble, or it looks like there's a Grey Warden camp, maybe we can find some clues up there.  Everything has a purpose.  

 

I don't think you need to reduce the size of the environments, or add MORE interesting quests.  I think there are enough interesting quests.  You need filler in a game, not everything can be OMG THIS IS SO AWESOME OMG I'M CRYING OMG GUYS HOLD ME THIS IS SO COOL.  Yes, one dude wants you to collect ram meat, but this other guy wants you to prove to him that you're the Herald of Andraste and then him and his cultist buddies will join you and you can decide how they will serve you.  Or, in the Storm Coast, you can totally kill the Hessarian Blades, OR have them join your Inquisition.  

 

And then there's the agents, who for the most part are really interesting to recruit.  Like the one mage who I had to persuade using my Arcane Knowledge perk, that was COOL.  Moments like that don't happen all the time, but they don't need to.  The best part is stumbling upon them.  Going through a few filler quests, and then coming to something like that is wonderful.

 

In the end though, it's up to you, the player, to decide how much content you do.  If you don't enjoy all these side quests, do the bare minimum to get your power up for the next story mission.  If you want to dabble in the world a bit, that option is always open for you.  That's the beauty of this game, when I get bored of the Hinterlands, I just go back to Haven to chat up Blackwall or Vivienne or do some crafting.  Or maybe I head to the Storm Coast and hunt for shards, or I go to the Fallow Mire and rescue my soldiers.  And if I'm bored of all that, I can continue with the story, and all that other stuff will be there when I want it later.

 

I went on a little rant because I REALLY love this game.  But I don't think that Bioware needs to cut anything in terms of size.  Maybe add some more awesome story stuff, if that's feasible, I wouldn't complain.  The point is though that all that stuff isn't mandatory, and there's SO much to do that you get to decide how your Inquisition plays out, how it builds up.  Maybe you think all these peasants are beneath you, and you only bother with the important sounding quests!  Or you're the goody-two shoes Messiah character who ensures everyone has something to eat.  It's your game, you play it the way you want.  

[AlanC9]

Take a look at BG1 to BG2 to see what was expected of a sequel.

Umm... you are aware that many BG1 fans loathed the way BG2 abandoned BG1's more open-world approach, right?

Bio has always disappointed their most passionate fans, and they always will.

[Ieolus]

Umm... you are aware that many BG1 fans loathed the way BG2 abandoned BG1's more open-world approach, right?
Bio has always disappointed their most passionate fans, and they always will.

Lol define many. You and your buddies?

I think my point stands. BG2 ranks as one of the best sequels of all time. For most of us not your weird circle of friends, it improved BG1 in every way. And, it really didn't change much. It was an evolution of design, not a revolutionary and fundamental change in design.

[AlanC9]

Lol define many. You and your buddies?

I think my point stands. BG2 ranks as one of the best sequels of all time. For most of us not your weird circle of friends, it improved BG1 in every way. And, it really didn't change much. It was an evolution of design, not a revolutionary and fundamental change in design.

Don't be ridiculous. Those guys (mostly) weren't my friends, and I don't agree with them myself. (I don't really like open-world games much, but I'll just have to put up with this aspect of DAI.) But there was plenty of that chatter on the old BioBoards. Though I think most of that crew gave up on Bio no later than KotOR; try RPGCodex out sometime if you want to see their perspective, though that board always feels like it's frozen in amber.

My point wasn't that BG2 wasn't an "evolution," or that most players didn't like the changes. It was that whenever you make major changes to a design you will alienate some players. Always happened, always will. But you gotta do it anyway.

As far as the BG map goes, for some people the BG2 map took away what they liked best about BG1. I suppose the old threads are out there someplace -- Wayback Machine might work-- if you really need to see for yourself.

[Ieolus]

No, You don't "gotta" make changes. You can have a sequel with a new story, using the same engine and mechanics.

[Ponendus]

But you don't have to go up that mountain, and that's the point.  It's up to the player to play the way he wants.  Some like to stick mainly to the plot and not deviate from it, others like to leave the saving the world business to later, because ooh look there's more Elfroot.  That hill exists so that players can choose "Hey, I wonder what's up that hill?  Maybe there's something beneficial to the Inquisition.  Maybe we'll get a good view of the area.  Maybe there's more Elfroot.  Ha, there's definitely more Elfroot."

 

Oh of course, I didn't mean to imply that there wouldn't be people that enjoy that content. It's just that the original post was about people complaining that the game is less like DAO and represents a fundamental shift - it does - but I think it's ok for people to point out that may not entirely work for them.

 

I don't have a problem with filler quests for people that enjoy filler quests, more power to them (literally in this case!), however what doesn't work for me is that the filler quests are somewhat required in order to progress the story. This is indeed a big call for Bioware to make, as it means that 'filler' is just as important to them as story is.

 

You see, in DAI you are required to gain power to move the story along. The way you build power is to 'sandbox' through an area. You can't actually move the story along until you have reached what is essentially an arbitrary number of power. This isn't story-based gaming, it's numbers based, 'grind' or 'filler' if you will.

 

To illustrate what I mean, a side-by-side comparison of the environmental philosophies of the games *spoilers for DAO, and minor for DAI I guess*:

 

DAO - let's choose an environment, say the Circle Tower in Lake Calenhad.

Why am I going there? Because I want to recruit the mages to fight the Archdemon with me. So I head off to do that, and find out that there is a whole other world of pain going on in that tower while I'm there. What follows is two 'story-arcs' that fill the entire area. In other words, two distinct 'end goals' that give me reason to be there right up to the end of the area. I achieve those goals, and then move on. This gives the story pace, it keeps things moving, it engages me with it's story, the environment is just a means to that end.

 

DAI - let's choose any of the 'big' environments in the interest of avoiding spoilers

Why am I going there? Well, it starts off with a story reason, but that story reason can reasonably be achieved very early on in the exploration of the area. Possibly worse, is that even after it has been 'achieved', respawns occur which means the story arguably doesn't reach a conclusion. Now granted there are smaller stories to be had in that area, absolutely, but again, their end goals occur within the environment  rather than at the end. Once you have achieved all 'story goals' in the area, the area still exists, with no reason to be there other than 'filler'. Now this is fine for those that enjoy filler - but it actually works against those that don't. This is because I can't progress the main storyline, or open up another area, until I have completed some 'filler' (due to the requirement to build power). What makes these even worse, is that according to the story (and this is hard to describe without spoilers) my advisors have advised me that I am ready to progress to the next stage, all is prepared, ready to go, but I can't because an arbitrary 'gate' is in my way (power gathering) which isn't even related to the story at all.

 

So when you say 'it is up to you how much content you do', that is not correct. You are forced to do content unrelated to the story, because it is required to progress the story.

 

What it means is that DAI philosophy appears to have the environments drive the story, whereas the previous games was the other way around, the story was the driver, and the environment supported that.

 

I agree it's different strokes for different folks, and both are legitimate ways to make a game, but there is definitely a shift there, and I think its reasonable for people to say they miss the previous philosophy.

[AlanC9]

@ Ieolus: I suppose that's theoretically true, though I can't remember a game that didn't upgrade much of anything since KotOR 2, and even that one added some new mechanics.

Anyway, I thought BG2 was supposed to be your paradigm.

[Ieolus]

My comparison was the expectation set for a sequel ... BG1 --> BG2. DA has been all over the map with it's sequels now. Origins was a great game. Tweaks were all that were required of it.

[dantares83]

So when you say 'it is up to you how much content you do', that is not correct. You are forced to do content unrelated to the story, because it is required to progress the story.

 

What it means is that DAI philosophy appears to have the environments drive the story, whereas the previous games was the other way around, the story was the driver, and the environment supported that.

 

 

yes, i agree with u that if u skip all the sidequests in DAO (which u absolutely can), u will get the pace.

 

and in DAI, u will need to do a certain no. of sidequests to gain power to move the story forward which in your opinion, drags down the game and loses the pace.

 

However, this game is about making the Inquisition an 'famous' organization again and to do that, u need to help people's buffalo unfortunately. it is kind of silly to be honest but it is part of the why the inquisition is formed.

[Ponendus]

However, this game is about making the Inquisition an 'famous' organization again and to do that, u need to help people's buffalo unfortunately. it is kind of silly to be honest but it is part of the why the inquisition is formed.

 

Yep definitely. I actually would be ok if the power-gathering would be an overall amount required in order to complete say, the final quest line. That would be a story-based decision, because you can't 'save the world' until your Inquisition is powerful enough - which I think is what you mean here. 

 

What doesn't work for me is that you need a certain amount of power to do certain quests, that your advisors have informed you you are ready for and have no need (from a story perspective) to have built up a certain amount of power for. That's all I mean there. It doesn't make story-sense at that point.

[ashwind]

DAI - let's choose any of the 'big' environments in the interest of avoiding spoilers

Why am I going there? Well, it starts off with a story reason, but that story reason can reasonably be achieved very early on in the exploration of the area. Possibly worse, is that even after it has been 'achieved', respawns occur which means the story arguably doesn't reach a conclusion. Now granted there are smaller stories to be had in that area, absolutely, but again, their end goals occur within the environment  rather than at the end. Once you have achieved all 'story goals' in the area, the area still exists, with no reason to be there other than 'filler'. Now this is fine for those that enjoy filler - but it actually works against those that don't. This is because I can't progress the main storyline, or open up another area, until I have completed some 'filler' (due to the requirement to build power). What makes these even worse, is that according to the story (and this is hard to describe without spoilers) my advisors have advised me that I am ready to progress to the next stage, all is prepared, ready to go, but I can't because an arbitrary 'gate' is in my way (power gathering) which isn't even related to the story at all.

 

Respawns.... where are they? I am dead serious about this question. I went to the Hinterlands, identified things that I need to do to help the people there. 3 quests in total that is totally legit story wise. After that, all I can find are bears.... and I can easily predict where they would be. See a bunch of Rams, well they hunt them for food and will largely leave me alone. Other humanoid enemies... I cant find them. I actually spent an hour there looking for them because I am obviously too stingy to pay 20 gold to buy those crafting materials so that I can make my armor a specific color. So, yes the story does reach a conclusion.

 

As for unable to progress, personally after the 4 quests (which are entirely legit reasoning wise and story wise), I never had a shortage of power to progress ever. In DAO, I wanted to go confront Loghain immediately but the story told me that I cannot go until I do Redcliff. DAI is just presenting it differently, you cannot go until you did -something-; That something is totally up to you and I think this no hand holding approach is causing all sort of problems for some players. The inquisition does not have enough power or influence to undertake certain actions is not illogical. And I believe I recall my advisors saying that "Make sure we have enough power of influence before blah blah". It translates into: You need to get there but you need something before you can get there. Of course, I never had problems with power because I dont even know where all my overwhelming power comes from... sending out agents in the war room maybe? 

 

Once you achieve all story goals in an area... why should the area be blocked off? You can block it off by not clicking on it and the rest who enjoys going back for taking awesome screenshots can do so. What is the harm in leaving an area open? How is it not logical? 

 

Old RPG fans has this bad habit of needing to click every single thing there can be clicked. Do everything that can be done. Even when they are utterly frustrated doing it, they have to do it. They cant treat optionals as optionals. I know, because I use to behave exactly like that once.

[mupp3tz]

Rose colored glasses. Give it a few years and people will be referencing back to this when talking about how crappy Massquisition X is.

[Shryke]

I have never designed a game in my life.

 

But you know what I have done? I have played them since I was about eight years old, nearly 30 years ago.

So let me tell you some of the things a good RPG should include. It shouldn't be hard for anybody with 30 years of experience playing RPGs to tell you.

 

1. Choices and consequences. There must be real consequences to your actions. Choices should fit within the atmosphere of the game.

2. Discovery. Discovery of new places, new people, new strategies, new tactics. Interesting places to explore. Interesting because they help you define your party members' personalities — what they will and won't do (and what you will and won't do as a player). Quests should facilitate the protagonist's quest to achieve personal growth, whether down a good or not so good path.

3. Mechanics that ensure characters are different from one another. Whether you do this with classes or races or whatever, each character should be distinct in the role they play in your party. Stats, perks, special abilities, disciplines, backgrounds, traits, weaknesses; these are things that make each character unique, special, and interesting. The more of these characteristics, the richer that character becomes.

4. Tactical combat. This is an extension of each character's individual uniqueness. How they perform and what they can do in combat is another aspect of who they are. How about characters that are poor at fighting, but have other uses outside of combat? Not  all party members have to be equally powerful in combat.

5. Audio and visuals congruent with the tone of the game. You have a gritty, dark RPG? The color palette and music should reflect that, for the most part.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but these concepts should truly should be no mystery to such veterans of the genre as Bioware. Yet, it certainly seems that they have either forgotten these concepts, or that what most  people want anymore is not an RPG. If this is true, as it appears to be, what people want is an action game with a bit of exploration, a smidge of NPC interaction, and questing. Character development, deep mechanics, anything not combat-related, etc. are now passé concepts. 

 

The reason why we PC players are raging against Bioware is simple: the company no longer makes the same kinds of games that we grew up on and loved.

 

Imagine that you have kids. You buy the board game Monopoly, and are excited to play it with them, just as you played with your parents when you were a child. So you start setting up the game, but stop suddenly. You are horrified to find that, to make it easier for more people to play, Hasbro made all properties cost the same. They also now only give you four playing pieces, getting rid of the hat, rabbit, and other favorites. They also do away with Community Chest, because those cards are pretty similar to Chance cards, anyway. They simplified all the rules, and essentially removed a lot of the thinking that had to be done.

 

Maybe it's a poor metaphor, but I would argue that that is how PC players feel nowadays. 

 

And yes, we are old. But it is not rose-colored glasses we are looking through; games back then were genuinely more mechanically complex and allowed more freedom to play them as you wished. Systems were incredibly rewarding when you mastered them. Graphics technology was primitive, so designers had to demonstrate ingenuity in conveying ideas and atmosphere through non-visual means.

 

PC players are upset because AAA games used to truly be made for PC first.

We are upset because, in almost all cases, developing primarily for consoles turns games into less complex and rewarding affairs.