392 réponses à ce sujet

[AshesEleven]

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.

 

You know I hadn't realized that power might be annoying to get later in the game, if so then that is a legitimate critique, though I wonder if it could/should be differently.  The concept of needing power to achieve your objectives is great, but maybe it shouldn't all be done by the Inquisitor.  Is it possible to have operations that increase your power?  So far I've only seen Influence as a reward for operations.  

 

Perhaps to make the system a little better for those who just aren't into all the side content is to have one optional way of increasing power be through the War Table.  Doesn't make sense that the leader is the one getting all this **** done, if you want to just hang back in your castle for a bit and send your agents to do the quests and increase power you should be able to.  

[BammBamm]

there is a difference between complaining about flaws and absolute mass hysteria. its undeniable flaws exist in the game, especially everything that is controller or hardware related. but this whole bioware betrayed the pc users, bioware sold themself to ea and/or consoles thing is absolutely mass hysteria and this kind of behaviour can be seen now with nearly every new release. yeah they are companies, yeah its all about money and as long players jump on the hype train and preorder games there is no reason to change anything. ive seen streams and videos of the game and was aware what it will be, ive seen the mmo like gameplay because of the big open world, ive seen the inventory managment, ive seen the static npcs......and i ordered it and get exactly what i expected, so for me there is no reason to complain apart from a view bugs and quality of life things. people which now complain about design decisions of the game are the real cancer, throwing money at publishers without knowing what the get in return and complain about it later. it was not like unity with a embargo till after release, you could have informed yourself what to expect way before release, but you've ridden the hype train.....again....

[Kierro Ren]

Well this is one Qunari, you won't hear too many complaints from. I loved DA:O, true it had its bugs, but they were freaking minor.  Honestly, I loved DA2... Ok not as much as DAO, but I didn't find it as awful as many say it was. Though, I'll admit spending I don't know... 87% in Kirkwall, was a bit annoying. However, I delt with it. I liked how we got to see the true Qunari as well in DA2. When I saw the Arishok in the Destiny trailer, I was like Arnold(Predator): "What the hell are you?". Then ingame, I was like "HOLY GOD, that's a Qunari?".

 

No bullshite, but DA is one of the greatest RPGs I played. No others made me love, hate, feel sorrow or joy for. OR. Felt freaking sorry in DA2, when trying to get Avaline laid. I honestly said in unison with Hawke "Oh... Maker." *she's so dence." DA:I is just as good, if not greater. I'm actually quite happy with this game.

[Elfyoth]

I have just needed to read the top of it for like 3 seconds, YOU ARE RIGHT. And for those who are complainning why DAI is not DAO becouse its DAI hello? I... not O... DAI and DAO are DIFFRENT GAMES, they should remain diffrent becouse they are diffrent! Like Putin and Obama should remain diffrent, thats how it works, DAI is not DAO and DAO is not DAI such as USA is not the moon or water is not earth.

[AshesEleven]

Like Putin and Obama should remain diffrent, thats how it works, 

 

 

lol what?

 

I agree that you should take them as two separate experiences but...

 

there is a difference between complaining about flaws and absolute mass hysteria. 

 

I keep trying to explain this, but this is a good way to do it.  The problem isn't criticism, it's the attitude that "OMG THIS ONE THING DOESN'T WORK BIOWARE HATES PLAYERS AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES IS AN IDIOT."  That attitude isn't exclusive to gamers, but it is still incredibly annoying.  Presumably we are either all adults, or at least old enough to use a computer, so falling to this absolute panic/anger mode to deal with issues is not only unhelpful, but immature and disrespectful.  Bioware have demonstrated that they want feedback for this game, and are working on some fixes to some of the issues people have.  Criticism is also important for developers so that the next time they make a game, they can make it even better by taking into account the critique they've gotten and give us as close to a near-perfect experience as possible.  People don't like listening to criticism when it comes in all caps and sounds like the doomsday predictions of a racist Batarian.  

[Lebanese Dude]

lol what?

 

I agree that you should take them as two separate experiences but...

 

 

I keep trying to explain this, but this is a good way to do it.  The problem isn't criticism, it's the attitude that "OMG THIS ONE THING DOESN'T WORK BIOWARE HATES PLAYERS AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES IS AN IDIOT."  That attitude isn't exclusive to gamers, but it is still incredibly annoying.  Presumably we are either all adults, or at least old enough to use a computer, so falling to this absolute panic/anger mode to deal with issues is not only unhelpful, but immature and disrespectful.  Bioware have demonstrated that they want feedback for this game, and are working on some fixes to some of the issues people have.  Criticism is also important for developers so that the next time they make a game, they can make it even better by taking into account the critique they've gotten and give us as close to a near-perfect experience as possible.  People don't like listening to criticism when it comes in all caps and sounds like the doomsday predictions of a racist Batarian.  

 

DAI is unworthy. We cast it into the cold black!!!!

[Damazig]

This guy, the OP, clearly doesn't get why so many old harcore fans of Star Wars got pissed at George Lucas with the new films... 

 

I am indeed enjoying this game ALOT, I am on PC, but it does have loads of problems with tactical cam, AI is ridiculous and not meant to be played tactically, but I am still enjoying the game. 

 

But you seem to think that people aren't entitled to say they prefered DA: Origins? yes I do prefer Origins. I prefer its style, its tactical hardcore gameplay (only 8 action slots available for  Inquistion?) and the darker tone. I am however still enjoying Inquisition and it obviously has alot of good things going for it, it has incredible graphics(even though I miss the darker tone), it has awsome new huge areas and so far a very well told Story. Again the gameplay though...

 

Would I have prefered if they continued with the same gameplay that the IP Dragon Age was created with, loved and most well received by critics? yes. I am trying to play this game the way I liked playing Origins(sorry my bad), tactical hard mode with friendly fire on, and this game was anounced as being possible to be played as such, and it clearly was not developed with this in mind. Side note my friend, the developers already aknowledged that several of the complaints have merit and are being looked in to.

 

You know why Bioware is where it's at right now? 2 main factors in my opinion: 

1 - the 2 Doctors who created the company and their group of people and vision along with the hardcore fanbase they created with those games of the past you seem so interested in begin left behind.

2 - That hardcore fanbase that LOVES (yes STILL) those old games.

 

Many seem to dislike that that core gameplay and development direction seems to be getting left behind, and yes it does coincide with the company being bought by EA and the 2 Doctors leaving after the shitstorm of ME3 ending.

 

Heck I'm glad so many people voiced out that they disliked George Lucas' new direction with the new movies, so now we'll get to see if JJ Abrams gets to bring back some of the OLD magic. 

 

"If it ain't broke don't try to fix it" when it comes to DA Origins.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The tactics were changed. Whether you like the new system is entirely subjective. Many people found the old system to be overwhelming or on the other end, capable of running the game on autopilot. So yes, this is subjective,

How could a capability be a bad thing? If a player doesn't want to run the game on auto-pilot (ignoring that the player needs to program the auto-pilot himself in order for that to work), then he shouldn't run the game on auto-pilot. But objecting to other people doing it is akin to objecting to the existence of lower difficulty settings.

In a single-player game, it is never acceptable to tell someone else how to play.

[ashwind]

Perhaps I'm not doing it right, but at the point I'm at in the game, I have done some filler, most character quests to that point, and main story quests in about three areas. I still require 26 power before I can move on to the next main plot quest.

 

That is pretty odd... For example, I remember I unlock CW with 52 Power, By the time I finish the protect the village quests (roughly 1 hour play time) , I have 56 power... and I still havent touch the story quest there yet...

 

Do you do requisition quest? War table operations? The one thing I am direly short of is influence point..

[Lebanese Dude]

How could a capability be a bad thing? If a player doesn't want to run the game on auto-pilot (ignoring that the player needs to program the auto-pilot himself in order for that to work), then he shouldn't run the game on auto-pilot. But objecting to other people doing it is akin to objecting to the existence of lower difficulty settings.

In a single-player game, it is never acceptable to tell someone else how to play.

 

I agree it is not up to me to tell people how to play, which is why I never said that to begin with. It seems you are continuing a discussion we had from another thread which had an entirely different context. What are you getting at here?

 

I stated that people's opinions on certain features are entirely subjective, not the objective truth that they assume to be always true.

 

The system can be objectively described as simplified by virtue of mere observation.

Some people enjoy the new system. Others, like yourself, dislike it and prefer the previous iterations.

 

There's nothing wrong with that, but coming out and stating that DA:I is "doing it all wrong" is hardly justified either considering that statement implies that your opinion is an objective fact.

 

It still provides the player with the ability to customize follower AI, albeit in a much less complex way. For some it's a welcome change, for others not so much.

 

While it isn't my place to tell people how to play, it's very much BioWare's place to direct the game in any way they wish to do so.

 

So if the new tactics system does not provide you with a framework to play the game the way you used to, you should voice your concern in the form of constructive feedback then either adapt or move on. 

[Sidney]

 

But you seem to think that people aren't entitled to say they prefered DA: Origins? yes I do prefer Origins. I prefer its style, its tactical hardcore gameplay (only 8 action slots available for  Inquistion?) and the darker tone. I am however still enjoying Inquisition and it obviously has alot of good things going for it, it has incredible graphics(even though I miss the darker tone), it has awsome new huge areas and so far a very well told Story. Again the gameplay though...

 

 

...and this is why so many of us are sooooo sick of DAO nostalgia. The smug superiority associated with every flippin' thing that ISN'T DAO. That game was "hardcore" and "tactical". LOL, good one chet! So now let me counter-smug you......

 

Origins was brain dead in combat. It was aggressively stupid and unbalanced in combat. If you couldn't run the whole game on autopilot then the problem was that you didn't understand how to set basic tactics. Combat was slow, unresponsive and actively prevented tactical decisions because of those flaws. Positioning didn't actually matter for you warriors, vaguely mattered for rogues. You couldn't really block things because your characters had no weight to their stand and took so long to line up shots everything just ran right by them. Things like Mana Clash were so broken it is laughable. Entire specializations were useless (shapeshifter anyone) The massive ability to potion spam took the challenge out of anything like health and mana. Oddly the inability to potion spam stamina meant that mages were overpowered relative to rogues and warriors. Short of boss fights I ran an entire game with tactics that said If level < Elite Attack Target of Main Character. Period, cleared the game no issues. You might have liked the gameplay, I'm sorry for that, but don't claim that it is because it was so tactical and hardcore that the rest of the world couldn't appreciate it.

 

Origins was great in a lot of ways - most of them had nothing to do with the game mechanics which were top to bottom horrific, clumsy and badly implemented. I really love the experience of DAO as a story, as a set of characters.....but like ME1 as a game it was average trending towards bad. If you took out the story and characters of DAO and replaced them with the characters and story from Skyrim you'd have forgotten about the game a long, long time ago. 

[Natureguy85]

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.  

 

Yes, we'd always like more rather than less but ultimately you have limited money and time. Now if you're finding the content is worthwhile, that's a good sign. Though just because it give you a stat called Power, doesn't really make it worthwhile if it doesn't make sense. Remember ME3's War Assets.

 

As far as the player's choice to do it or not, that's irrelevant to the discussion. The issue isn't if it's mandatory or optional; it's if it's there just taking up that those limited development resources and artificially elongating the play time for marketing purposes.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

 

"If it ain't broke don't try to fix it" when it comes to DA Origins.

 

... but it was broke...in a lot of ways.

 

Inventory management was non-existent at first.

Combat is a slow hot mess that needs Combat Tweaks to be remotely challenging.

It had tons of ability fluff and several useless specializations that needed Combat Tweaks to make interesting.

Coercion was mandatory to make the game more interesting. Otherwise it had black of white decision making.

Most skills were useless, again requiring Combat Tweaks to make them useful.

Mages were blatantly overpowered. There was a significant discrepancy in player power across playthroughs.

Companion approval was mostly based on gifts. You bought their approval... how charming.

The fetch quests had very little context and were clustered.

You virtually did no exploration, and whenever you had to people complained (The Fade, The Deep Roads).

The game crashed a lot for no reason until patch 1.03

There was no storage space til Warden's Keep was released.

Armor and weapon crafting was non-existent.

 

etc...

 

On the other hand it did many things right. Despite all the above, I like the game. No... I love it.

 

Still, you should quit holding DAO as a standard for game design. 

[AshesEleven]

 

As far as the player's choice to do it or not, that's irrelevant to the discussion. The issue isn't if it's mandatory or optional; it's if it's there just taking up that those limited development resources and artificially elongating the play time for marketing purposes.

 

Why would it be irrelevant?  If the player enjoys the optional content, then it isn't just artificially elongating the play time.  It's creating meaningful, fun content for him to explore.  Alternatively, if the player does not enjoy most of the optional content, then he simply ignores it.  Thus, the play time is not artificially lengthened, since he is not participating in it.

 

The one issue, as I've discussed with that other person, is that those who don't wish to complete ANY of the side content are forced to do some of it for the story.  I am not far enough in the game to decide whether the amount of power needed for certain quests is too long or not, but it DOES seem a little arbitrary and annoying.  So in that sense, an argument can be made that the Power mechanic does make the game's length a little artificial.  I would argue though that all games do this.  If all you did in Origins were the main quests, it would be short indeed.  I know this because I did a 20 hour play through of it once; when marketing and other players always tout it being from 40-50 hours. 

[Draining Dragon]

The issue is not when they add new features. The issue is when they remove old features.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Don't tell me what tense I'm allowed to live in!

[Lebanese Dude]

 

The one issue, as I've discussed with that other person, is that those who don't wish to complete ANY of the side content are forced to do some of it for the story. 

 

While this argument makes sense out of context, exploration was indeed advertised as a very important part of this game. 

If you do not wish to do much exploration, then clearly you bought DAI with false misconceptions. That's not really BioWare's fault right?

 

You can only do the convenient and/or interesting side quests and receive enough power to complete the game.

Opting to do none of them is completely ignoring part of the game which you bought.

 

This is similar to having to drive around a city in Need For Speed to receive race jobs and doing small missions to earn money to upgrade your car.

Those little side jobs and the driving around the city are part of the game. Choosing to ignore them and complaining that the races are hard to win is not the designer's fault.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Syvius the Mad:  Except that every video game ever has told you how to play.  The ones you feel didn't tell you how to play - are just rules and restrictions you liked.

 

I never used the Tactics except to turn them off because the initial tactics told me how to play.  Yes, a small thing that took all of 5 seconds. 

 

I am no inherently against the inclusion of anything - but this notion that a game shouldn't tell you how to play is a bit duplicitous. 

 

I mean - it's not like I could go to the Chasind and study long forgotten lore and be a mage with an illusion tree - or become a Chevalier - or a baker - or stay in the mage tower - or use my cunning to be a great public speaker - or my dexterity to be an acrobat in a circus.  By their nature - video games have to tell us what to do.

 

There's just people who see something they like and think it should never change - and people who are neutral to something and don't care if it changes - and people who hate something and demand it changes.  

[DigitalMaster37]

These forums and many others will have people who whine and complain. Having been on the BioWare forums far before Mass Effect 1 was released, I have come to realize that there is a subset of people who will NEVER be satisfied and will always find something "wrong" with whatever game comes out. They will always exist. All we have to do (which I've done) is learn to ignore and/or tune out such people. There are sometimes good arguments or discussions to be had though regarding some the issues brought up from people who may have a genuine issue. Other than that, its just people being people. 

 

There will NEVER be a game that pleases everyone. Let people have their say, because they are gonna have it anyway and as long as you have a system within yourself to ignore the BS, you'll get along just fine. The good news is that I think BioWare does this pretty well. They cater to the voice of their fans but within enough reasonability as anyone could expect. 

[AshesEleven]

While this argument makes sense out of context, exploration was indeed advertised as a very important part of this game. 

If you do not wish to do much exploration, then clearly you bought DAI with false misconceptions. That's not really BioWare's fault right?

 

You can only do the convenient and/or interesting side quests and receive enough power to complete the game.

Opting to do none of them is completely ignoring part of the game.

 

Yeah I agree, though again like I said so far I've only had a 4 power requirement, to go to Val Royeaux.  As far as I'm aware maybe later you need 100 power to keep progressing.  If the Power requirements are comparatively small to how many things you have available, I don't see the issue at all, because like I've said you can pick what stuff you want to do to gain Power.  What would be a cool addition is having Operations grant you Power (unless I'm mistaken and they do already?)

[Sidney]

Why would it be irrelevant?  If the player enjoys the optional content, then it isn't just artificially elongating the play time.  It's creating meaningful, fun content for him to explore.  Alternatively, if the player does not enjoy most of the optional content, then he simply ignores it.  Thus, the play time is not artificially lengthened, since he is not participating in it.

 

The one issue, as I've discussed with that other person, is that those who don't wish to complete ANY of the side content are forced to do some of it for the story.  I am not far enough in the game to decide whether the amount of power needed for certain quests is too long or not, but it DOES seem a little arbitrary and annoying.  So in that sense, an argument can be made that the Power mechanic does make the game's length a little artificial.  I would argue though that all games do this.  If all you did in Origins were the main quests, it would be short indeed.  I know this because I did a 20 hour play through of it once; when marketing and other players always tout it being from 40-50 hours. 

 

 

I will say the difference in DAO is that the sidequests are more "attached" to the main quests. Not the save the caravans but things like Ruck are a sidequest but they are sort of "on the way" while you are doing other things.  In DAI, they are very much not connected to the story and the power and influence are ways they try and tie them in very similar to the War Readiness from ME3. It does give the sides a different feel.

[Draining Dragon]

People complaining about people complaining?

Check!

[Lebanese Dude]

I will say the difference in DAO is that the sidequests are more "attached" to the main quests. Not the save the caravans but things like Ruck are a sidequest but they are sort of "on the way" while you are doing other things.  In DAI, they are very much not connected to the story and the power and influence are ways they try and tie them in very similar to the War Readiness from ME3. It does give the sides a different feel.

 

They're connected to both the exploration aspect and the main story quest.

 

DAI is not DAO 2.0. DAO had virtually no exploration.

 

DAI was consistently advertised as near open-world and such fetch quests are common in those games.

[Lebanese Dude]

People complaining about people complaining?

Check!

 

People cynically posting about people complaining about people complaining?

 

Check!

 

Your turn

[Lebanese Dude]

These forums and many others will have people who whine and complain. Having been on the BioWare forums far before Mass Effect 1 was released, I have come to realize that there is a subset of people who will NEVER be satisfied and will always find something "wrong" with whatever game comes out. They will always exist. All we have to do (which I've done) is learn to ignore and/or tune out such people. There are sometimes good arguments or discussions to be had though regarding some the issues brought up from people who may have a genuine issue. Other than that, its just people being people. 

 

There will NEVER be a game that pleases everyone. Let people have their say, because they are gonna have it anyway and as long as you have a system within yourself to ignore the BS, you'll get along just fine. The good news is that I think BioWare does this pretty well. They cater to the voice of their fans but within enough reasonability as anyone could expect. 

 

...but if I do not "white knight" then I have lost my purpose in life.