21 réponses à ce sujet

[I_am_Spartacus]

 Well here it goes. i'll start off by saying DAO was one of my favorite games, I still play it. DA2 just sucked, it was a step backwards(or more of a leap) compared to DAO. I was hoping the third installment(considering the epic fail of the second) would go back to being more like the original. I was wrong, you seem to not have learned from your mistake. For an RPG its real lame to say my warrior has to carry only a sword and shield or a 2 handed weapon, why can't i dual wield or use a bow? What if my mage wants to carry a dagger and stick some people? Why would you limit this ability? Thats where DAO has this game stomped along with a lot of other features left out to try and simplify it for the new audiance your trying to attract. Didnt you learn your lesson when DA2 didnt sell half as many copies as Origins? You probably made more in selling DLC on the first installment then you did with everything on DA2! Where is the ability to costumize my character? what if i want a bad ass DEX warrior! Or how about the incredable hulk of a mage! Or any of my choosing? Did you figure it was to complicated for us to figure out how we wanted to build our characters. That was the fun of the game, the reason to play through multiple times, trying different builds, beating it on nightmare solo. Now Im stuck with how you think my character should be. You've turned what I thought was the potential for a great series into another epic fail. Well you lost another returning player, that won't be buying your DLC on a crap game. And by the way can i get my money back, that you ripped me off on?

[Jaqen21]

I do miss my warrior archer from Origins...

[Sunlight Heart]

To be fair, DA:O's style was dying at the time and very few games sell as many copies with sequels as the original. The exception being just huge franchises like maybe Halo and GTA at times.

[sandalisthemaker]

Ta-ta dahling.

[Z.Z]

Because...because it's the trend. Simple stuff sells better. Games that are in fact interactive movies sell better. Whenever a hardcore RPG gamer leaves, 10 gamers who usually enjoy another genre come. I guess.

[Chernaya]

If you bought the game willingly, you weren't ripped off.   Maybe you should have waited awhile before buying it and read some reviews if you were so set on it needing to be Origins 2.

[I_am_Spartacus]

If you bought the game willingly, you weren't ripped off.   Maybe you should have waited awhile before buying it and read some reviews if you were so set on it needing to be Origins 2.

 I wasn't looking for a Origins 2, thats what i thought I was getting with the second DA. A game that took over where the first one left off.  Oh how wrong I was. I did read reviews and they made it sound like bioware was listening to their fans, again i was wrong. I quess I just figured maybe Bioware would have learned from their mistakes on DA2 and went back to making a great RPG. Again I was wrong as this game is garbage like the last sequal. And this is just my opinion, which I'm entitled to, if you disagree thats fine you don't have to comment on my post. This was left in the suggestions and feedback forum for any devs to read on how one of their costumers feels about their product. I feel riped off and whatever your opinion is, it doesn't change mine

.

To be fair, DA:O's style was dying at the time and very few games sell as many copies with sequels as the original. The exception being just huge franchises like maybe Halo and GTA at times.

 I don't agree that DAO style was dying. Look at its sales then look at DA2 sales then tell me what style was more popular. And what makes something a huge franchise? You take what is successful and you go with it. All franchises start with the first one.

[SpiritMuse]

In DAO rogue and warrior overlapped too much. They were essentially the same except the rogue didn't have access to all the weapons and wore crappier armor. The only reason to pick rogue over warrior really was lockpicking skill, and with another rogue in the party even that becomes redundant.

I like that they're more distinct now.

[Kantr]

A mage could use a dagger in DA:O ?

[tuchaka]

consumer protect themselves if someone didn't do enough research before buying its always there fault

[PhroXenGold]

Meh, DA:O was just a dumbed down over simplified knock-off of BG2....

 

 

[Big Magnet]

A mage could use a dagger in DA:O ?

Yep. In fact my first char ended up being a dual dagger mage just because I thought it was cool

[xJokerz]

Absolutely loving inquisition but I have to run it on high/ultra or my FPS is lower on lower settings... lol? Hated DAO, hated DA2... I had to grind through that whilst yawning... Finally they made the combat better in Inquisition and actually increased the content. Disagree with me? Cool, it's my opinion.

[Panda]

I can't agree with this. It doesn't add anything in the game if mage can use dagger. Mage won't have any cunning/dex to use it anyways. It would be very ineffictive weapon. It makes perfect sense for me why they want to go this way, making classes reasonable.

 

What I don't like is that we can't build our characters stats-wise anymore (please correct me if I'm completely wrong). I also don't like the female running and walking animations since to me that takes much more away from character than being able to use dagger as mage.

[Z.Z]

It's true that a mage can't use dagger effectively because of the lack of supportive spells/skills, but they made it that way. Traditional RPGs have more build diversity because a large number of abilities are available, with equally complex rules to follow and abuse. In D&D 3e games for example you can melee as a sorcerer just fine, eve with all the disadvantages, since you can make up through multiclassing, prestige classes and a careful selection of spells and feats.

But it's not newbie friendly. People who only want to enjoy the story will freak out by all those rules, not to mention they force the game to be more of a number's game, allowing little action potential, and everyone enjoys action stuff. I think.

[Wifeaggro]

To be fair, DA:O's style was dying at the time and very few games sell as many copies with sequels as the original. The exception being just huge franchises like maybe Halo and GTA at times.

Thats a load of horse dookie. They were sacraficed for easier development.and controller friendly UI.EA will not last this generation nor will bioware. Smaller studios with less corporate influence are makung better games and creating their own studios.consoles are becoming more PC then game boxes. The writing is on the wall. Wire less touch screen controllers will unify the playground and these games that step backwards on their IPs will lose eventualy

[sunnydxmen]

warriors cant duel wield or use arrows is because then rogue would be useless no one wou;d pick it cause warriorwould have everything in be way bettter so its for balance also they never said they were briinging back in the first place.

[MaxQuartiroli]

While I can understand many of the PC concerns (and I tend to agree with many of them) I would not claim that Origins wasn't an unfinished/unpolished game.

I still remember the broken dialogues (especially at Denerim Gates), the vanishing gears in Silverite Mines, the Morrigan's ring bug. None of them was ever OFFICIALLY fixed,even if many players considered most of them game-breaking bugs because they ruined their experience,

And again, I still remember a lot of players complaining about memory leaks, endless loading screens, and CTD, especially after the 1.03 which also broke stealing and pick-pocketing.

 

People are inclined to forget about the past, and now many of them remember DA:O like if it was the perfect game that it wasn't. It really was a great game, and I loved it very much, but I cannot forget that every playtrough was really like a giant slalom among bugs. I am not trying to say that DA:I is better than DA:O but only that every game I have played (including this one) has its faults and its problem especially during the first weeks after release.

 

I suppose that we'll have to wait some time, perhaps years, before many people will be really able to give DA:I a dispassionate, sober and objective opinion.  

[I_am_Spartacus]

In DAO rogue and warrior overlapped too much. They were essentially the same except the rogue didn't have access to all the weapons and wore crappier armor. The only reason to pick rogue over warrior really was lockpicking skill, and with another rogue in the party even that becomes redundant.

I like that they're more distinct now.

 

Not true, a dual wield warrior was fun to use with swords where a rouge was better suited with the daggers. But that was the beauty of the game as a RPG you could choose what you wanted. And what about another warrior in your party? That seems just redundant!

 

The distinction between the two lays in the different set of skills you give them.

 

A mage could use a dagger in DA:O ?

 

Yes

 

I can't agree with this. It doesn't add anything in the game if mage can use dagger. Mage won't have any cunning/dex to use it anyways. It would be very ineffictive weapon. It makes perfect sense for me why they want to go this way, making classes reasonable.

 

What I don't like is that we can't build our characters stats-wise anymore (please correct me if I'm completely wrong). I also don't like the female running and walking animations since to me that takes much more away from character than being able to use dagger as mage.

 

I find it funny how I used one option as a senerio and thats all some are seeing as my problem with the game. You answer your own statement in the paragraph below. A mage could have DEX and CUN if you wanted them to, it was all in your choosing. In no way was I saying that is the best build, i was saying it as an option that you no longer have. The stats thing is my complant, were stuck with what ever they feel your charactor should be.

warriors cant duel wield or use arrows is because then rogue would be useless no one wou;d pick it cause warriorwould have everything in be way bettter so its for balance also they never said they were briinging back in the first place.

 

?

You make no sence, I don't even get how to reply.

 

While I can understand many of the PC concerns (and I tend to agree with many of them) I would not claim that Origins wasn't an unfinished/unpolished game.

I still remember the broken dialogues (especially at Denerim Gates), the vanishing gears in Silverite Mines, the Morrigan's ring bug. None of them was ever OFFICIALLY fixed,even if many players considered most of them game-breaking bugs because they ruined their experience,

And again, I still remember a lot of players complaining about memory leaks, endless loading screens, and CTD, especially after the 1.03 which also broke stealing and pick-pocketing.

 

People are inclined to forget about the past, and now many of them remember DA:O like if it was the perfect game that it wasn't. It really was a great game, and I loved it very much, but I cannot forget that every playtrough was really like a giant slalom among bugs. I am not trying to say that DA:I is better than DA:O but only that every game I have played (including this one) has its faults and its problem especially during the first weeks after release.

 

I suppose that we'll have to wait some time, perhaps years, before many people will be really able to give DA:I a dispassionate, sober and objective opinion.

 

When did I say it was perfect? In fact Im well aware of the flaws and bugs. The sentinal armour pisses me off. I had complaints about it as well. As bad as the glitches and everything else was I still find it a better game then the 2 sequals.

[I_am_Spartacus]

I find it hilarious all the haters want DA:O2, damn they forget alot

Forget What I ask? And DAO2 would be great but i feel bioware would ruin just like the last 2. I think some of you dont get what I dont like about the games. You must be one of the people they had to simplify it for?

 

Again this is the suggestions and feedback page so I left my feedback if you dont like it cool, kick rocks over to the next post.