320 réponses à ce sujet

[qwerty78]

I have never posted anything like this before, but Dragon Age Inquisition has really, truly taken things one step too far. After Dragon Age 2, I was quite sceptical, but the very positive review that were published just before release won me over, and I bought the game just before release. The bottom line: the reviewers must have been playing another game, and the developers did not keep the promises made while the game was still in development. It was supposed to redeem Bioware from the DA2 debacle, it was supposed to involve tactical gameplay, it was supposed to be a deep role playing experience. All this is not true, and I do not understand why the developers were not more up-front about their intention to make a generally accessible (to put it politely) game that would emphasise action elements over the complexities of real RPGs, such as the recently published Divinity: Original Sin or Wasteland 2. I also do not understand why Bioware did not simply admit that its focus is on console publishing and that Inquisition, in terms of interface and gameplay (and the game's very poorly optimised technical side) would play like a straight console port. This would have reduced expectations, and it would likely have saved them from the backlash that's now ocurring. The scale of this backlash seems to be similar to that provoked by Mass Effect 3, and I do not think that this is what Bioware had hoped for.

 

To be sure, it's not a complete disaster, as it's often made out to be. For example, the controls on PC are needlessly awkward, but they have not made the game unplayable for me. There's still some fun to be had with the game, particularly if you are a certain type of gamer. Still, it's worth repeating (and repeating again) some of the points that have already been made, so that perhaps eventually someone at EA or Bioware will finally listen to many very valid concerns:

 

1. Gameplay is shallow and repetitive. Quests are repetitive and fail to create a sense of a living game world that's interesting to explore. It's flash over substance - pretty graphics and fast gameplay for casual gamers, with little serious role playing to be found underneath.

 

2. There is no way to plan one's character as one can in a real RPG. No distributable attribute points, minimalist and generic skill trees, and no need to make an involved plan for the development of your character, as you can in real RPGs (think Divinity: Original Sin or Icewind Dale 2 or Wizardry 7 and 8). There's no real difference between the few ways available to differentiate one's character and what's on offer in any generic shooter.

 

3. Magic has become so simplified and spells have become so generic that playing a mage is a sad experience indeed. It's magic without magic - no sense of discovery or wonder to be had here. Remember the huge number of spells in Baldur's Gate 2 and the way you could use them to plan your combat tactis and counter opponents' tactics? What's really truly the difference between shooting Inquisition's variously coloured magic bolts and shooting a gun in any generic FPS?

 

4. The console-based, controller-friendly interface design takes a lot of atmosphere out of the game. Remember how in the Infinity Engine games you could pick up your items in the inventory and examine them and get lots of background info and backstory about them? Inquisition's list-based inventory does not convey the same sense of having found a real, unique item at all. Rather, items feel like generic power-ups you can pick from a list.

 

5. Why did the developers bother with the utterly useless tactical view? Why not admit that Inquisition is an action-oriented game? Any tester must have noticed well before release that the tactical view is essentially broken and useless, and the amount of work necessary to improve it is likely so substantial that it will never become truly functional. I mention this because it's really emblematic of the attempt to pass this game of as a tactical role-playing game when it's really casual action fare.

 

So, in sum, this is a flashy AAA game for an audience of casual gamers - it's mass-market popcorn. It's perhaps unfair of me to criticise the game for not being what I want it to be. However, Bioware did create the expectation that this would become a very different kind of game, and it's hard not to be disappointed. It's also hard not to be sad that a company that used to make great, rich, deep RPGs has so completely lost its way.

[Prophet2233]

Bioware. Make games that ****** people.

[JAZZ_LEG3ND]

I have never posted anything like this before, but Dragon Age Inquisition has really, truly taken things one step too far. After Dragon Age 2, I was quite sceptical, but the very positive review that were published just before release won me over, and I bought the game just before release. The bottom line: the reviewers must have been playing another game, and the developers did not keep the promises made while the game was still in development. It was supposed to redeem Bioware from the DA2 debacle, it was supposed to involve tactical gameplay, it was supposed to be a deep role playing experience. All this is not true, and I do not understand why the developers were not more up-front about their intention to make a generally accessible (to put it politely) game that would emphasise action elements over the complexities of real RPGs, such as the recently published Divinity: Original Sin or Wasteland 2. I also do not understand why Bioware did not simply admit that its focus is on console publishing and that Inquisition, in terms of interface and gameplay (and the game's very poorly optimised technical side) would play like a straight console port. This would have reduced expectations, and it would likely have saved them from the backlash that's now ocurring. The scale of this backlash seems to be similar to that provoked by Mass Effect 3, and I do not think that this is what Bioware had hoped for.



To be sure, it's not a complete disaster, as it's often made out to be. For example, the controls on PC are needlessly awkward, but they have not made the game unplayable for me. There's still some fun to be had with the game, particularly if you are a certain type of gamer. Still, it's worth repeating (and repeating again) some of the points that have already been made, so that perhaps eventually someone at EA or Bioware will finally listen to many very valid concerns:



1. Gameplay is shallow and repetitive. Quests are repetitive and fail to create a sense of a living game world that's interesting to explore. It's flash over substance - pretty graphics and fast gameplay for casual gamers, with little serious role playing to be found underneath.



2. There is no way to plan one's character as one can in a real RPG. No distributable attribute points, minimalist and generic skill trees, and no need to make an involved plan for the development of your character, as you can in real RPGs (think Divinity: Original Sin or Icewind Dale 2 or Wizardry 7 and 8). There's no real difference between the few ways available to differentiate one's character and what's on offer in any generic shooter.



3. Magic has become so simplified and spells have become so generic that playing a mage is a sad experience indeed. It's magic without magic - no sense of discovery or wonder to be had here. Remember the huge number of spells in Baldur's Gate 2 and the way you could use them to plan your combat tactis and counter opponents' tactics? What's really truly the difference between shooting Inquisition's variously coloured magic bolts and shooting a gun in any generic FPS?



4. The console-based, controller-friendly interface design takes a lot of atmosphere out of the game. Remember how in the Infinity Engine games you could pick up your items in the inventory and examine them and get lots of background info and backstory about them? Inquisition's list-based inventory does not convey the same sense of having found a real, unique item at all. Rather, items feel like generic power-ups you can pick from a list.



5. Why did the developers bother with the utterly useless tactical view? Why not admit that Inquisition is an action-oriented game? Any tester must have noticed well before release that the tactical view is essentially broken and useless, and the amount of work necessary to improve it is likely so substantial that it will never become truly functional. I mention this because it's really emblematic of the attempt to pass this game of as a tactical role-playing game when it's really casual action fare.



So, in sum, this is a flashy AAA game for an audience of casual gamers - it's mass-market popcorn. It's perhaps unfair of me to criticise the game for not being what I want it to be. However, Bioware did create the expectation that this would become a very different kind of game, and it's hard not to be disappointed. It's also hard not to be sad that a company that used to make great, rich, deep RPGs has so completely lost its way.

[gediv2]

Yup. This company has long since sold out and sells "product" instead of the art they produced long ago. I skipped ME3 and DA2 for the reasons you've outlined. I fell for the reviews describing this as an rpg. 70 bucks gone. poof! Just like the lame disappearing bodies. poof!

[DangerKips]

No one made this "out to be a disaster". You're in a very small island indeed with this opinion, almost schizophrenic! It's an infinitely more appealing game than the previous Dragon Age games for all the things you don't like. You already have your games, this one isn't for you--you don't have to change it.

By the way, people who throw words around like casual and simplified tend to use badly rationalized opinions to conceal their wish to gatekeep how and what kind of people can enjoy videogames.

See Gamergate for worst case scenario.

Posts like this make me lose faith in humanity.

[naddaya]

1. Gameplay is worse than DAO but better than DA2

2-3. Agreed

4. The controls on PC are not even remotely as bad as people make them

5. It's not useless, it makes it easy to control the whole battle and micromanage characters on higher difficulties

 

It's buggy as hell, poorly optimized and has at least a few memory leaks. And I blame EA and Origin. I feel the urge to hug my hard disk every time cutscenes and loading screens pop up.

 

BUT

 

The story is pretty good, the game world is conflicted and interesting, the characters are well written, most quests (minus the fetch quests that frankly you can just skip) are diverse and engaging. The environments are way more detailed and different in DAI than in the previous two games. It's a good game, it just needs a few patches. And mod support.

[coldflame]

Posts like this make me lose faith in humanity.

Actually, that sounded like an EA/Bioware employee in disguise or someone related (e.g. family and/or friend) to an employee of EA/Bioware.

[AlexMBrennan]

5. It's not useless, it makes it easy to control the whole battle and micromanage characters on higher difficulties

Have you tried using it indoors (not that the regular camera is much better)? Luckily the game auto-aims attacks, so a camera that only shows the back of your character's head isn't a problem)

[Cl1cka]

No one made this "out to be a disaster". You're in a very small island indeed with this opinion, almost schizophrenic! It's an infinitely more appealing game than the previous Dragon Age games for all the things you don't like. You already have your games, this one isn't for you--you don't have to change it.

By the way, people who throw words around like casual and simplified tend to use badly rationalized opinions to conceal their wish to gatekeep how and what kind of people can enjoy videogames.

See Gamergate for worst case scenario.

Nope this game is A DISASTER for PC that is.

Between refusing to go fullscreen on 60% of people, 20-30% can't even play it or crashes constantly, gender swapping bug, butchered companion AI, no tactics, no option to make your own build since you can't distribute attributes, tact cam is a joke, controls with kb+m are cleary not optimised and swapped on from console port.

And this game was advertised "FROM PC GAMERS FOR PC GAMERS" and "Getting back to our roots in RPG". SO sorry but you are totally wrong. If they advertised the game as console port - it's fine we wouldn't have bought it and there wouldn't have been so much anger and backlash.

But they LIED to us, and after that lie they didn't' bother to come forward to apologise. What's even worst is no one gives information on what is going to be fixed.

So sorry but you are wrong.

[Gel214th]

5. Why did the developers bother with the utterly useless tactical view? Why not admit that Inquisition is an action-oriented game? Any tester must have noticed well before release that the tactical view is essentially broken and useless, and the amount of work necessary to improve it is likely so substantial that it will never become truly functional. I mention this because it's really emblematic of the attempt to pass this game of as a tactical role-playing game when it's really casual action fare.

 

So, in sum, this is a flashy AAA game for an audience of casual gamers - it's mass-market popcorn. It's perhaps unfair of me to criticise the game for not being what I want it to be. However, Bioware did create the expectation that this would become a very different kind of game, and it's hard not to be disappointed. It's also hard not to be sad that a company that used to make great, rich, deep RPGs has so completely lost its way.

 

Actually, no. Some testers have posted on these boards and said that in their view, and during their playthroughs, they thought the tactical camera was great and didn't experience any problems.  They also felt the PC controls were great and userfriendly. 

 

So the testers don't get what we are complaining about. 

 

If you played the game with a controller, the experience is actually excellent. The quick combat, pull right trigger to attack style just works perfectly with the controller. 

[Ianamus]

I wouldn't say that it's all flash and no substance. But I would say that the substance is in the environments, choices and characters, rather than the gameplay. I didn't dislike it, but it upholds the tradition of combat never being the strongest point of DA games. 

 

I should probably specify here though: I though that exploring areas on foot, claiming land, finding hidden things and all of the gameplay associated with the Wicked eyes and Wicked hearts quest were fantastic, it's the combat that lets it down. The pace of the combat finally felt right for me, and I had no issues with the animations or abilities. I think it came down to awkward controls, particularly for managing the party, and I really didn't like how the tactical camera was done. Boss fights in particular became very repetitive and dull, as I had expected with only eight abilities. Switching to companions more would have made it more interesting, but I always found that the AI played the companions better than me, mostly due to not really having the controls to manage them properly. 

 

It didn't bother me too much because I've always found the combat in Dragon Age games to be lacklustre. It feels like one step forward and one step back. Overall I still found the combat more enjoyable than Dragon Age 2's and Origins, but only just. It fixed the major issues of both of them, but broke other things in the process. 

[qwerty78]

"Shallow and repetitive."

"Not a real RPG."

"Simplified."

"Console-based."

 

A: I love you're trying to get us back to the glory days of the 'Infinity Engine' (are you for real).

 

B: You throw these buzzwords like their meant to mean something. Like it's going to be fun when it stops being 'Shallow and Repetitive', or not "Console-based" and "Simplified". I know people who are going to play this becuase it looks *so* much better, and because it feels much better than previous Dragon Age games.

 

If you were a 'troo gamer' who knows what a "Real RPG" is, as you post implies, you'd have the sense to know the RPG's with combat good enough to belong in a dedicated action game are much rarer than tactical and obscure RPG systems.

 

Oh, and none of the games you listed let me play as a gay magic wielding athiest—so there you go.  

 

You are putting words into my mouth and twisting the facts. Quite a few have made the game out to be a disaster (check what's  been posted on these forums, read the Metacritic reviews, etc.). There is a backlash against the game, and it does not seem to be any smaller than the angry reactions DA2 and MA3 provoked. I grant that this is a much better game than DA2, and I said in my original post that there is fun to be had. I also think that it is true that in Bioware games much of the enjoyment comes from the gameworld, characters, choices, and so on. This is why I actually liked Mass Effect 3 a lot. Bioware has published console-first titles for a long time; KOTOR 1 and 2 were console games with console controls, and Jade Empire was only ported to PC quite some time after its original console release. The issue is that these older titles' 'console port' origins did not get in the way of playing what were atmospheric and enjoyable games. KOTOR 1 and 2 still allowed for involved and complex character development; one could play characters with very different abilities and experience gameplay from in notably different ways. Both games' controls and interface (particularly the inventory) were poor, but they did not get in the way of enjoyable tactical combat. Jade Empire had no real inventory, and combat was unbalanced (far too easy), but its character development and role playing options were interesting and fit well together.

 

Dragon Age Inquisition is different. Playing the game means trying to enjoy story, setting and characters while battling gameplay design choices and an interface that are not really suitable for PCs. I have listed some of these above, but there are lots more that could be mentioned. This just is a console game that should have stayed on consoles. And I did not even mention the abundant bugs and glitches, of which I have also enjoyed a few. These can and will be ironed out. The true problem are conscious design choices on the part of the developers that make this a game that clashes with the expectations of many PC gamers. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a bad game by any means. The true problem with it are broken promises and disappointed expectations.

[VilniusNastavnik]

The only thing I have a problem with is the armor.. it all looks the bloody same.. on a Qunari at least.. If every race got access to every armor, or the Qunari variations looked more like Iron Bulls... in fact, every companion's armor looks exceptionally better than the inquisitors.. 

[Terodil]

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, my fear is that at some point, game publishers will simply scrap PC ports/developments altogether (too costly, ungrateful clientele, ...). I hate the 'eat or die' mentality but it may very well come to this in the future...

 

So while I really dislike some of the choices BW has made, esp. in the design department (controls, no healing, ...), I'm still more grateful for having something (a lot actually: environments, story, characters etc.) than for having yet another console-exclusive game.

[line_genrou]

It's a great game. It has problems that hopefully will be taken care of by the devs (oh the joy if we get the tactics screen). But honestly. THIS should have been the sequel do DA:O. You can see how they tried with this game compared to the mess called DA2.

[Adynata]

I love how people like to criticize "casual gamers" as if having a real life and a real job somehow makes you less of a gamer. According to you, casual gamers want repetitive quests and simplified magic, but must not want RPG elements & complex control schemes? How is that casual? It's a result of the changing industry. And like one poster said in this thread, the industry AS A WHOLE is moving toward consoles and away from PCs. I'm just happy that I can still play these games on PC. I"m more annoyed when it takes another couple months to even get the game released on PC. 

[Corto81]

I love how people like to criticize "casual gamers" as if having a real life and a real job somehow makes you less of a gamer. According to you, casual gamers want repetitive quests and simplified magic, but must not want RPG elements & complex control schemes? How is that casual?

By "casual" most people refer to people who aren't into RPGs, but play certain games they get their hands on, regardless of their genre, they don't get too deep into, and play it without really delving deep into it.

 

An RPG fan wants depth and freedom and customization etc etc etc.

 

By catering to that sort of crowd Bioware went away from its RPG roots, and from what made them big in the first place.

The same audience that made them big and popular (and rich) is now being shoved aside for the "wider" audience.

 

---

 

Nobody is saying a "casual" gamer is someone who has limited time to play the game.

Fact is, your average CoD/GTA gamer (which sell the most), prefers to have arcade-style speedy combat, and most likely doesn't care that items have no descriptions, there's no persuasion or pickpocketing etc etc etc.

 

Stuff that used to be fairly basic in Bioware games before they decided to try and cater to the aforementioned "wider" audience.

 

And stuff that your average RPG gamer enjoys and loves and expects from a game marketed as "going back to its RPG roots".

[Snazzy]

I agree. This game isn't an RPG in the slightest. It's as much an RPG as World of Warcraft is. In fact, this game is literally single player mode of World of Warcraft. 

[qwerty78]

By "casual" most people refer to people who aren't into RPGs, but play certain games they get their hands on, regardless of their genre, they don't get too deep into, and play it without really delving deep into it.

 

An RPG fans wants depth and freedom and customization etc etc etc.

 

By catering to that sort of crowd Bioware went away from its RPG roots, and from what made them big in the first place.

The same audience that made them big and popular (and rich) is now being shoved aside for the "wider" audience.

 

I think that this is true, and this is what the problems with Inquisition are about. It's not about criticising gamers of whichever type. It's about the design choices of the companies that make games; it's about watering games down to the lowest common denominator because the companies who make and publish games believe that gamers cannot handle complex gameplay. Again, examples of this are the oversimplification of magic and character development for mages in Dragon Age Inquisition. I cannot remember a blander and less evocative set of spells and abilities. Remember the spells in Baldur's Gate 2 or Neverwinter Nights?

 

Inquisition is not a disaster like DA2. In many ways, it may be a great game, and some of the people who have posted here obviously feel that way. I am not trying to claim that they are wrong. What I am trying to say is that Bioware broke their promise of a game "Made for PC Gamers by PC Gamers". That slogan implies exactly the elements that are missing from the game - detailed character development, complex gameplay mechanics, and so on. In the end "made for PC gamers by PC gamers" seems like a nothing more than an empty marketing slogan, and I do wonder whether Bioware ever meant to make good on their promise. Inquisition is so obviously designed as an action-oriented game grounded in a set of rather simple mechanics that it's hard to believe that they ever meant to deliver anything else. Features like the tactical view or the detailed character statistics certainly feel tagged on for the sake of appearances, and in their current state they add little to the core mechanics of the game.

[Kel Eligor]

I have never posted anything like this before, but Dragon Age Inquisition has really, truly taken things one step too far. After Dragon Age 2, I was quite sceptical, but the very positive review that were published just before release won me over, and I bought the game just before release. The bottom line: the reviewers must have been playing another game, and the developers did not keep the promises made while the game was still in development. It was supposed to redeem Bioware from the DA2 debacle, it was supposed to involve tactical gameplay, it was supposed to be a deep role playing experience. All this is not true, and I do not understand why the developers were not more up-front about their intention to make a generally accessible (to put it politely) game that would emphasise action elements over the complexities of real RPGs, such as the recently published Divinity: Original Sin or Wasteland 2. I also do not understand why Bioware did not simply admit that its focus is on console publishing and that Inquisition, in terms of interface and gameplay (and the game's very poorly optimised technical side) would play like a straight console port. This would have reduced expectations, and it would likely have saved them from the backlash that's now ocurring. The scale of this backlash seems to be similar to that provoked by Mass Effect 3, and I do not think that this is what Bioware had hoped for.

 

To be sure, it's not a complete disaster, as it's often made out to be. For example, the controls on PC are needlessly awkward, but they have not made the game unplayable for me. There's still some fun to be had with the game, particularly if you are a certain type of gamer. Still, it's worth repeating (and repeating again) some of the points that have already been made, so that perhaps eventually someone at EA or Bioware will finally listen to many very valid concerns:

 

1. Gameplay is shallow and repetitive. Quests are repetitive and fail to create a sense of a living game world that's interesting to explore. It's flash over substance - pretty graphics and fast gameplay for casual gamers, with little serious role playing to be found underneath.

 

2. There is no way to plan one's character as one can in a real RPG. No distributable attribute points, minimalist and generic skill trees, and no need to make an involved plan for the development of your character, as you can in real RPGs (think Divinity: Original Sin or Icewind Dale 2 or Wizardry 7 and 8). There's no real difference between the few ways available to differentiate one's character and what's on offer in any generic shooter.

 

3. Magic has become so simplified and spells have become so generic that playing a mage is a sad experience indeed. It's magic without magic - no sense of discovery or wonder to be had here. Remember the huge number of spells in Baldur's Gate 2 and the way you could use them to plan your combat tactis and counter opponents' tactics? What's really truly the difference between shooting Inquisition's variously coloured magic bolts and shooting a gun in any generic FPS?

 

4. The console-based, controller-friendly interface design takes a lot of atmosphere out of the game. Remember how in the Infinity Engine games you could pick up your items in the inventory and examine them and get lots of background info and backstory about them? Inquisition's list-based inventory does not convey the same sense of having found a real, unique item at all. Rather, items feel like generic power-ups you can pick from a list.

 

5. Why did the developers bother with the utterly useless tactical view? Why not admit that Inquisition is an action-oriented game? Any tester must have noticed well before release that the tactical view is essentially broken and useless, and the amount of work necessary to improve it is likely so substantial that it will never become truly functional. I mention this because it's really emblematic of the attempt to pass this game of as a tactical role-playing game when it's really casual action fare.

 

So, in sum, this is a flashy AAA game for an audience of casual gamers - it's mass-market popcorn. It's perhaps unfair of me to criticise the game for not being what I want it to be. However, Bioware did create the expectation that this would become a very different kind of game, and it's hard not to be disappointed. It's also hard not to be sad that a company that used to make great, rich, deep RPGs has so completely lost its way.

 

What is your deal? The game isn't getting backlash - it is universally praised. A couple dozen forum dissenting posts do not count as "backlash". Also you must be either new or blind because this is nowhere near the level of actual backlash that occurred after Mass Effect 3's ending. Furthermore, how is the game poorly optimized? It runs very smoothly on PC and isn't all that taxing even on mid-range rigs unlike Shadow of Mordor which had absolutely ridiculous requirements for ultra settings. 

 

Quests are repetitive? That's interesting because I feel as though people are not making the distinction between Requisitions and Quests - the two are very different. One allows you to gather resources for power and influence, the other immerses you in story missions that actively have you pit against Venatori, Red Templars, Demons or Darkspawn; all enemies of the Inquisition and some with scenarios that are very interesting (anyone seen the Still ruins in the Western approach yet?). You are certainly free to grind if you so wish, however I have yet to find quests besides closing Fade Rifts or collectibles that actually feel repetitive especially when compared to the endless fetch-quests of DA2 or the snail-paced encounters of Origins. 

 

To compare Dragon Age customization to a shooter is an uninformed, and frankly insulting hyperbole. Attribute distribution offered a very superficial degree of customization in the previous two games, as points would always be allocated to the same fields depending on your class. Warriors would invest in Strength and Constitution, Rogues in Dexterity and Cunning, Mages in Willpower and Magic/Intelligence. There was very little divergence from that besides the odd points in Cunning for the persuasion rolls or Constitution if you specced into Blood Magic. Coupled with the fact many pieces of equipment had stat requirements, there was frankly no freedom to actually customize your character outside of a few metrics if you wanted to be viable - especially at higher levels of difficulty. 

 

On magic - comparing Dragon Age to Baldur's Gate instead of - you know - itself is asinine and trite. A.) Baldur's Gate came in a time where games were not so detailed or advanced as to require hours of arduous work in art and animation. It allowed for much more effort to be dedicated to a diversified spell list. B.) Dragon Age: Origins and DA2 didn't have a plethora of incredibly unique spells. DA:O had a myriad of self-buffs which were just stat enhancers. They've been refurbished as passives. Even if they don't give you a shiny aura or lock your mana they are essentially the exact same things. C.) If you had access to a hundred spells, you would still only use a limited few in a spell rotation. Quantity does not measure to quality - a high number of spells simply makes balance much harder, and ensures that only a fewer number of spells will actually be viable. Again, comparing to an FPS is a gross hyperbole. 

 

You're literally being disheartened over a personal fantasy of what a game should be, with no concept of what actually goes into game-making. Dragon Age: Inquisition is vastly superior to its predecessors in almost every way. Combat is responsive - a trait sorely lacking in DA:O - and calculated - something that was missing from DA2. Because the control scheme doesn't please you doesn't make it any less good. The explorable vistas are massive, and far more detailed than anything found in any corridor found in Bioware games to date. If you want rich deep hands-on personal customization of your game world as opposed to being enriched in a cinematic world I suggest you try Skyrim. On PC. With all the mods of the world at your fingertips. No room to complain there.  

[qwerty78]

What is your deal? The game isn't getting backlash - it is universally praised. A couple dozen forum dissenting posts do not count as "backlash". Also you must be either new or blind because this is nowhere near the level of actual backlash that occurred after Mass Effect 3's ending. Furthermore, how is the game poorly optimized? It runs very smoothly on PC and isn't all that taxing even on mid-range rigs unlike Shadow of Mordor which had absolutely ridiculous requirements for ultra settings. 

 

Quests are repetitive? That's interesting because I feel as though people are not making the distinction between Requisitions and Quests - the two are very different. One allows you to gather resources for power and influence, the other immerses you in story missions that actively have you pit against Venatori, Red Templars, Demons or Darkspawn; all enemies of the Inquisition and some with scenarios that are very interesting (anyone seen the Still ruins in the Western approach yet?). You are certainly free to grind if you so wish, however I have yet to find quests besides closing Fade Rifts or collectibles that actually feel repetitive especially when compared to the endless fetch-quests of DA2 or the snail-paced encounters of Origins. 

 

To compare Dragon Age customization to a shooter is an uninformed, and frankly insulting hyperbole. Attribute distribution offered a very superficial degree of customization in the previous two games, as points would always be allocated to the same fields depending on your class. Warriors would invest in Strength and Constitution, Rogues in Dexterity and Cunning, Mages in Willpower and Magic/Intelligence. There was very little divergence from that besides the odd points in Cunning for the persuasion rolls or Constitution if you specced into Blood Magic. Coupled with the fact many pieces of equipment had stat requirements, there was frankly no freedom to actually customize your character outside of a few metrics if you wanted to be viable - especially at higher levels of difficulty. 

 

On magic - comparing Dragon Age to Baldur's Gate instead of - you know - itself is asinine and trite. A.) Baldur's Gate came in a time where games were not so detailed or advanced as to require hours of arduous work in art and animation. It allowed for much more effort to be dedicated to a diversified spell list. B.) Dragon Age: Origins and DA2 didn't have a plethora of incredibly unique spells. DA:O had a myriad of self-buffs which were just stat enhancers. They've been refurbished as passives. Even if they don't give you a shiny aura or lock your mana they are essentially the exact same things. C.) If you had access to a hundred spells, you would still only use a limited few in a spell rotation. Quantity does not measure to quality - a high number of spells simply makes balance much harder, and ensures that only a fewer number of spells will actually be viable. Again, comparing to an FPS is a gross hyperbole. 

 

You're literally being disheartened over a personal fantasy of what a game should be, with no concept of what actually goes into game-making. Dragon Age: Inquisition is vastly superior to its predecessors in almost every way. Combat is responsive - a trait sorely lacking in DA:O - and calculated - something that was missing from DA2. Because the control scheme doesn't please you doesn't make it any less good. The explorable vistas are massive, and far more detailed than anything found in any corridor found in Bioware games to date. If you want rich deep hands-on personal customization of your game world as opposed to being enriched in a cinematic world I suggest you try Skyrim. On PC. With all the mods of the world at your fingertips. No room to complain there.  

 

 

To begin with - why the personal attack? You can make your points without name-calling. I don't claim to be right about everything, and I am happy to listen and consider your views, without the name-calling.

 

As to your arguments:

 

1. The game was (almost) universally praised by professional viewers. Gamers' opinions seem to be much more polarised. There are more than just a couple dozen dissenting voices - take a look at Metacritic, or just read through this forum and count the number of strongly critical posts.

 

2. To compare the game's options for character customisation (or lack thereof) to shooters and similar action games is not uninformed. Rather, in recent years game design for shooters and other action titles has drawn on design elements from RPGs (such as limited character development based on skill trees and such), while (some) RPGs have become more action oriented, incorporating gameplay elements from shooters. Hence, for instance, the debate some years ago whether Mass Effect ought to be classified as a shooter or as and RPG. The comparison therefore offers itself.

 

3. The Baldur's Gate 2 comparison likewise offers itself, precisely because that game and related titles from roughly the same period were highly detailed and advanced in their own ways. Sure, making sophisticated 3rd graphics of the sort Inquisition offers will be hard work, and I am not trying to dimish the game's merits in that department. But what about gameplay? The Baldur's Gate 2 comparison is useful precisely because that game's spell system was well-balanced and offered a very wide variety of gameplay strategies, allowing the player to truly make use of its wide array of spells, instead of always using the same small set of default choices. The same goes for many other games of the period. Similarly, games like Icewind Dale 2 or Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 encouraged planning and diversification when it came to the development of one's warrior, rogue or mage and the distribution of attribute points, because its was possible to specialise them in many different ways in the course of a playthrough. Those games were great because they were complex without being unbalanced. So, if you are trying to say that this level of sophistication is not possible today because graphics absorb so much time and work, that would support my "flash instead of substance" argument.

[KennethAFTopp]

the overall lackof weapon variety sucks, aye, the game is far from perfect, but I've been having a TON of fun with it.

[Kel Eligor]

Yeah, Metacritic is a valid source of gamer opinion, what will all the 0/10 scores that literally appeared within hours of its release. You'll pardon my skepticism when I see reviews like this little gem on the front-page; 

 

Have been playing since the game came out midnight last night and I can't play anymore. The dialogues don't make sense. Let me repeat myself, the dialogues do not make sense. There is little logic or reason to the majority of the things that the characters say, the conversations are so random you think over half of it was cut out or they were randomly placed around, and it is so bad that it makes the writing in ME3 and DA2 look fantastic in comparison. That's not to say those other games had good writing, it is just that the writing in DA3 has gotten so bad that it DOES NOT EVEN MAKE SENSE.

I'm not even going to say anything about the graphics, animations, or gameplay, because I can't appreciate any of it when I feel like I'm being tortured by how stupid the story is. I really don't know what to say, I am really at a loss of words to get across just how bad the writing is. If I was a teacher and an elementary school student handed me a paper with this kind of nonsensical disjointed **** I would immediately give him an F, hand him a Dr. Seuss book, and pray to god he can overcome his retardation.

I don't know how the big game reviewers can overlook such bad writing and give this game mostly 90+ ratings. Maybe they all have the literacy of 4th graders. Personally I feel like DA3 writers are either retarded or they think we are mushrooms and think we can just be fed **** Yeah well I for one feel insulted and betrayed. DA1 and ME1/2 had good writing, and that's why I bought the games and gave DA2 and ME3 a chance, and although these later games obviously had worse writing, THEY WERE STILL COMPREHENSIBLE, WHILE MOST DA3 WRITING IS JUST TRASH! EVEN VARRIC'S SENSE OF HUMOR WAS DESTROYED! WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?

 

Give me a break. 

 

EDIT: This is actually more and more entertaining the more I read! Yes, let's consider the opinion of these astute individuals. They bring up some valid, constructive criticism about Bioware's failing in Dragon Age: Inquisition! 

 

Absolutely horrendous.
First of the animations are absolutely terrible, you have head turns which look a epileptic being exposed to strobe lights.
Graphical clipping everywhere, the textures are terrible almost none of them are more then 720.
The writing is abysmal and reminds me much of Twilight, or 50 shades of grey with its unabashed corniness and focus on characters sexuality instead of their personality.
The combat is depressing with no auto-attack and shallow generic abilities combat just ends up being me bashing buttons with very little strategic thought other then to stun enemies periodically.
I'm surprised anyone buys anything from EA, anymore.

 

How about this; people have a serious ax to grind against EA/Bioware and will use any argument under the sun to perceive them as incompetent and utterly vile.