320 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

The Origins setup was entirely different.
Example, Human Noble. You got to know your parents, your brother, his wife, your nephew, your freaking librarian and tutor, your dog. You got to know Arl Howe and Duncan, before anything else happened.

After Ostagar you had enough going to feel remorse for the people your lost, enough personal involvement to want revenge on Howe and Loghain, and enough motivation for you character to be believable and function in the world.

The reasons were primarily personal and political, the Archdemon was never a villain, just a plot device to steer the main story line.

HN is pretty atypical, though. If you're playing a dwarf or Dalish Elf, it's not at all clear why you should give a damn about Ferelden's politics. A City Elf might very well enjoy watching the whole rotten structure tear itself apart. A mage could go either way, depending on who she identifies with. And whether or not the destruction of the Grey Wardens at Ostagar matters is entirely dependent on the PC identifying with the Wardens. If the PC didn't -- if they were just something he was sentenced to -- then the fact that they got killed isn't all that significant.

What DAO could have used is an option after Lothering for the PC to say "screw this; I'm grabbing the first ship for Kirkwall." I guess after that the game could have loaded The Darkspawn Chronicles.

[qwerty78]

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.

 

1. There are are always going to be repetive, boring side quests.  This game is not close to as bad as other are in that regard, not as good as DA:O, but I think you are exaggerating how bad they are.

 

2. This is by far the game's biggest flaw.  In  DA:O you had to be dextrous enough or strong enough to use an ability.  Here instead you choose an ability and then gain strength and dexterity based on the ability instead.  That is backwards, the atrbitues should define what abilities you can or cannot use, the abilities should not define what attrbitues you have.  There is no real logic for it, it seems dumbed down and most importantly convoluted.  Who could ever think that such a system would even make sense?

 

3.  This can be combined with number 2, as it basically the same system.

 

4.  Everyone knows the PC interface is broken.  It should be more like DA:O than anything else, easy to use, had icons, you can drag things onto your character.  There was no reason to change it at at all. Basically thery were just too lazy to come up with proper PC controls and we all know it.

 

5.  Tactical view is useless.  All it is is a pause and play option with the camera angle elevated.  And yes there are problems like not being to see rifts and not seeing properly indoors.  A bigger is problem the lack of tactic like in DA:O where you can tell your tank to taunt an enemy if he is attacking you, or so many other custom behaviours you have.

 

 

You make some very good points OP, especially about the chracter creation and attribute points which I think is a very confusing system indeed.  But I think you exagerated somewhat.

 

 

Perhaps I exaggerated somewhat. I do think that my basic arguments are valid, though, particularly regarding basic interface and gameplay design. I any case, as I said in my original post, this is not a terrible game. I disagree with all the people who have given Inquisition zero-score reviews on Metacritic. One reason why I wrote a strongly critical assessment of the game is that it does reflect a poor attitude towards PC gaming and the expectation which many, many PC gamers have of RPGs. As I said before, this is a 100% console game with a 100% console design. Looking at the promises which Bioware made before the game's publication (just read this pre-release piece at PC Gamer on the supposed benefits of M+KB controls), that's just not good enough. My hope is that stating this clearly and repeating it often enough (without over-the-top negativity towards the game) will finally make people at Bioware and EA listen and take PC gamers more seriously. That's what this is about - stopping a trend in which second-rate ports of AAA console titles are the best PC gamers can still expect.

[Corto81]

HN is pretty atypical, though. If you're playing a dwarf or Dalish Elf, it's not at all clear why you should give a damn about Ferelden's politics. A City Elf might very well enjoy watching the whole rotten structure tear itself apart. A mage could go either way, depending on who she identifies with. And whether or not the destruction of the Grey Wardens at Ostagar matters is entirely dependent on the PC identifying with the Wardens. If the PC didn't -- if they were just something he was sentenced to -- then the fact that they got killed isn't all that significant.

 

 

HN gives you more reasons to care about Howe and the politics, yes.

 

Dwarf, Magi or Elf, you still got to know Duncan and Alistair and Cailan and (perhaps not all but most) people had ample reason to personally want vengeance on Loghain.

Regardless of how you felt about the Wardens (lets be clear, most players loved them), Duncan and Cailan show you kindness and give you a helping hand - even if happens to suit them.

And like you said, a Human Noble had even more reason to care.

 

We can talk about whether EVERYONE identified with the Warden and his/her motivations, but MOST people did.

 

Personally, while my Inquisitor felt a connection with certain companions later it felt:

- like I wasn't given ample explanation and motivations for my character's actions

- why the hell was he just not interrogated and killed in a medieval world where he was the only suspect for killing what is basically the Pope, instead of taken on a stroll with a high ranking officer.... I mean seriously, start matters, and the start here was just... whaaaa?

- like the Inquisition was started just to go and give you some organization you can call own, I really didn't think Cass/Leliana reasons were explained properly (or that the reason were even enough)

- like Cullen was fan service and just "there"

 

And this is entirely personal, and I don't expecting theists to agree, but speaking as a science-loving atheist:

- I never identified with the Inquisition, and to be perfectly blunt, I think forcing a player to be a quasi-religiuos icon and leader in a game is bad call by the writters... I'm sure there were other ways to form a non-theist organization and with the "save the world" goal.

Doesn't matter if you keep denying it, people just continue on about religion and it makes (me, personally) just not care about the whole thing.

I didn't see a reason to form a religious organization in the first place, I didn't see a reason to care for it later.

- the name itself, Inquisitor, leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many Europeans, knowing what exactly the Inquisition did here. It just felt wrong every time someone called my character by that title.

 

...

 

As an example... I'll refer to the Orlais plot.

It was done wonderfully, with good gameplay, decent introductions, some funny moment, good setting. Except...

I wasn't given reason to care. Whether Celene or Gaspar or anyone else ruled, I really couldn't care less.

I didn't know those people and I wasn't given a chance to get to know them.

It all felt a bit like the Denerim Landmeet, just that you were given a background and motivations and reason to care there...

So yeah. All good  and great, except they forgot you don't know those people and you do not care about them.

(assuming one hasn't read the books)

[MooseheadMcMoose]

BioWare: valuing form over substance since NWN (their last notable release).

[xXIronwhiteboy2Xx]

the tactical camera was useless and to add insult to injury you cat pick your teams tactics at all like in one and two so you have to completely micromanage your team which is gay but my main issue with the game was the side quest were completely uninteresting and boring every quest in DA2 had interesting characters and plot twists in inquisition its just go close a rift, go find my ring, go kill a bandit which I believe is pretty sorry coming from a company whose bread and butter is awesome storytelling

[otis0310]

Perhaps I exaggerated somewhat. I do think that my basic arguments are valid, though, particularly regarding basic interface and gameplay design. I any case, as I said in my original post, this is not a terrible game. I disagree with all the people who have given Inquisition zero-score reviews on Metacritic. One reason why I wrote a strongly critical assessment of the game is that it does reflect a poor attitude towards PC gaming and the expectation which many, many PC gamers have of RPGs. As I said before, this is a 100% console game with a 100% console design. Looking at the promises which Bioware made before the game's publication (just read this pre-release piece at PC Gamer on the supposed benefits of M+KB controls), that's just not good enough. My hope is that stating this clearly and repeating it often enough (without over-the-top negativity towards the game) will finally make people at Bioware and EA listen and take PC gamers more seriously. That's what this is about - stopping a trend in which second-rate ports of AAA console titles are the best PC gamers can still expect.

 

 

Hard to disagree witt that friend.  There is no doubt that this was intended for consoles.  The character building -  from attribute to perks, the interface, the fetch it quest, the poorly designed mount system, the lack of tactics, the lack of auto-autoack, the list goes on and on with questionable desgin choices that noone who was making a PC game would ever make.

[Ceoldoren]

I see the trolls have rolled in. Good to see you all. Make yourselves at home, I'm sure there's a nice bridge somewhere around here.

[stevemill]

Loved DAO to death. DAII had a...charm to it that made it enjoyable. DAI is the best Dragon Age to date.

Characters are robust. Strong personality's mixed with good voice acting. I ended up with Sera in my group a lot and I fell in love with the character during the Circle/Templar story arc.
Dorian is a total bag of awesome. Witty but also breaks things down plainly. His arrogance is a self defense mechanism.
Cassandra acts all tough and brutish, but she really cares. Her gruff side is shed off with some of her dialog.

I could easily go on (and risk spoilers) about just how awesome the characters are. Not to mention the open world, the faster paced combat that feels more real then DAO and the quests that get you really involved with not just the world but the lives of the people you interact with.

Ignoring the bugs with the game, or other technical issues, this is one of the best games to be released in years, and one of the best (if not the best) RPG in the last 10 years. Its hard, but not too hard. It provides a challenge that makes winning not a droll "as expected" result, but a "Thank The Maker!" (specially when playing on Nightmare, winning fights is so rewarding)

I see where critics are coming from and I have been playing FRPG's from Zork onwards but in the end I judge a game on whether i'm having fun playing it and not on what features it does or doesn't have compared to DAO or whatever.

 

DAO was a fantastic game and I've been playing it again recently.  But despite the tactical camera issue I'm enjoying DAI more.  It's a taste thing but I like the story better and I like the way it is being delivered better.  For me the DA games are interactive novels and I've enjoyed each in their own ways for different reasons.

 

So far for me, DAI the many positives greatly outweigh the few negatives. 

[stevemill]

HN is pretty atypical, though. If you're playing a dwarf or Dalish Elf, it's not at all clear why you should give a damn about Ferelden's politics. 

 

Good point.  By the end of the Elf Mage introduction I pretty much wanted to torch the place myself.  For my tastes the DAI set up for my character engages me more than DAO. But DAO is still a fantastic game.

[realguile]

Doomsayers in full effect. Whatever.

 

This game is freaking amazing and I love it to bits. Great job Bioware and keep up the effort. This game is well worth the wait and I thank you for your continued hard work.

[Schmonozov]

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. 

 

You are either ignorant or delusional, consoles are doing worse than they ever have, and several factors indicate that this decline will continue. Meanwhile PC gaming is bigger and better than it has ever been.

[Pauravi]

Doomsayers in full effect. Whatever.

 

This game is freaking amazing and I love it to bits. Great job Bioware and keep up the effort. This game is well worth the wait and I thank you for your continued hard work.

This.

I can't even believe this thread exists.  This game is epic beyond words.

[TheGoddess0fWar]

Thankfully people like you are a very small minority.

[Ocelot113]

"You already have your games, this one isn't for you--you don't have to change it."

Wait? Where? There is a Dragon Age: Origins type game that's been released in the past 5 years? Please point it out so I can buy it. Oh... right there's not. gg Dragon Age was the last bastion for in-depth high fantasy RPG party based games.

That being said, I'm sure if they fix the PC controls I will re-buy and enjoy DA:I, but to say, "You already have your games,..." is simply ignorant.

What if Mass Effect got more and more PC centrist as the series went along and just put less and less console features in to the point that it was really only playable on PC... oh, and Mass effect was the only RPG shooter on the market. Sounds fun right. I would be happy to be ignorant and judgmental to you just to keep the balance.

"You already have Mass Effect 1, go play that." Oh, brilliant point, me.

[Razir-Samus]

it ain't amazing if you play on pc... it's not dragon age either, it's something completely different, why didn't they name it something like RIFTRUNNER and swap out the factions/characters for other generic ones instead of trying to hold onto what little of dragon age was left in DA:I

Wait? Where? There is a Dragon Age: Origins type game that's been released in the past 5 years? Please point it out so I can buy it. Oh... right there's not. gg Dragon Age was the last bastion for in-depth high fantasy RPG party based games.

FF12 on ps2 is the only other game i recall having a tactics system (called gambits iirc), it works quite well in that too, if you get good at it... though that was released 8 years ago

[Sunlight Heart]

Because you can change attributes with your talent choices, of course.

But said attributes do either nothing, or very very little.

You can do almost the same damage and have the same health and stats as with just the gear you equip. I'm current running with no skill points used and I'm doing just as much damage as before.

[Uccio]

Seconded OP, I made a thread about this just today. Yours is just more in detail, I was being bored while doing mine.

[Kylisse]

Love the game myself.

 

The internet, the internet never changes.

[Razir-Samus]

Love the game myself.

 

The internet, the internet never changes.

no it doesn't, there's always lickarses that mock the people that "dare" complain

[AlanC9]

But said attributes do either nothing, or very very little.
You can do almost the same damage and have the same health and stats as with just the gear you equip. I'm current running with no skill points used and I'm doing just as much damage as before.

OK, but that's an argument for going all the way to completely removing attributes themselves rather than just the attributes screen. I don't have a problem with that myself.

[AlanC9]

Dwarf, Magi or Elf, you still got to know Duncan and Alistair and Cailan and (perhaps not all but most) people had ample reason to personally want vengeance on Loghain.

Meet, yes, but care? And I don't see it with Loghain. He betrayed the Grey Wardens, sure, but the PC didn't join the Wardens voluntarily. If I'm thrown into prison and a terrorist blows up that prison, killing the jailers but letting me escape, I don't have much of a reason to be mad at the terrorist even if I might have been killed in the blast. He's done me a favor.

 But yeah, most players just went with it, I'm sure. Bio games generally work best if you do that.

[Tremere]

This game is so disappointing that i actually rebought DA2 just so i can feel better

*laughs & laughs & laughs*

[Tremere]

HN is pretty atypical, though. If you're playing a dwarf or Dalish Elf, it's not at all clear why you should give a damn about Ferelden's politics. A City Elf might very well enjoy watching the whole rotten structure tear itself apart. A mage could go either way, depending on who she identifies with. And whether or not the destruction of the Grey Wardens at Ostagar matters is entirely dependent on the PC identifying with the Wardens. If the PC didn't -- if they were just something he was sentenced to -- then the fact that they got killed isn't all that significant.

What DAO could have used is an option after Lothering for the PC to say "screw this; I'm grabbing the first ship for Kirkwall." I guess after that the game could have loaded The Darkspawn Chronicles.

I agree with your assessment. In DAO I always played as a mage or human noble for all the reasons you mentioned and my experiences were respectively different. While the mage operated from a level of naiveté because of where he was raised, the human noble wanted revenge/justice to find those who betrayed his family. He never wanted to be a Warden and thus saw that as an aside to what he was really after. So, yes... I agree that DAO did a great job (in some respects) at getting you to invest in the story as it progressed.

[Redinferno124]

But yo do, don't you? In fact you know so well that everyone else saying it's not like that is completely in the wrong and should take their bones somewhere else.

I do because a man who's been in this industry for roughly 12 years is teaching me how to work in this industry and how he deals with this bs everyday. He tells me the horror stories of what happens when games don't make their deadlines, how releasing a game to poor reviews doesn't just mean you don't receive a bonus, but people get laid off, you can't pay to keep the lights on and most importantly, how reputation is everything.

 

He also said that not every idea on paper works well when actual implemented. Every dev has a deadline to keep and if you can't make it, most projects are simply scrapped. Even delaying a game a month isn't something devs can simply just do on a whim, especially ones who work for publishers.

 

Things get cut due to time/money constraints or the feature simply didn't work well or just wasn't very fun. You think devs like it when they have to cut back on their intended design?

 

Having extensive QA for a game doesn't mean the game will launch without bugs as people will always create situations the devs never intended to occur. It's true many games, especially this year simply didn't have enough QA and were rushed, but even the ones that are thoroughly tested will have bugs/glitches/exploits simply because the player is in control and will always find weaknesses in the code or design. It's inevitable.

 

There's also all the time you spend away from family and the long hours. It is a major strain on your personal life.

 

And in case you haven't noticed, games like this cost millions of dollars to make these days, so the pressure to deliver is even worse than it used to be.

 

It's also annoying when devs ask for feedback asking for bugs and technical issues that arise, as well as ideas for future content, and all they get is 60+ topics about how X game is better than your game because blah blah blah.

 

Is that enough for you? Or are you gonna just reply asking the same question and hope people come to your aid and shout me down?

[Razir-Samus]

bit of an exaggeration there red... given that the technical support sub-forum is full to the brim with threads about numerous glitches and bugs across the platforms, including my own issues too, which unfortunately don't get answered (mp lag/crash/freeze)

 

the devs obviously don't frequent the forums, and the bioware reps hardly chime in; they've responded to a grand total of two threads on the front page of this feedback sub-forum and that was about hairstyles of all things, and companion banter... neither of which are serious issues the game has at all