320 réponses à ce sujet

[IST]

Totally agree with the topicstarter. 

DAI is a distaster and very sad game at the same moment, when you imagine what a great game it could became with all these design, graphics and budget. And of course there're a lot of people who would like it -- it's AAA, huge marketing budget, it's easy and appealing to casual player. 

 

But at the same time DAI is just NOT a RPG. It's action game with some skills, crafting and(mostly) boring blurry-movie dialogs\cutscenes. Single player MMO without openworld, without dialogs which matter, but with linear quests and dialogs, almost no reactivity, mininum choices and consequences.

It's Kingdom of Amalur meets Mass Effect meets 'name your favorite generic MMO'.

 

In additional DAI lost all that dark fantasy setting and atmosphere. Remember when DAO devs said the Martin's books were the insprirational? Forget that. 

 

Instead of good restaraunt with unique food and lots of different dishes(as BW was telling ALL us the time before release) we were welcomed to an average McDonald's with fast, easy to serve and eat generic unhealthful burgers and soda. I'm not telling you that MD is so bad, no, but you know, opening a multibillion fast food cafe and telling that everyone should go there and eat all the same food till next day, it's not a thing one should be proud of.

 

So, CD Project with Witcher 3 it the last one standing for a true AAA RPG.

 

Dude... If Inquisition isn't a RPG, then The Witcher sure as heck isn't

 

The Witcher has no character creation, real-time aim based combat and has real time parries/strikes etc... sounds more like an action game to me than Inquisition....

 

FWIW: I love both franchises pretty much equally, but saying The Witcher is the savior of "true" AAA RPGs since Inquisition is an "action" game is mental.

[scrutinizer]

The Witcher has no character creation, real-time aim based combat and has real time parries/strikes etc... sounds more like an action game to me than Inquisition....

Well, that's why it's THE witcher, not a witcher or witchers. You play as Geralt, the main character from Sapkowski's novels. And when you think about it, the combat is designed to reflect that.

1) the active pause (featured in TW1) or turn-based is not really necessary, since you only control Geralt

2) the lone wolf, brutal, in-your-face action combat perfectly mirrors the style, uniqueness and finesse of the witchers, undeniable masters of their craft. The combat had to be fast and hit hard. Turn-based or relying heavily on action pause (as in infinity engine games, or DA:O) would not convey the same feeling.

3) if you try the harder difficulties, you will find yourself in a predicament where elixirs, poisons, traps and your signs are vital for survival. While it sounds like typical run-of-the-mill generic RPG stuff, it is not. You don't just quaff several potions during a combat encounter when you are getting severely injured and then fight on like nothing is happening. The alchemy part goes deep and is an inseparable part of the tactical approach you choose.

4) the character development options are decent, though not elaborate. This is because, again, you play as Geralt, a specific type of person. Granted, you can specialize in witcher signs (your equivalent of magic), alchemy or sword fighting, and these are three distinct playstyles. 

5) in Role Playing Games you are expected to play a role. Here, you assume the role of Geralt, a fully fleshed out character (more so than any other DA character, and especially your protagonist). Thankfully, he is extremely relatable with his down-to-earth, simple and frank approach.

6) The world and its inhabitants are both as coherent as it gets. The story is coherent, the interaction is meaningful and makes sense. The dialogues are top notch.

 

So yes, I would call The Witcher an RPG, though the one in which you play a predefined character.

Apparently a notion emerged, which confines RPGs to your standard Baldur's Gate-esque games.

 

Now, my point is.

When I play any of the witcher games, I feel that I'm playing an RPG. In my time with the Inquisition, I felt like I was playing an action game.

And the discrepancy between the two series is now bigger than ever. The Witcher has substance (and a bit of flash), DA has flash (and little to no substance), apart from DA:O. After DA2, the direction of the series is quite clear. When you think about it, even DA:O has an uninspired, predictable story and a setting that's in fact not original in any way (the same applies to ME series. Bioware seems fond of 'borrowing' ideas from different authors and works, and blend them together), but its gameplay saves it. 

Let's just agree DA:I is a decent game at best, that tries to cover its blemishes behind the overall flash. You have an empty and static open world that is not open. You have a dull, repetitive combat in which the simplest strike explodes with the myriad of flickering lights displaying the whole RGB palette. You have a vast amount of side quest that are copy-paste fillers with little story behind them. You see my point? The flash is here. On the surface, this games looks brilliant. Scratch it though, and you will see what the veil hides.

 

Peace. 

[Lukas Trevelyan]

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. 

WTF

[Geth Supremacy]

99% of reviewers are literally working for and paid by developers/publishers. As you find these people you should just write them off and never read anything they say ever again.  If you can't tell who they are by now it would be good to start paying attention to the fine details.  I don't even really use reviews at all anymore, but there are some good reviewers out there still that aren't "bought out"

 

take it all with a grain cuz its a business.

 

you guys remember last year microsoft was busted buying reviews?  You think theres not more to it than that?

[Lukas Trevelyan]

Its one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to state ridiculously false facts.

Dragon Age Inquisition isn't a RPG? Are you for real? 

What kind of action combat include pause and play and micromanagement? Hell even a tactical camera; granted it works much better on a controller than Keyboard/mouse. What kind of action combat gives you full ability to customize every bit of your character's face, hell even pick between multiple races, then define their character based on your prefrence. YOU CAN EVEN PICK YOUR VOICE. Want to be an andrastian qunari? YOU CAN. Wanna role play as a character who hates all mages? YOU CAN. Want to roleplay as a knight in shiny armor? YOU CAN. Want to have magic? Want to customize your gear and give it different stats? Want to explore the lands? Want to help people no matter the position? Want to be a politician? Or would you rather be a soldier? 

Honestly such arguments are baffling and wrong, and whoever makes them should feel ashamed of themselves. 

[Lukas Trevelyan]

Also want to add how funny it is that the only 'backlash' this game is getting is from these very forums. (And that awful metacritic user review section) 

[Thomas477]

I'll be honest, you had me at Wizardry 8. I loved the hell out of that game.

[Maboroshi]

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.

Actualy, this is the fear of many PC gamers as well but I think that, ultimately, it is unfounded. While it is true that the overall trend is toward consolization, there are still game studios that develop games for the PC as it lead development platform such as Larian, Obsidian, CD Projekt, Paradox, Wild Hog Games to name a few. What needs to happen is that us gamers need to speak with our wallets and support those studios that actually care about making decent PC games that we PC game lovers appreciate and enjoy. Bioware was at one point this kind of company but not anymore.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think EA/Bioware will sell the Dragon Age IP as long as it thinks it can make a profit from it, which means that a true sequel to DAO is not likely to happen soon. I would not say never, but, in all likelyhood it will not happen in the near to medium term....unless....and and I say this with much skepticism.....UNLESS...the backlash against DAI is so great that BW feels compelled to substantially alter the gameplay, interface and leveling mechanics in THIS game ( which seems like a very tall order since these were conscious design choices made from the get go) and fix the myriad of bugs and glitches that have made the game nearly unplayable for a number of gamers. As it stands, the latter issue is much more likely to be patched than the former. To add insult to injury, perhaps not even modders will be able to salvage the game since BW is not likely to release a SDK for the Frostbite 3 Engine. It seems EA will not allow it.

[Corto81]

Dragon Age Inquisition isn't a RPG? Are you for real? 

 

 

He isn't correct, no. It is an RPG.

But the depth is fairly shallow compared to some other games out there, including Bioware's own prior ones.

 

The customization of your character has been severely limited.

No stats on level-up, weapon-locked skill trees, no weapon swapping, no access to your inventory or spell trees in combat, limited spell number you can use to go with it (absolutely mindboggling design when you put it together), no pickpocketing or persuasion, etc etc.

 

Meanwhile, while the world is big and explorable, it's also dead. NPCs that don't move or walk or talk, non-interactable objects, immersion-breaking cut-off points and invisible walls (go back to warroom to unlock, etc.),

 

Combat is a mish-mash of action and tactics that wants to be both and ends up being good at neither (too many pauses, not fluid or responsible enough to be proper action combat, and at he same time, AI behavior and useless tac-cam make the tactical and strategic combat an absolute chore).

 

The game is a very good game, but it's a very mediocre RPG.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

He isn't correct, no. It is an RPG.

But the depth is fairly shallow compared to some other games out there, including Bioware's own prior ones.

 

The customization of your character has been severely limited.

No stats on level-up, weapon-locked skill trees, no weapon swapping, no access to your inventory or spell trees in combat, limited spell number you can use to go with it (absolutely mindboggling design when you put it together), no pickpocketing or persuasion, etc etc.

 

Meanwhile, while the world is big and explorable, it's also dead. NPCs that don't move or walk or talk, non-interactable objects, immersion-breaking cut-off points and invisible walls (go back to warroom to unlock, etc.),

 

Combat is a mish-mash of action and tactics that wants to be both and ends up being goof at neither (too many pauses, not fluid or responsible enough to be proper action combat, and at he same time, AI behavior and useless tac-cam make the tactical and strategic combat an absolute chore).

 

The game is a very good game, but it's a very mediocre RPG.

While I respect your PoV, you made quite a few errors.

1- While there's no stats on level-up, you can still craft or even take passives that increase the stats you want. For instance I could've easily increased my strength on my mage through 1 component of the staff.

2- Access to inventory and spell trees is locked in combat for QoL. You simply cannot decide to change your armor or swap out spells in the middle of combat. Having them unlocked was a feature rpgs just happened to have. And the limit just compliments the design decision, as it wouldn't make sense to limit your abilities (to allow for more preplanning), then just give you access to spells anyway.

3- What game are you playing exactly? NPCs move and talk the whole time. Simplest example being the elven widow in Hinterlands, once you defeat the rift infront of her she'll start leaving her house. Or the refugee who has a sick wife constantly moves from shelter to the outdoors. NPCs talk so much sometimes their dialouge is bugged and a couple say the same thing at the same time.

 

4- You can't pick pocket but you can definitely persuade. Actually some dialouge gets locked out based on your personality. If you made choices that were religious for example you'll start getting religious related options. If you've unlocked the noble dialouge perk you can persuade them to be at your side. Among many other options that are based on your choices, including race, class and even specialization.

5- There are very few 'invisible walls' and the areas that you need to go back to war room to unlocked are clearly blocked and will need more than your inquisitor to open. Again excellent QoL. 

Arguably combat isn't the best, even though I enjoy it immensely. But that's another thing. This game is an awesome rpg simply because it satisfies the 'role playing' far more than just text and armor. Which consequently led to less options true, but It's a step in a really good direction. 
 

[Darkly Tranquil]

Also want to add how funny it is that the only 'backlash' this game is getting is from these very forums. (And that awful metacritic user review section)

Go read the comments on Angry Joe DAI review on YouTube. It's a bloodbath over there.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

Go read the comments on Angry Joe DAI review on YouTube. It's a bloodbath over there.

 

The comments in one video, of one youtube reviewer. Okay. 

[Corto81]

While I respect your PoV, you made quite a few errors.

1- While there's no stats on level-up, you can still craft or even take passives that increase the stats you want. For instance I could've easily increased my strength on my mage through 1 component of the staff.

2- Access to inventory and spell trees is locked in combat for QoL. You simply cannot decide to change your armor or swap out spells in the middle of combat. Having them unlocked was a feature rpgs just happened to have. And the limit just compliments the design decision, as it wouldn't make sense to limit your abilities (to allow for more preplanning), then just give you access to spells anyway.

3- What game are you playing exactly? NPCs move and talk the whole time. Simplest example being the elven widow in Hinterlands, once you defeat the rift infront of her she'll start leaving her house. Or the refugee who has a sick wife constantly moves from shelter to the outdoors. NPCs talk so much sometimes their dialouge is bugged and a couple say the same thing at the same time.

 

4- You can't pick pocket but you can definitely persuade. Actually some dialouge gets locked out based on your personality. If you made choices that were religious for example you'll start getting religious related options. If you've unlocked the noble dialouge perk you can persuade them to be at your side. Among many other options that are based on your choices, including race, class and even specialization.

5- There are very few 'invisible walls' and the areas that you need to go back to war room to unlocked are clearly blocked and will need more than your inquisitor to open. Again excellent QoL. 

Arguably combat isn't the best, even though I enjoy it immensely. But that's another thing. This game is an awesome rpg simply because it satisfies the 'role playing' far more than just text and armor. Which consequently led to less options true, but It's a step in a really good direction. 
 

 

1 - there are no stats on level-up. That is a fact. Stats being locked into your skill tree doesn't do much for freedom of choice in your build.

I could do a crit-based, low-constitution warrior in DA:O... Or a beefy, low-INT/WIS mage.

Point is, customization is funneled and limited.

 

2 - access to inventory and spells being locked in combat is stupid. There's no excuse.

Why would I be cut off from reading up on a spell because I'm in combat (and there are no tooltips btw)?

Swapping out armor is a pretty lame excuse, since games from 1999 (BG for starters) had the "you can't swap armor while in combat" thing going.

Also, you go in as a fire based mage, run into fire based demons in the middle of E. du Lion (an icy area).

You're locked into your Fire staff and Fire spells, with no access to your inventory or spells. You KNOW lightning/spirit spells, but your mage just can't remember them in that moment.

 

I don't see how that is logical, strategic, tactical or fits the lore.

 

3 - "NPCs move and talk the whole time"?

I dunno what to say to this. Have you played Skyrim or Witcher 2? Have you seen what a city of people "living their lives" and reacting to you looks like?

No, in DA:I, NPCs do NOT move and talk the whole time. They don't have jobs or chores, there's no day-night cycle, etc etc.

Go around Skyhold or Val Royeaux. Count how many people move or talk or react to you. See how many you can pickpocket or nudge. Take your clothes off, see if anyone says anything.

That is stuff that I don't even mind in a party-based, story-driven RPG with semi-linear design like DA:O.
But when a game wants to be open world, like DA:I, it's certainly noticeable - world, while big and beautiful, feels dead.

 

4 - Persuasion isn't picking a dialogue choice without me investing something in my character.

That's just picking an option from the dialogue tree.

Persuasion is an alternative way of getting certain stuff done (not all, of course) by investing in your character by way of points or traits or something.

It's not set in stone HOW you have to invest in it, but you DO have to invest in it in SOME WAY - in order to actually differ from a character that has nothing invested in it.

 

5 - There should be NO invisible walls in an open-world game. One or two per every zone (unlocking missions), it adds up. Especially if you don't have the power there and then to unlock, but have to go grind power to do it.

Also, while, again, I LIKED the open world and found that to be the best part of the game, itemization and leveling needs re-tooling.

Level-locked content in an open world is very punishing and impractical.

If I whack a LVL 14 dragon at level 12, why should I wait for level 15 to equip my new gear etc.

 

...

Anyway, at this point, I'm just repeating myself from the other thread.

 

Bottom line, I consider DA:I to be a very mediocre RPG (but a good/very good game).

And I think I can argue my case with (mostly) factual data/information.

[Linkenski]

Not completely shallow. They should get a pat on the back for making all the side content related to the story since all of it is about strengthening the Inquisition, but I could've done with some more creative quests unrelated as well, like ME1's quests of people with random issues who need advice or wants you to do spy work or stuff like that.

I think the main story has some issues, but it had a great potential. The themr of faith was the most interesting and deep part of the narrative. I don't want people to overlook that just because some loud guys keep saying this game is a train wreck because of broken MK controls and WoW quest designs. It has a lot of good stuff despite of these issues.

[AtlasH]

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.

 

 

Couldnt agree more. Funny thing's you cant play rite due to lots of bugs killing the enjoyment when there's so less to be had.

[VilhoDog13]

Some of this is pure opinion that people are spouting as factual.

Especially the equipment/stat discussion.

Some may believe it's limiting, I think it's forgiving. It's all perceptual. Hopefully people won't continue to approach their point of view as being completely true.

[movieguyabw]

Go read the comments on Angry Joe DAI review on YouTube. It's a bloodbath over there.

 

28,071 likes vs 973 dislikes.  Starting to seem very much to me like only a small percentage of the fanbase is actually hating the game; they just happen to be making a lot of noise about it.

 

Also, the majority of negative comments on that video seem to be from people angry that Bioware included homosexual love interests.  There might be people on there complaining about glitches or something else - but from what I've been seeing in that comment section, the idiotic "Bioware is pandering to minorities!!" crowd drowns them out.

 

Besides, top rated comments seem to be in support of the game and Joe.  Hardly a bloodbath IMHO.

[Razir-Samus]

28,071 likes vs 973 dislikes.  Starting to seem very much to me like only a small percentage of the fanbase is actually hating the game; they just happen to be making a lot of noise about it.

 

Also, the majority of negative comments on that video seem to be from people angry that Bioware included homosexual love interests.  There might be people on there complaining about glitches or something else - but from what I've been seeing in that comment section, the idiotic "Bioware is pandering to minorities!!" crowd drowns them out.

 

Besides, top rated comments seem to be in support of the game and Joe.  Hardly a bloodbath IMHO.

there isn't a crowd, you're overestimating them because they are loud

 

a youtube video is hardly the best place to gauge how the whole community feels about the game to begin with, if you were to use likes and dislikes to judge such a thing then 3% of people don't like the game (in your words, because they pander to the LGBT crowd), while 97% of them absolutely love it and find no fault with it whatsoever... so do you see what i'm getting at?

[movieguyabw]

there isn't a crowd, you're overestimating them because they are loud

 

a youtube video is hardly the best place to gauge how the whole community feels about the game to begin with, if you were to use likes and dislikes to judge such a thing then 3% of people don't like the game (in your words, because they pander to the LGBT crowd), while 97% of them absolutely love it and find no fault with it whatsoever... so do you see what i'm getting at?

 

I was only talking in terms of the previous statement that said the comment section on that video was (in the person I quoted's words) a "bloodbath".

 

His comment was in response to someone saying that the only place they've seen a "backlash" has been here, and on the metacritic rating.  Everywhere else people seem to be rather happy with the game.  Darkly presented the comment section of AngryJoe's video (which gave a glowing review of the game) as proof that a lot of people are angry elsewhere on the web.  I pointed out that the majority of people "liked" his video, the top comments on there were in support of the game, and that the majority of negative comments there about the game were for rather bigoted reasons - and had nothing to do with anything anyone on this site has brought up.

 

I wasn't presenting AngryJoe's video as proof that there are only a few loud people out there who hate the game.  I was pointing out why Darkly Tranquility using it as evidence to the contrary doesn't work.

 

 

I've commented on this thread before, saying I have seen absolutely no backlash for this game outside of these forums.  Not saying the game is without flaws, or people have not acknowledged glitches elsewhere.  However, there is so much venom in a lot of people's words on this forum that I haven't really seen elsewhere.  Yet I still see people ranting on here saying things like 'everyone knows this game is a piece of garbage'.  Outside of these forums I have seen next to no one complain about it.  Most people seem to enjoy it, from my experience.  So yeah, like I said in my last post - I'm starting to get the impression that it's a vocal minority who really hate the game.  Like I said in this post, though, I wasn't presenting AngryJoe's video as evidence of that.  Was only calling into question what exactly Darkly Tranquility meant by "bloodbath", and why he was presenting a comment section filled with rather homophobic posts as evidence that people are pissed off about this game in more places than on here and metacritic.

[Bladenite1481]

Personally, I don't post on forums until I start getting bored and or despising the game. At this point its like detoxing from its malaise. The shiny new has worn off and what you get now is what it is..an average RPG. I put it on the same tier as like Lords of the Fallen or maybe even KoA. Its nothing new, nothing interesting and definitely isnt going to be like Skyrim and keep me interested for very long. 

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Im glad ive been playing & enjoying Inquisition for the past week, coming back on BSN & seeing the "DA:I sucks in everyway, BW is dead, anyone who enjoys the game is a easily impressed casual gamer biodrone" comments is just depressing

[Bladenite1481]

I think its quite wonderful that others are enjoying the game, it does make me believe the problem is more likely that what I want from a video game is just not inline fiscally with what BW is willing to produce on a massive scale. They are making money and people are enjoying the game, the RPG in the vein that I and many others would like is dead to them I believe. 

[AgenTBC]

Personally, I don't post on forums until I start getting bored and or despising the game. At this point its like detoxing from its malaise. The shiny new has worn off and what you get now is what it is..an average RPG. I put it on the same tier as like Lords of the Fallen or maybe even KoA. Its nothing new, nothing interesting and definitely isnt going to be like Skyrim and keep me interested for very long. 

 

We must want very different things in an RPG. Because Skyrim, like most Bethesda games, is to me a beautiful but hollow engine.  The gameplay is shallow, the combat system barely even qualifies as a "system", and the plot is terrible. 

 

I am always enthralled by the Elder Scrolls games for the first 20 hours until I realize they're like junk food;  nothing but empty calories in a very sweet package.

 

Bioware games are usually the opposite.  An excellent game in a lackluster package.

[octavian1127]

Im glad ive been playing & enjoying Inquisition for the past week, coming back on BSN & seeing the "DA:I sucks in everyway, BW is dead, anyone who enjoys the game is a easily impressed casual gamer biodrone" comments is just depressing

 

I actually just feel sorry for them, they're the same people who are never happy with any game on release.

 

And, honestly, anybody who has an issue with the keyboard controls is not exactly an experienced pc gamer. I can damn near play the game with one hand (slopes require the mouse). People sit here and compare the game to Baldur's Gate, then complain about camera angles...

[AlanC9]

Now, my point is.
When I play any of the witcher games, I feel that I'm playing an RPG. In my time with the Inquisition, I felt like I was playing an action game.

Well, that's the thing. I don't share your feeling. They both feel like RPGs to me. In the absence of some sort of objective definition of "flash" and "substance," I don't know where to go from there.