934 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Dragon Age: Inquisition doesn't have enemy damage sponges. Build your DPS better.

[Andrew Lucas]

"I hate this game but I bought all the expensive DLCs."

Okay Kanye.

[Amplitudelol]

I think stuff like that is just common to the vocal "hardcore" segments of any fandom. See what a vocal "hardcore" Star Wars fans think of The Force Awakens for comparison. (I just read a blog post referring to "those of us who were hurt by Force Awakens". There are some real crazies out there.)

 

The Force Awakens? Practically very good New Hope remake with much care not to offend old fans in any way. Nothing more nothing less. Unfortunately it didnt add many new things to the Star Wars universe but it was a good movie, got good ratings all over tha place - from both "users"/pro people. Unlike Inquisition, you can read pretty differing opinions about it, and not only hyperbole bs. It took a **** on DA lore in many aspect (how many abominations have anyone encountered in the game despite of the utter chaos in the war they fought? - one example among many), gameplay and side content is full mmorpg in solo mode including the garrison/wartable missions. The tactical depth consists of sometimes correcting the position of team members and manually using the barrier spell while clickspamming the basic attack and using the 3-4 ability "dps rotation" on one character on nightmare difficulty with trials. The open world is clearly not finished - there is no narrative at all, just the World of Warcraft leveling experience with less detail to story (not kidding, WoW zones since Cataclysm haave better self contained stories than Inquisition) - or got butchered to fit the game on last-gen consoles. They managed to create an ismoetric view that is better using a controller and only good for repositioning party members due to nonexistent click to move in hack'n'slash camera mode. Of course there are a lof of little details like your race/backstory being nonimportant at all, consequence of decisions not changing anything before the very end, main story made into missions separated from the mmo zones, ending coming with DLC, etc, etc. Id say BW made everything they could to offend those who became fans of DA when the first game hit unlike J. J with his new carefully crafted new Star Wars movie - which unfortunately tells nothing new or groundbreaking of the Star Wars universe.

[KaiserShep]

I always thought that previous DA games kind of spammed abominations. They're supposed to be super powerful and not that common, yet they reached mook status in DA2.

[AlanC9]

I think stuff like that is just common to the vocal "hardcore" segments of any fandom. See what a vocal "hardcore" Star Wars fans think of The Force Awakens for comparison. (I just read a blog post referring to "those of us who were hurt by Force Awakens". There are some real crazies out there.)

You got a link to that? Sounds hilarious.

[AlanC9]

give me examples in which area you think DA:O failed in?.
i think it deserves to have legendary status amounts other legendary games.

Even a legendary game can have plenty of flaws. Off the top of my head, DA:O had:

Terrible game balance.

An irrational main plot.

Poor warrior and rogue skill trees, leading to characters who all play the same.

Some poorly designed choices

Several lame boss fights.

Tons of filler combat. And unlike DAi, DA:O makes you slog through the stuff as part of the main missions.

Those are the major flaws. There's a bunch of minor stuff too.

Note that this is not a list of stuff that DAI does better. Bio's house style has a lot of flaws.

[AlanC9]

It took a **** on DA lore in many aspect (how many abominations have anyone encountered in the game despite of the utter chaos in the war they fought? - one example among many),

An example of what, exactly?Bio not re-using something that they used a lot in the previous games?

The tactical depth consists of sometimes correcting the position of team members and manually using the barrier spell while clickspamming the basic attack and using the 3-4 ability "dps rotation" on one character on nightmare difficulty with trials.

And DA:O was better? I just ran the standard ability routine for all my fights there too. Plus potion spamming.Hell, it tactics worked on the PC I wouldn't have had to touch the controls.

[abisha]

Even a legendary game can have plenty of flaws. Off the top of my head, DA:O had:

Terrible game balance.

An irrational main plot.

Poor warrior and rogue skill trees, leading to characters who all play the same.

Some poorly designed choices

Several lame boss fights.

Tons of filler combat. And unlike DAi, DA:O makes you slog through the stuff as part of the main missions.

Those are the major flaws. There's a bunch of minor stuff too.

Note that this is not a list of stuff that DAI does better. Bio's house style has a lot of flaws.

 

what about the main plot? it's reasonable arch demon ain't your friend it's to destroy the world, i see no reason why it suppose to talk like many other villains do.

anyway this is a personal experience, so i leave it with that. so if you find it weak fine.

 

rogue/warrior they not the same especially when you play on hard.

 

poor design choices like what?

 

not sure what you expect from a video game but repetitive combat (filler combat) is unavoidable they cant make 100 separate enemy's with unique ability's.

if you know one please share because that will be the first.

 

as for the other points they kind of vague to write anything of value.

[CronoDragoon]

not sure what you expect from a video game but repetitive combat (filler combat) is unavoidable they cant make 100 separate enemy's with unique ability's.

if you know one please share because that will be the first.

 

It's largely about whether you can minimize the boredom that comes with grinding trash mobs. FWIW, this flaw is even bigger in Dragon Age: Inquisition, simply by virtue of how much bigger the maps are (= more trash mob encounters).

 

Chrono Cross is a 60 hour RPG with over 60 bosses. The trash mobs are sparse in between bosses and you can run past them. In fact, it's preferable to, since EXP doesn't exist in Chrono Cross; level-ups occur when you defeat a boss.

 

Another example would be combat situations that all feel unique and hand-crafted, such as SRPGs like Tactics Ogre or Final Fantasy Tactics that each feature a special map for that combat situation.

 

I'm not saying these styles would necessarily be preferable, especially since many CRPG fans are used to fighting tons of trash mobs and might complain about a lack of combat situations, but alternatives certainly do exist that can make combat feel more fresh.

[VorexRyder]

The difference between DA:O and DA:I(DA2's problem was that it was rushed TSL-style) is that BW should have improved on DA:O with DA:I instead of finding new ways of ****** up. DA:O wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but two games later you expect BW to know what to do with DA instead of still being in the experimental stages. The bar is raised for consecutive games in a franchise, thanks to things like a more experienced team who has had two DA games to get their bearings. DA:O also had a Mabari companion, Mabari companion. I can't take my Inquisitor seriously as a Hero without a Mabari.

 

Instead DA:I just finds new ways to disappoint.

 

PS: **** Orlais, seriously **** them. **** everything about the Orlesian nobility. **** Orlais.

[AlanC9]

It's largely about whether you can minimize the boredom that comes with grinding trash mobs. FWIW, this flaw is even bigger in Dragon Age: Inquisition, simply by virtue of how much bigger the maps are (= more trash mob encounters).

Though a lot of the time you can just ride past them. In practice, of course, you probably want the XP until you've outleveled the zone.

[AlanC9]

what about the main plot? it's reasonable arch demon ain't your friend it's to destroy the world, i see no reason why it suppose to talk like many other villains do.

The treaty business makes no sense. If someone walked up to the White House waving a treaty nobody knew about that John Adams had signed, would Obama take it seriously?

rogue/warrior they not the same especially when you play on hard.

My point was that every S&S warrior plays like every other S&S warrior, and so forth.

poor design choices like what?

Poorly designed choices. Some of the choices make little or no RP sense. Probably a hangover from KotOR where evil for the lulz was a thing

as for the other points they kind of vague to write anything of value.

You mean I need to walk you through terrible game balance and lame boss fights? I thought that was self-explanatory.

[pdusen]

The difference between DA:O and DA:I(DA2's problem was that it was rushed TSL-style) is that BW should have improved on DA:O with DA:I instead of finding new ways of ****** up.

 

Wow. Don't **** up. That's genius! I can't believe no one has thought of that!

[bEVEsthda]

Even a legendary game can have plenty of flaws.

 

Can  have plenty of flaws?

I'd say it's b***y absolutely certain that it will have. All games have plenty of flaws.

 

So that's really not the point. Making long lists is meaningless. What matters is if you like the game. If you don't like the game, it should always be easy to make a long list of flaws. If you like the game, you can also doubtless see areas where you'd like to see the game improve, but basically, you don't think those details are so important, and you'd be delighted to buy it again.

 

So the heart of the question is, why did you like it? Or why did you not like it? Reaching to the core of that matter is not so easy as to ask for some "constructive criticism" that is common to both critics and fans. The bile and vomit haters excretes against hated games is much, much more informative. Really.

 

It's dangerous to make radical changes. Correction, I'll rephrase that: You should never do radical changes to a franchise! If you want to make a different kind of game, make a new franchise.

 

I think DA:I is a likable game, a good game, well worth the investment in time and money. But it's not a great game and not a legendary game. DA:O is, no matter how long lists people make. And that is much of DA:I's problem, because people will always make that comparison. New gamers, discovering DA, should IMO be directed towards playing DA:I first.

[AlanC9]

It's dangerous to make radical changes. Correction, I'll rephrase that: You should never do radical changes to a franchise! If you want to make a different kind of game, make a new franchise.

So, you're basically against Bio's entire design philosophy?
 

I think DA:I is a likable game, a good game, well worth the investment in time and money. But it's not a great game and not a legendary game. DA:O is, no matter how long lists people make.

Meanwhile, I'm rating the games at a near tie. I think DA:O's still a couple points up. FWIW.

As for legendary... that would require caring what other people think. My only interest in such questions is if there's enough support to keep Bio making more.

[CronoDragoon]

It's dangerous to make radical changes. Correction, I'll rephrase that: You should never do radical changes to a franchise! If you want to make a different kind of game, make a new franchise.

 

I don't really agree with that, especially where it concerns aspects of a game that receive plenty of negative feedback.

[In Exile]

So the heart of the question is, why did you like it? Or why did you not like it? Reaching to the core of that matter is not so easy as to ask for some "constructive criticism" that is common to both critics and fans. The bile and vomit haters excretes against hated games is much, much more informative. Really.

 

It's dangerous to make radical changes. Correction, I'll rephrase that: You should never do radical changes to a franchise! If you want to make a different kind of game, make a new franchise.

 

I'm shocked to see that you're so opposed to BG2, which was a far more radical change to the BG franchise than DA2 was for DA:O. I for one admire Bioware radically re-inventing their dungeon crawler into one of the finest story-driven RPGs of that generation.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask Sylvius the Mad on his thoughts about the transition. As he was more a fan of BG1, he's far more qualified than I to point out the radical changes in design. 

[bEVEsthda]

I'm shocked to see that you're so opposed to BG2, which was a far more radical change to the BG franchise than DA2 was for DA:O. I for one admire Bioware radically re-inventing their dungeon crawler into one of the finest story-driven RPGs of that generation.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask Sylvius the Mad on his thoughts about the transition. As he was more a fan of BG1, he's far more qualified than I to point out the radical changes in design. 

 

No. I don't think the changes to the franchise is "radical" between BG and BG2. It remains very much the same kind of game in the same world, IMO.

I don't think that's appropriate to say about DA:O/DA2 at all.

BG2 is more linear and focused. I'd prefer it to play like BG, but you can't have everything. There is the workload and what is technically possible to consider. BG2 compensates and I don't choose between those games. I like them both.

[bEVEsthda]

I don't really agree with that, especially where it concerns aspects of a game that receive plenty of negative feedback.

 

Sometimes "plenty of negative feedback" is just an illusion. Like a dozen very active forumites. It can be dangerous to listen too much to gamers. First question: was the game successful?

But basically, I think we're off the track here. We're not talking about radical changes to the game.

[bEVEsthda]

So, you're basically against Bio's entire design philosophy?

 

Are you saying that it's Bio's design philosophy to make a sequel as a different type of game in a redesigned world?

Then it may very well be the case that I'm against Bio's entire design philosphy. Yes.

By the way, - have Bio done so well with that?

[bEVEsthda]

Meanwhile, I'm rating the games at a near tie. I think DA:O's still a couple points up. FWIW.

 

Making the effort to be objective, I think that's fair, and decently accurate in my estimate too. DA:I does some things better than DA:O. It deserves credit for those things.

Alas, the DA:O vs DA:I issue is not objective. Most DA:I critics played DA:O first and it's their first love.

[CronoDragoon]

Are you saying that it's Bio's design philosophy to make a sequel as a different type of game in a redesigned world?

Then it may very well be the case that I'm against Bio's entire design philosphy. Yes.

By the way, - have Bio done so well with that?

 

I think we might want to define what constitutes a radical change. Certainly they haven't changed genres within a franchise, but I'd consider ME1 --> ME2 to be fairly radical. Same with BG1 ---> BG2, especially considering the difference in approach with story and characters.

 

As far as feedback is concerned, I don't think there's many cases where radical change is implemented purely on fan request; it's likely it's something the devs agree with and want to do anyway.

[AlanC9]

No. I don't think the changes to the franchise is "radical" between BG and BG2. It remains very much the same kind of game in the same world, IMO.

But doesn't this take us right back to the subjectivity that you mentioned a few posts back? Who gets to say what makes one game "like" another?

[AlanC9]

Are you saying that it's Bio's design philosophy to make a sequel as a different type of game in a redesigned world?
Then it may very well be the case that I'm against Bio's entire design philosphy. Yes.
By the way, - have Bio done so well with that?

Pretty much. I don't know if it's useful to think of NWN as a sequel to BG2, but you were supposed to be able to import your character, and it is the same world. The only Bio sequel I think is very much like its predecessor is ME3.

As for whether it works..... it works for me, and Bio's still here.

[abisha]

The treaty business makes no sense. If someone walked up to the White House waving a treaty nobody knew about that John Adams had signed, would Obama take it seriously?

My point was that every S&S warrior plays like every other S&S warrior, and so forth.

Poorly designed choices. Some of the choices make little or no RP sense. Probably a hangover from KotOR where evil for the lulz was a thing

You mean I need to walk you through terrible game balance and lame boss fights? I thought that was self-explanatory.

 

their was no other reasonable way, unlike arranged marriage then again how many females/males did they need to create people will cry it was a dating simulation.

 

My point was that every S&S warrior plays like every other S&S warrior, and so forth

this have nothing to do with Dragon age, this was already in motion when the first D&D rules where write. also do not make much sense of creating a (tank) other using heavy armor and shield.

 

look what it brought to DA:I the inquisitor is a butterfly goodie good shoe that have zero choose. Evil? it's a addition something you sudden hold dearly in a RPG world