289 réponses à ce sujet

[berrieh]

The #1 thing I'm glad about the ending is that it's not DA:O with a long, long, long battle through somewhere to someone etc. I hate long battles like that at the end of games - it's what often keeps me from finishing them. DA2 was nonsensical but short enough. DA:O was so long that with most Wardens I played, I stopped at the beginning of the assault on Denerim. So glad for the Keep that I don't need the import file since their stories stopped just shy of finished (I have at least 5 wardens that made it all the way to there and didn't get through, and only 2 - because I wanted to import them to DA:A and DA2 - that got through). This one was, IMO, the best ending to a DA game yet. 

 

In the OP, FF7 is referenced. I loved that game when I was 13, I really did. It's still okay, though I'm not sure I'd love it today like I did as a teen. It's just really, really emo. I definitely felt the tragedy of Aerith's death and was shocked by it in a good way. But that's a JRPG. There's no agency in a JRPG, and that's fine, but it's a totally different kind of story-telling than something like a BioWare game which is not only a WRPG but one where you get to shape the PC and the campaign. Killing companions - except at the end, if you must - doesn't really work in a BioWare game, in my opinion. Killing your sibling immediately was fine in DA2 because it was clear that both were never meant to be companions, and it happens right away. Killing one later is easily avoidable enough, but still pissed a lot of people off. I was lucky and didn't experience it - I would've reloaded and felt a complete lack of agency. Losing companions is one thing, but having them killed by the story is too much. The suicide mission in ME2 is at the end, so it's fine, though I still do everything I can to have everyone live and thus had to use guides the first few times through, which was a bummer. (Something like DA:A is more straightforward in how to make everything successful.) Also, that was done once, and there's no need to do it again. 

 

As to the feeling of general tragedy, important people can die at Haven. I lose Adan almost every time. Even if you save everyone, the workers died, people died, etc. I got a great feeling of tragedy. After that, you have the Hawke/various Wardens thing, where someone dies, too. Plus there is tragedy literally everywhere. Or on so many maps, at least. People are just being slaughtered. It's a mess. And you know what the future will hold if you don't succeed. I don't see the problem in finding tragedy - I guess if you only care about your companions; yeah, they're safe (though plenty have tragic stories - they don't die but lots of other tragedies in the companion quests). Yes, towards the end it feels like you're gaining ground, so when you win, it actually feels realistic. That's what it would feel like to actually win. You'd get really strong, thwart your enemies plans, and beat him. You wouldn't be brought to your lowest low and then magically beat him immediately after. Every step seems logical to me - You stop the demon army, you get political support and stop him from creating further chaos in Orlais, you outmaneuver him to get the Well of Sorrows and kill his lieutenant, and you figure out how to kill him in a way where he doesn't re-spawn. Meanwhile you fortify your castle making it a place he would NOT want to come, so Haven never happens again, and you consolidate personal and institutional power. Then, when you know how to kill him, he forces your hand, and you go immediately because you don't want demons to continue to murder people in the Hinterlands, etc. All of it made more sense to me than MOST stories in video games where you "gear up" for some final mission in a way that seems unrealistic. 

 

As to tragedy - how the people of the Hinterlands, of Crestwood, of Fallow Mire, of Empire du Leon, etc...how their tragedies couldn't make you care about what was happening, I don't know. I don't need a knife to Cassandra's throat to care. I didn't even need Haven to care, but it made me care more. The whole world is grim and low. 

 

Take a moment like the game of Wicked Grace with your entire squad. It doesn't feel earned because you and your crew hasn't been through enough hardship. Maybe you've spent 100+ hard earned hours doing side quests, and unlocking keeps, but the main story never reached a point for me where I felt like "man, these guys could really use some rest now"

 

That idea seems weird to me. IRL soldiers and politicians and important people have downtime fairly regularly. Everyone deserves a break and to just be a person for a little while. And there is so much they do in the story, that I'm not sure how it could be unearned? I felt like these guys had been going for months, and they could use way more rest than we saw. Hope they were also at the tavern once and awhile. 

[kyles3]

They should add a "Realistic mode", where if you or your companion dies, that's it, they're dead. It could run in conjunction with any gameplay difficulty . . . even on casual, there would be that "omfg don't die on me" moment. Please make this happen.

 

Fallout: New Vegas had something like that, and mostly it just made players mad at the companions they're supposed to care about. You don't cry, you curse the defective AI and re-load your last save.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

What might have improved the story is showing him as a still growing menace in the background, while you could do nothing because you didn't know what was going on, perhaps by reports of distant victories. You would've been ignorant of his next goal until some war table operation uncovered it instead of giving it to you right after completing the previous mission. That would also be an incentive to go exploring, put some clues in distant maps etc..

 

I don't mind the way the story was going, but there is a noticeable lack of tension after Wicked Hearts and Wicked Minds/Here Lies the Abyss.  

 

If only they had done that. I suspect it was originally planned that way or at least planned to have Corypheus & his forces more active, but that got cut for whatever reasons (time/budget constraints most likely).

What might have helped would be cutscenes that show his actions, much like the dream sequences about the archdemon or the scenes at Denerim with Loghain in DA:O. They worked well to keep both villains in your mind as actual threats and in case of Loghain gave him more depth, something they unfortunately completely missed with Corypheus. The way it is, Corypheus simply doesn't really seem like much of a real threat after Haven.

[WarBaby2]

As to tragedy - how the people of the Hinterlands, of Crestwood, of Fallow Mire, of Empire du Leon, etc...how their tragedies couldn't make you care about what was happening, I don't know. I don't need a knife to Cassandra's throat to care. I didn't even need Haven to care, but it made me care more. The whole world is grim and low.

It's fake, though... when you defiled the Urn of Sacred Ashes in DAO or Bastillas desition in KotOR, that was real tragedy, and you felt it... a few lines of text or some NPC's standing around on a quiet battle field, not so much.

 

Also: http://forum.bioware...version-of-dai/

[SogaBan]

They should add a "Realistic mode", where if you or your companion dies, that's it, they're dead. It could run in conjunction with any gameplay difficulty . . . even on casual, there would be that "omfg don't die on me" moment. Please make this happen.

That ain't a solution to issues as raised by OP. Nevertheless, it's good for a change to witness those "don't die on me" moments!

[eternalshiva]

You picked his forces apart the whole game, it was litterally just him and his dragon at the end because you took away everything. I felt satisfied at the well, his face cracked me up when he realised I foiled his plans again. He went from massive force to itti biddy tiny darkspawn magister.

 

I'm kind of sick of games playing the sacrifice card - I'm really refreshed I got to live at the end of the game.

 

What troubled me is how easy he was, even on hard. I struggled SO MUCH in DA2 to kick his arse. I was expecting the same fight, if not more, but there was no elemental use, no earth quakes, no crazy ice / thunder / fire thing going. omg I died so much in that fight. After I killed him in DA2 I was pumped.

 

Not so much here. It was lacking, dragons are more exciting but once you have their patterns figured out it's pretty simple. Maybe it will be different on nightmare? /crosses fingers

 

The tragedies around the maps were nice touches, the general struggle and hearing/seeing the effects of war on the areas really got to me. The Grey Wardens really tore at me ; ; I didn't want to fight them at all. I think I cried the whole time.

[Iakus]

 

- Mages or Templars: You save one and never hear anything about the other again... heck, you even get Dorian, although you had no hand in his story.

Actually, the Warden or Templars issue unlocks separate quests once you get to Skyhold.  

[RepHope]

I just watched the assault on Crestwood demo, where the Red Templars attack your base and you have to chose between saving the keep, Crestwood, or your wounded soldiers, THAT would've gone a long way to helping to your victory feel meaningful as even if you try to save two of those choices, you still end up losing at least one. Stuff like that would've helped make Cory more of a threat as now he's actually moving against you, rather than just letting you run ragged all over his forces. Was any reason given as to why that was cut? It would've been a great moral choice, and one that isn't "This will change Thedas FOREVER" important, yet still meaningful.

[WarBaby2]

Actually, the Warden or Templars issue unlocks separate quests once you get to Skyhold.  

Yea, but it doesn't fail any... all the mages quests just never show up. That's not how desition works, if one option isn't even appearent.

[NugHugs]

 

The game lacks an emotional drive and personal agenda. The opposition in the game feels weak. The Inquisition is too strong, too safe, and you and your Inquisition never ever experience any loss, tragedy or sorrow.

 

 

Both DAO and DA2 had small personal stories that had humble beginnings and a gradual build up, DA:I seems to have dropped that and literally started with a bang. Even though the Inquisitor starts off as a nobody (sort of), you're right, too much too soon, it feels unrealistic. There's so much drama going on left and right, with so many nameless faces, it makes it hard to fully emotionally invest in anything. That being said, I am still enjoying the game for what it is, not hating it for what it lacks.

[WarBaby2]

 

Both DAO and DA2 had small personal stories that had humble beginnings and a gradual build up, DA:I seems to have dropped that and literally started with a bang. Even though the Inquisitor starts off as a nobody (sort of), you're right, too much too soon, it feels unrealistic. There's so much drama going on left and right, with so many nameless faces, it makes it hard to fully emotionally invest in anything.

True, it really feels like that... it's just like with the Warden Commander in Awakening. The Inquisitor itself even remarks how overwhelming that whole setup is...

 

...wait, I think I got it. What if we really are playing the B story here? What if the original concept of the game had no random Inquisitor, but really HAWKE as the protagonist? What if that was the original plan, but, after people complained about how they wanted different races back in the next DA game, they dropped that plan? Think about it, it makes sense...

[NugHugs]

True, it really feels like that... it's just like with the Warden Commander in Awakening. The Inquisitor itself even remarks how overwhelming that whole setup is...

 

...wait, I think I got it. What if we really are playing the B story here? What if the original concept of the game had no random Inquisitor, but really HAWKE as the protagonist? What if that was the original plan, but, after people complained about how they wanted different races back in the next DA game, they dropped that plan? Think about it, it makes sense...

 

Yeah, that crossed my mind when Cassandra admitted that they were searching for Hawke so she/he could lead the Inquisition. Glad they didn't, besides, the series needs to retain some individuality from Mass Effect. DAO felt darker and more mature whereas DAI seems to have this comical tween feel about it.

[elearon]

I had expected more of the end.  They introduced the realm where all the mirrors connected and kept talking about the Black City - I anticipated both locations playing a part in the final battle with Corfunginous, (Thorax-in-a-bog? Laxative-log? Muck-sucker-frog?) with you treading the halls of lost gods and making a choice that would reshape the world; but instead its a short scene with a fight and over. 

I admit, of the third in the series I was expecting something more along the lines of ME3, tying all the previous games together in something enormous, epic, and final; instead it felt like one of those tv shows that gets cancelled halfway through the season and they're not quite sure how to end it so they just do.  Ultimately DA3 felt, more than anything, like a settup for DA4.

[WarBaby2]

Yeah, that crossed my mind when Cassandra admitted that they were searching for Hawke so she/he could lead the Inquisition. Glad they didn't, besides, the series needs to retain some individuality from Mass Effect. DAO felt darker and more mature whereas DAI seems to have this comical tween feel about it.

I know, I was only half serious there... but it still could have been the original plan at some point... before they desided that DA will not be a trilogy.

 

If the whole game is just a setup, however... hey, maybe it get's more dramatic down the line? I mean, Cory was kinda meh as a villian, most of uss can agree to that, I guess... but if overcoming him was just the prelude of things to come? Hmmm...

[MindWeb]

Eh, I'm just glad it's not another "No matter what u suck" end like ME3. About time we had a game where you can get a crapload of allies and armies and actually succeed. Unlike other people, I do not want a game where my progtaongist constantly fails and complains and angst like Shepard does in ME3. That got annoying hella quick.

To be fair, Shepard only really talked to others about his/her feelings if you let them, you can always just say you're fine.

[WarBaby2]

To be fair, Shepard only really talked to others about his/her feelings if you let them, you can always just say you're fine.

True, also, Shepard was hardly an angsty JRPG character... with all the sh*t s/he went through (including dying and getting resurrected), it was a miracle s/he held it together 'till part 3 at all.

 

Anyhow, not saying the idea of a new character each DA game is a bad one, but this time, the protagonist was kinda... bland? Maybe it was the fact we only got told the "origins" this time, not actually played though them.

[NugHugs]

I know, I was only half serious there... but it still could have been the original plan at some point... before they desided that DA will not be a trilogy.

 

If the whole game is just a setup, however... hey, maybe it get's more dramatic down the line? I mean, Cory was kinda meh as a villian, most of uss can agree to that, I guess... but if overcoming him was just the prelude of things to come? Hmmm...

 

There was a big emphasis on gods, elven lore, human corruption and religion. Majority of people are fawning over the "Herald of Andraste", and rationalizing your power as being divine. It felt like it was showing the player how easy it is for the people to label something as a god, only because they don't understand the individuals power.

 

Maybe they're setting up a revelation in a dlc or in the next installments on who the "gods" really are; Arrogant mortals who used their power to manipulate the weaker minds into thinking of them as divine.

[Trickshaw]

100% agree with the OP.

While I think Inquisition is a great game there was a clear lack of motivational drive to stop Cory. The story is what Old School Table Top RPG'ers would call "Monty Haul".

[Das Tentakel]

...wait, I think I got it. What if we really are playing the B story here? What if the original concept of the game had no random Inquisitor, but really HAWKE as the protagonist? What if that was the original plan, but, after people complained about how they wanted different races back in the next DA game, they dropped that plan? Think about it, it makes sense...

 

I think that was pretty much the case. The DA2 PR campaign also mentioned 'rise to power' a lot of times, and that is exactly what you're seeing in DA:I, but not really in DA2. It may also be the case that some of the DA:I locations, like Val Royaux, are partly leftovers from the cancelled DA2 expansion, since it and a few others are very DA:O/DA2-ish feeling.

 

It might also mean that the complaints about Kirkwall being boring and Hawke an inconsequential hero were really an unfortunate side effect of BioWare not having been given the time to tell the DA2 story they wanted to tell.

So, rather than a potentially interesting city-based adventure which failed because of lack of time and money, Kirkwall may have been just a stage in a more traditionally epic 'Chosen One saving the world' narrative that was cut off at midpoint because 1) they were not given enough time and resources to do it properly in the first place, and 2) the expansion that would have corrected this was cancelled.

 

Just consider this as a speculative conspiracy theory on my part

[Enrychan]

Why do people keep saying that we want tragedy when most of those who are disappointed just wanted more risk and drama?

"Drama" is not tragedy. It means "an exciting, emotional, or unexpected series of events or set of circumstances" (definition taken directly from google). It's not necessarily provided by the death of one or more characters. Drama can be built in others, much smarter ways, as any decent writer can tell you. Many of us felt no drama, or in other words, nothing "exciting, emotional or unexpected" in DAI after Haven, and that's the whole point.

 

Also ME2 *can* result in tragedy, but only if Shepard is an incompetent commander. If Shepard is a decent leader, the game will end in a literal triumph. That's the nature of leadership: you have the responsability of other people's lives in your hands. That should have been even truer for the Inquisitor, which was presented as "leader of leaders".

[Iakus]

To be fair, Shepard only really talked to others about his/her feelings if you let them, you can always just say you're fine.

Shepard only had two feelings:  sad or p*ssed off.

 

DAI, at least gave us more range when asked how the Inquisitor feels.

[Iakus]

I had expected more of the end.  They introduced the realm where all the mirrors connected and kept talking about the Black City - I anticipated both locations playing a part in the final battle with Corfunginous, (Thorax-in-a-bog? Laxative-log? Muck-sucker-frog?) with you treading the halls of lost gods and making a choice that would reshape the world; but instead its a short scene with a fight and over. 

I admit, of the third in the series I was expecting something more along the lines of ME3, tying all the previous games together in something enormous, epic, and final; instead it felt like one of those tv shows that gets cancelled halfway through the season and they're not quite sure how to end it so they just do.  Ultimately DA3 felt, more than anything, like a settup for DA4.

Dragon Age is a different type of serise from Mass Effect.  Mass Effect was all about Shepard.  It had a beginning, a middle, and an end.  Dragon Age is about the setting. it's designed to be open-ended.  If you reshape the world in a game, you have effectively ended the series.

 

I mean, if you storm the Blackened City, solve the riddle of missing gods that has plagued the world for thousands of years, reshape the nations of Thedas, where does DA4 go? 

[BroBear Berbil]

 

What troubled me is how easy he was, even on hard. I struggled SO MUCH in DA2 to kick his arse. I was expecting the same fight, if not more, but there was no elemental use, no earth quakes, no crazy ice / thunder / fire thing going. omg I died so much in that fight. After I killed him in DA2 I was pumped.

 

Though not the hardest, the Corypheus battle in DA2 was my favorite in the series. I don't think anything resembling it could be done in Inquisition, with the way combat and controlling the party works.

 

He was definitely too easy even on Nightmare. The final battle comes suddenly and then is over so quickly. I played through the game expecting that Skyhold's defenses would actually be tested like Vigil's Keep. I imagined the enemy would infiltrate the castle from the huge openings in the dungeon and undercroft which would all lead to the showdown with Corypheus and it just didn't happen.

[errantknight]

I think it depends on how you look at the inquisition and your goals. I saw it as largely a game of high stakes politics. Defeating Corypheus was the immediate goal, but fixing Thedas was as important and felt like it required a strong inquisition so gathering allies felt important. I never felt like I was doing busy work or that my choices on the table and in game didn't matter or were unimportant. I was trying to create an organization to enforce a kind of peace. The end result wasn't quite what my inquisitor intended, but worked, all in all.

 

I do think we could have used more interactions with corypheus or reminders of threat, though. If it was up to me, I would have added the kind of cutscenes on entering areas we had in DA:O to touch on the main plot and added random encounters that did the same. I might also have added another Haven-like encounter with Corypheus out in the world. 

 

A mechanic that created more of a sense of urgency might have been interesting, but that would also have discouraged exploration of the vast worlld, so I can see why it's not there. Oh, I know, rifts could have multiplied if you didn't get to them by a certain point--although that might also have discouraged exploration it's a tricky problem.

[berrieh]

Why do people keep saying that we want tragedy when most of those who are disappointed just wanted more risk and drama?

 

Because the title of the thread says, "Game lacking in tragedy..." and the OP gave a significant example of tragedy in FFVII. You may not be talking about tragedy, I guess, but that's the premise of the thread. Risk also essentially leads to tragedy so the two do go hand-in-hand. If a tragedy cannot happen, there is no real risk, is there?