54 réponses à ce sujet

[bluebullets]

Before I start, I need to explain that I do not believe in 7-10 rating systems. i believe 7 is a very decent game, and that a 5 is nothing to be ashamed of.

0 - burn it with fire

1. absmal

2 - terrible

3- (very) bad

4 - below average

5 - average

6 - above average

7 - much above average ... good (very good)

8 - greatness, stellar, etc

9 - almost flawless.

 

So if I give a game a 7, that is actually a large compliment. If I give it a 8, it probably blew my mind.

For reference, I'd give DA:o (probably my favourite game of all time) an 8-8.5 and da2 (a game I thoroughly enjoyed) a 7.

 

now onto the review...

 

7.5/10.

 

DA:I is a very well thought out game. On paper, it should be amazing- goty. They took everything they did wrong in da2 and tried to fix it (small, reused zones, lack of party communication, paraphrasing small scale, etc) and they improved this by introducing skyhold as a hub to talk to the party, fixing up the dialogue wheel, making an AMAZING open-region game, etc. and on paper, da:I should be the best in the series. There are, however, things that hold it back from greatness.I'll go through the pros and cons.

 

pros

-The world is vast and the zones are gorgeous. I usually do not care about the world/enviornments themselves, but in DA:I, they were undeniably beautiful.

-the dialogue wheel was improved and paraphrasing wasn't an issue like in da2

-While flawed in some ways, combat was surprisingly fun.

-The cast is very good. (characters, party, etc), although I did not develop an emotional attachment to them.

-While many will disagree, I feel sidequests were much more relevant than any other open world game. (i VASTLY VASTLY VASTLY perfer dai sidequests to skyrim)

-the story kept me engaged

- there were a lot of  very interesting companions and I appreciated the return of "talking to your companions at any time" as well as the return of the party camp (skyhold)

cons

-the controls (especially taccam) leave much to be desired

-I feel unattached to my party. At the end of DA:O I felt deeply taken back by saying goodbye to my friends and whatnot. In DA:I, during the course of the game I had my party calling me a friend but at no point did I feel it. the relationships were not paced well nor well built. They were great characters and I like them in theory, but the emotional bond isn't there.

-the main story seemed EXTREMELY short. The game took 90 hours but i feel like most of it was filler or sidequests. I kinda feel like if the filler was removed it would be a <8hr story

-A good amount of the sidequests felt MMO-ish.

 

 

All in all, I think DA:I should have been great, but it just lacks a soul. It lacks an emotional bond with characters and the inquisitor and minor control issues take away from the experience. I think next time they need to work on that, aswell as put more focus on the main plot itself and have more interesting side quests that involve the companions (none of them even say anything about the sidequests in da:i)

I would have enjoyed this game 1000x more if I had developed bonds with my "friends". a Bioware game is a character game and without feeling real emotions, it kind of ruins the (whole idea of) the bioware game for me. I did not feel emotionally for my LI, nor my friends.

-lack of choices that change anything.

 

Even with these flaws, A:I was very good and enjoyable.

 

75/100.

[Casuist]

There being only 8 hours of main story content, if you parse it down that way, is no worse (indeed, better) than just about any game out there, including DA:O. If you run the main story and the companion quests along with the core regional quests (not including Forbidden Oasis) you'll run 25-50 hours depending on pace and how much you pause to pick things up along the way.

 

Sorry to hear you didn't connect with the characters... I think the DA:I pacing of friendships and the amount of content available is actually substantially better than DA:O (more extensive companion quests, and less ability to power-level approval and dialogue trees). 

[JCAP]

This is a good feedback. You made a good review where you exposed the good and bad of the game. There are many people here that could learn from you.

[III Poison III]

So there's no 10 and you give your fave game of all time an 8? Not sure if serious.

[bluebullets]

So there's no 10 and you give your fave game of all time an 8? Not sure if serious

my favorite game had flaws. It was brown and combat has issues, among other things. I love it despite its flaws, but it does not deserve over an 8.5.
an 8, as I said, is greatness. It is hard to surpass greatness. I do not believe in 7-10 ratings. an 8 is a huge accomplishment imo.
 

Only imbeciles give 10s. With that said, I probably meant to put 10 in the OP, and forgot. that or I just assumed that people knew 10 == perfect.

 

I don't believe in perfection.

[ORTesc]

Very nice review. It's a shame more time wasn't spent on the main quest or at least making the sidequest better quality. Filler is a big issue with this game.

[bluebullets]

One thing i forgot was that crafting and skyjold were pretty cool as well. good systems.

[ORTesc]

Only imbeciles give 10s

 

There have been games released that deserve such rating, but I believe they truly need to be innovating to achieve such a score. Ocarina of time immediately comes to mind, possibly Golden Eye 64. It should be a rare score, but not impossible.

[bluebullets]

There have been games released that deserve such rating, but I believe they truly need to be innovating to achieve such a score. Ocarina of time immediately comes to mind, possibly Golden Eye 64. It should be a rare score, but not impossible.

I think that people tend to look at zelda with nostalgia covered glasses.

OOT was far from perfect though. There are things it could have improved on. In order to get a 10, it means NOTHING can POSSIBLY be improved, and this state of being does not exist. Even the greatest games can be improved.

[Viidicus]

10/10 means its a masterpiece, and masterpieces can still have faults. 10s exist, even with faults. 

[Jeradon]

Personnally I found out a  good and interesting game , but it lacked the pace it had during the tutorial section. In the game we are free to roam, and of course free to take any dull quest which comes our way ( we will need a tutorial about how to select dramatic quests in this game)

 

"A good amount of the sidequests felt MMO-ish." I completely share that opinion. Repetitive quest+ the UI + the streamlined combat gave me the impression that we were in an off line version of an MMO, with the possibility to explore (but without on-line chat).

The thing I miss the most is the team management. Beyond occasional approval from this or that character, we do not have the  cutscenes and face to face dialogues we had at DAO. I have not found any gift for my teammates either. 

[Quibber123]

I think that people tend to look at zelda with nostalgia covered glasses.

OOT was far from perfect though. There are things it could have improved on. In order to get a 10, it means NOTHING can POSSIBLY be improved, and this state of being does not exist. Even the greatest games can be improved.

Saying 10/10 means nothing can be improved and is impossible to achieve is very counterproductive and also very subjective. I don't think I have, along with many people, ever felt 10/10 means absolutely perfect that would be a bad way to rate games on for MANY reasons including everyone is different. What you're saying is if a game is 10/10 there won't be a single person who would say it could be improved. That's impossible. That's a bad rating system. 10/10 should be reserved for games that get as close to perfection for yourself as possible. Also of course they will look at OoT with nostalgia goggles on it was many people's first experience with a game they would consider to be a masterpiece or "10 out of 10." It came out in 1998 not 2014 of course there are dated mechanics in it.

 

To tie this into Dragon Age: Inquisition I think it is around 8-9 out of 10 if it gets patched up then I could definitely consider it being tied with DA:O for me, but in it's current state it's just under.

[Quaddis]

I miss "ask a question, get a question, kill talking oak" quests.

[Draninus]

Excellent review.  Very level headed analysis of the good and the bad of this game.  Your score is exactly what I would give this game, personally and I agree with you on the majority of your points.

[Maverick_One]

Before I start, I need to explain that I do not believe in 7-10 rating systems. i believe 7 is a very decent game, and that a 5 is nothing to be ashamed of.

0 - burn it with fire

1. absmal

2 - terrible

3- (very) bad

4 - below average

5 - average

6 - above average

7 - much above average ... good (very good)

8 - greatness, stellar, etc

9 - almost flawless.

 

So if I give a game a 7, that is actually a large compliment. If I give it a 8, it probably blew my mind.

For reference, I'd give DA:o (probably my favourite game of all time) an 8-8.5 and da2 (a game I thoroughly enjoyed) a 7.

 

now onto the review...

 

7.5/10.

 

DA:I is a very well thought out game. On paper, it should be amazing- goty. They took everything they did wrong in da2 and tried to fix it (small, reused zones, lack of party communication, paraphrasing small scale, etc) and they improved this by introducing skyhold as a hub to talk to the party, fixing up the dialogue wheel, making an AMAZING open-region game, etc. and on paper, da:I should be the best in the series. There are, however, things that hold it back from greatness.I'll go through the pros and cons.

 

pros

-The world is vast and the zones are gorgeous. I usually do not care about the world/enviornments themselves, but in DA:I, they were undeniably beautiful.

-the dialogue wheel was improved and paraphrasing wasn't an issue like in da2

-While flawed in some ways, combat was surprisingly fun.

-The cast is very good. (characters, party, etc), although I did not develop an emotional attachment to them.

-While many will disagree, I feel sidequests were much more relevant than any other open world game. (i VASTLY VASTLY VASTLY perfer da2 sidequests to skyrim)

-the story kept me engaged

- there were a lot of  very interesting companions and I appreciated the return of "talking to your companions at any time" as well as the return of the party camp (skyhold)

cons

-the controls (especially taccam) leave much to be desired

-I feel unattached to my party. At the end of DA:O I felt deeply taken back by saying goodbye to my friends and whatnot. In DA:I, during the course of the game I had my party calling me a friend but at no point did I feel it. the relationships were not paced well nor well built. They were great characters and I like them in theory, but the emotional bond isn't there.

-the main story seemed EXTREMELY short. The game took 90 hours but i feel like most of it was filler or sidequests. I kinda feel like if the filler was removed it would be a <8hr story

-A good amount of the sidequests felt MMO-ish.

 

 

All in all, I think DA:I should have been great, but it just lacks a soul. It lacks an emotional bond with characters and the inquisitor and minor control issues take away from the experience. I think next time they need to work on that, aswell as put more focus on the main plot itself and have more interesting side quests that involve the companions (none of them even say anything about the sidequests in da:i)

I would have enjoyed this game 1000x more if I had developed bonds with my "friends". a Bioware game is a character game and without feeling real emotions, it kind of ruins the (whole idea of) the bioware game for me. I did not feel emotionally for my LI, nor my friends.

-lack of choices that change anything.

 

Even with these flaws, A:I was very good and enjoyable.

 

75/100.

Now I can respect this. You stated your issues with the game without being rude, nasty or otherwise disagreeable. Why can't more people do this? As for the 10 thing I can see both sides, and not sure where I stand on whether there should be 10's in rating things or not. Mostly because it is a matter of opinion and not fact. If you would rate something 10 I think it should be something that is considered fact and not up for dispute. Because otherwise you get those annoying arguments back and forth about opinions with neither side budging and you just go in circles. Now that I see my opinion typed out I don't think 10 is feasible so no 10s for me either.

[Althix]

topic starter i believe you had no connection to the party members or npcs around because emotions are done badly. take a closer look, in the most cases, no matter how excited character is, only its mouth is moving. Like in the cheap cartoon really. Or like in robot-chicken - when they have a plastic model and "animated" mouth. Same situation with DAI.

 

As result, lack of actual facial expresions with badly done lips movements makes you feel detached from the characters. They don't feel as they are alive, more like a robots really. And to enforce that feeling in some scenes some npcs are moving their heads in very robotic manners.

No immersion at all. And even if i had that feeling of immersion into the world of Thedas, it was completely ruined by the voice over.

 

You can make very young looking elf, with the eyes of the teenager. and this elf will have a voice of 30 years old men. I am sorry but only this breaks immersion hard and in instant.

[Marshal Moriarty]

For me, the War Table pretty much *was^ the game. I enjoyed trying to work out what was the most efficient but also politically sensitive approach to the various problems, and when was the time to just say 'Hell, I need to send in the boys to make sure this gets done!' Without the War Room, I probably wouldn't even have finished the game.

 

Skyhold seemed cool at first, but I realized quickly that I used less than a quarter of it, I'd run to the merchant, sell my stuff (never bought a single item of any description!), run into the keep, drop off my creature study stuff, check if the throne has any people waiting by it for judgement, head to the War Room. I just wasn't interested in decorating Skyhold or crafting items (which I hate in all games). But most strikingly, I didn;t care about talking to my guys, The new conversation view is very off putting, because there;s no expressions or gestures. So yes, I agree that it felt soulless.

 

And the exploration and combat did feel like an MMO (which I can't stand). Exploration was just 'Look at map, click nearest icon, head to it, pick up item, kill guys, plant flag, whatever, rinse and repeat - for days!' Combat was a joke, and I never had to pay any attention at all, Just hold down attack until the enemies are all dead. Never really bothered tagerting specific people first, never had much use of the tac camera, and I was still using the same spells at the end of the game that I was at the start! Didn't help that I got a staff in the HInterlands (Tyyggr's staff) that was so powerful, I never found anything better - still had it when I killed Corypheus!

 

But yeah, its just that lack of engagement on any level that killed it for me, I put in a lot of hours, but that means nothing - I thoroughly play all my games to get my money;s worth and I always finish all my games, I loved the political and strategic use of assests aspect that the War Room brings, but everything else? Meh.

[Adynata]

Shouldn't this be in the feedback section?

[Aurok]

Your rating system has soul but isn't good. 3/10

[AshesEleven]

I disagree, because I'm playing through and I spent most of yesterday feeling upset because one of my decisions made a companion very sad, and I feel like the game has a lot of soul.  But your points are well made and I respect your opinion and the score you gave this game.  Nice to see someone be level-headed.  

[bluebullets]

Shouldn't this be in the feedback section?

 

Perhaps. i don't think I can move it at this point though.

[bluebullets]

I disagree, because I'm playing through and I spent most of yesterday feeling upset because one of my decisions made a companion very sad, and I feel like the game has a lot of soul.  But your points are well made and I respect your opinion and the score you gave this game.  Nice to see someone be level-headed.  

the reason I'm so torn here is that I love the characters, in theory. Iron Bull is awesome. Varric is a stipend. Sera is quirky and awesome. Solas is solas. Cassandra is a great companion..
But... I feel nothing. I wish I did because they're great, but I don't.. Perhaps it's due to what others mentioned: the static bodies without emotion, the 3rd person camera, the voices, etc.

But i also think it is just way the relationships progress. I think it needs to be slower and more fleshed out. the bond needs to build, it cannot be forced.

[Marshal Moriarty]

With the conversations being so detached due to the new view and the very limited ways in which you can stamp a distinct personality on your character (you usually just say 'Tell me about this, tell me about this, tell me about this, oh that's interesting- tell me more, tell me about this etc etc), and the companions quests being very dull, it makes engagement very hard.

 

I particularly miss the cutscenes etc that you get in DA2 and sometimes ME3, where you find the characters hanging out together as you arrive, like they aren't always glued in place in their respective zones. There's a small handful of scenes in DA:I but barely any really (the wicked grace game, Varric and Solas's involvement in Cole's personal quest etc etc)>

 

Even at the end, your characters are all celebrating in seperate areas of the room. It was very deflating to see that, as was the lack of a communal 'Who's the man - WE DA MAN!' moment.

[JeffZero]

That game of Wicked Grace is one more fantastic scene of full-on main cast frolicking interaction than, uh, either of the other two Dragon Age games ever got, and any of the Mass Effects ever got until literally the final DLC last January. IMO, Inquisition's cast gets along famously relative to the casts of its Thedas predecessors on it alone.

[bluebullets]

That game of Wicked Grace is one more fantastic scene of full-on main cast frolicking interaction than, uh, either of the other two Dragon Age games ever got, and any of the Mass Effects ever got until literally the final DLC last January. IMO, Inquisition's cast gets along famously relative to the casts of its Thedas predecessors on it alone.

No. Lol. it does not get along with anything based on one scene. One scene is not enough.

The wicked grace game was the ONLY good rapport-building scene (oh, and the drinking scene with bull). and i actually think marshal was right in his comment. That might be a big reason I feel the way I do as well.