145 réponses à ce sujet

[Kinvarus]

I don't think that necessarily means that the game was rushed, I think it more means that there was other things that would have liked to have put in the game for launch but couldn't so they will be adding it later, at least that's how I read it.

[katokires]

Exactly. This whole concept that there ever was a perfect age for gaming is nostalgia at best, fiction at worst. Sure, the modern era has its fair share of bad elements (intrusive DRM, overpriced DLC, dishonest marketing, endless Activision and Ubisoft-like iterative sequels) but this idea that RPGs released complete and bug free in the past because evil EA wasn't there is completely ridiculous and doesn't hold up to even a cursory examination of actual facts. Hell, if people think EA is bad, Interplay basically jettisoned the Fallout franchise back in the day because they wanted to turn an isometric RPG into third person shoot 'em ups and stupid stuff like that, while actually canning a proper Fallout 3. Whatever you think of Inquisition, it's nowhere near as bad as that.

 

I have no problem with someone prefering a certain style of isometric RPGs over games like Inquisition, and I love Fallout and Baldur's Gate as much as the next person, but it seems some people need to put those titles on a pedestal that they never reached, which is puzzling to me. These games stand on their own quite well, no need no shroud thm in some sort of mythical perfection and pretend they are things they never were.

Again the fallacy of perfection. I would say not even 1% of the players demand a perfect game. 10% at most took time to actually think about what would be the perfect game. Why you keep using "no game is perfect" or "it is always rushed" or anything else that nullifies critics? It is not about perfection it is about not delivering what they promised, that's just it. It is not about a good, bad, perfect ot broken game, it is all about expectations. There is nothing like BG is perfect, or Fallout, but it can be perfect for a person or a group and THEY ARE.

It is bizarre you people thinking people actually think a game is technically perfect, EVERYBODY knows that they are talking about they personal taste when saying a game is perfect. So "pretend they are things they never were" does not apply, since it is personal and if the person says they were perfect, they were.

What did get into you to think that somebody actually believe these old games are flawless? Or godlike, or whatever?

I'm sure there is no child here to think so. Things you try to make it look like they are not rational are indeed the other way around, irrational is to think when somebody says that a game is perfect they actually mean it does not have any flaws... so much for being literal I guess?

Can we move on now to discuss things understanding what they mean? I've been trying to explain it for a while, different people like different games for different reasons and all of them are right. There is nothing like good, bad, right or wrong reasons, you play a game and love or hate that game for your own reasons and that's it. Spread hate or love all you want and let thy neighbor do the same and the world will keep spinning.

The whole problem with this forum is discussing what should not be discussed, it is not hate. If people who hate the game get together it will be wonderful. If people who love the game get together it will be beautiful. What should you discuss you ask? OBVIOUSLY not preferences. There are tons of things to be discussed.

So nobody can dictate "Inquisition is not as bad as that", also nobody can say "yeah it is" beyond their own likings, and that's it. So if a person think Inquisition is "as bad as that" how can you possibly say it is not?

That being said I have nothing against strictly technical discussion, since you can argue productively.

[Dragoonlordz]

Yes it was. You originally stated "It will all be paid for DLC and a lot of it will contain content they cut," you then changed this statement to agree with Links that any DLC featuring cut content will mostly be as an afterthought. It is you that is moving the goalposts, your original statement was dead wrong.

 

What on earth are you babbling about? I changed nothing about my original point or comment. I also never said the addition of cut content will be or will not be an afterthought. I moved no goal posts. It will be paid for DLC and a lot of the DLC's will contain cut content, you have failed to prove me wrong and link agreed with me even though did not realize was doing so...not the other way around. Your grasp of the english language is seriously lacking if think what I said was 'dead wrong'.

[keyip]

What on earth are you babbling about? I changed nothing about my original point or comment. I also never said the addition of cut content will be or will not be an afterthought. I moved no goal posts and you have it the wrong way around.

 

Of course you did. Your original statement was this: "It will all be paid for DLC and a lot of it will contain content they cut,"

 

Links came back with this: "and chances are some cut content will make it into it.  the cut content is extra stuff thrown in if they have the time to implement it."

 

You replied with "no **** sherlock" tell me where I've said otherwise. The answer is, of course, your first post. Because your first statement contradicts Links reply. The fact that you agreed to his second statement means you've changed your opinion from your original statement, practically admitting it was incorrect.

 

The fact you've been running around trying to defend the correctness of your original statement while at the same time abandoning it to don a new position is you moving the goalposts.

[Dragoonlordz]

Of course you did. Your original statement was this: "It will all be paid for DLC and a lot of it will contain content they cut,"

 

Links came back with this: "and chances are some cut content will make it into it.  the cut content is extra stuff thrown in if they have the time to implement it."

 

You replied with "no **** sherlock" tell me where I've said otherwise. The answer is, of course, your first post. Because your first statement contradicts Links reply. The fact that you agreed to his second statement means you've changed your opinion from your original statement, practically admitting it was incorrect.

 

The fact you've been running around trying to defend the correctness of your original statement while at the same time abandoning it to don a new position is you moving the goalposts.

 

 

Actually he said "Yes there will be paid DLC, and chances are some cut content will make it into it, but the DLC will not be all cut content." Which I agree will not be only made up of cut content and never said it would be.

 

Secondly the reply in which I said show me where I said otherwise was in response to a comment by him which has been deleted and not the one which you refer to that came after it. So your misleading and lying about it. Your context is wrong. Feel free to explain how what you claim I said was in response to what you quoted above when my comment quoted from me above was posted at 10:31 PM yet according to you was in response to one he posted at 10:35 PM in your example. Mathematics does not appear to be your strong point. Perhaps you think I have a time machine because otherwise your accusation is wrong.

[keyip]

Actually he said "Yes there will be paid DLC, and chances are some cut content will make it into it, but the DLC will not be all cut content."

 

Actually, he said "Well, that's a bit unfair. Yes there will be paid DLC, and chances are some cut content will make it into it, but the DLC will not be all cut content. My point is they had DLC planned already, the cut content is extra stuff thrown in if they have the time to implement it."

 

You keep missing the bits that you agreed to but invalidates your original post. Or ignoring them.

 

Secondly the reply in which I said show me where I said otherwise was in response to a comment by him which has been deleted and not the one which you refer to that came after it. So your misleading and lying about it. Your context is wrong. Feel free to explain how what you claim I said was in response to what you quoted above when my comment quoted from me above was posted at 10:31 PM yet according to you was in response to one he posted at 10:35 PM in your example. Mathematics does not appear to be your strong point. Perhaps you think I have a time machine because otherwise your accusation is wrong.

 

The second post I quoted was a repetition of the first post which was deleted. It was a statement regarding the nature of DLC's, how the content of DLC's are planned early in development, and come cut content will be included if there's time. This post, which you agreed to is essentially the same as the second post, both of which invalidate your original post.

[Dragoonlordz]

Actually, he said "Well, that's a bit unfair. Yes there will be paid DLC, and chances are some cut content will make it into it, but the DLC will not be all cut content. My point is they had DLC planned already, the cut content is extra stuff thrown in if they have the time to implement it."

 

You keep missing the bits that you agreed to but invalidates your original post. Or ignoring them.

 

 

The second post I quoted was a repetition of the first post which was deleted. It was a statement regarding the nature of DLC's, how the content of DLC's are planned early in development, and come cut content will be included if there's time. This post, which you agreed to is essentially the same as the second post, both of which invalidate your original post.

 

No it was not a repetition of the first post and you cannot use the quote from his second post which was posted after my comment as evidence that my comment referred to the context of his second post despite being in reference to his previous one, you then go on to repeat his second post which was not the same in wording or context and try to claim that was what I was responding to which was in fact not what my comment referred to. You are purposefully misleading and trying to alter the context in order to win an argument.

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

This game was in development for about 4 years if not more. How can you call that rushed??? O.o

[keyip]

You are purposefully misleading and trying to alter the context in order to win an argument of which is blatantly obvious that is what you are doing.

 

No, actually. YOU are being purposefully misleading, running around trying to distort events to make it seem like your initial comment was correct.

 

When you later agreed with another poster that it was not. 

[ForgottenWarrior]

Game full of bugs so yes - it was rushed

[Dragoonlordz]

This game was in development for about 4 years if not more. How can you call that rushed??? O.o

 

A game could be in development for ten years and still be rushed whether due to the developer unable to keep funding it for much longer or the publisher no longer willing to extend the deadline. While it does not mean the entire game is rushed it is very possible to be partially rushed regardless of how long they spent making it.

 

There is a visible decreasing amount of content such as size of zones, amount of quests and amount of depth as progress through the game from the hinterlands all the way up to the final battle. By the end of the game zones were generally smaller than they started out and the quantity of quests and content for each zone decreased substantially as the game progressed, the fairly large redundancy of the stronghold through the game and amount of other features shown previously in trailers missing, the final boss battle being lackluster and underwhelming, the epilogue only taking into account a few choice/consequences made in the game and most of the choices having no baring on the story through the game or in the ending.

 

So I can understand why some people might feel like they rushed at the end to get it out the door, I don't think anyone is saying the entire game was rushed though. This is very much a game that could of been amazing had they not streamlined and cut so much of the great features they promoted in the trailers but because they wanted it out this year so not to compete with TW3 (imho), they released merely a decent, borderline good game rather than a great one...one that started off on the right foot but increasingly had more and more great ideas cut, more quality content cut and too much simplification and streamlining to get it out the door by the end. The amount of major glitches and technical problems further reinforces this belief.

[Dragoonlordz]

No, actually. YOU are being purposefully misleading, running around trying to distort events to make it seem like your initial comment was correct.

 

When you later agreed with another poster that it was not. 

 

Keep at this if you want but from this point I plan to ignore you until you start telling the truth, stop misleading, misquoting and trying to alter the context of previous discussions to suit your desire of winning an internet argument.

[Tsunami Chef]

A game could be in development for ten years and still be rushed whether due to the developer unable to keep funding it for much longer or the publisher no longer willing to extend the deadline. While it does not mean the entire game is rushed it is very possible to be partially rushed regardless of how long they spent making it.

 

There is a visible decreasing amount of content such as size of zones, amount of quests and amount of depth as progress through the game from the hinterlands all the way up to the final battle. By the end of the game zones were generally smaller than they started out and the quantity of quests and content for each zone decreased substantially as the game progressed, the fairly large redundancy of the stronghold through the game and amount of other features shown previously in trailers missing, the final boss battle being lackluster and underwhelming, the epilogue only taking into account a few choice/consequences made in the game and most of the choices having no baring on the story through the game or in the ending.

 

So I can understand why some people might feel like they rushed at the end to get it out the door, I don't think anyone is saying the entire game was rushed though. This is very much a game that could of been amazing had they not streamlined and cut so much of the great features they promoted in the trailers but because they wanted it out this year so not to compete with TW3 (imho), they released merely a decent, borderline good game rather than a great one...one that started off on the right foot but increasingly had more and more great ideas cut, more quality content cut and too much simplification and streamlining to get it out the door by the end. The amount of major glitches and technical problems further reinforces this belief.

Except many people think it still was amazing...if they did everything everyone on this forum wanted it would have beent the best game in history.

 

I also don't understand your point? Most people hated the hinterlands and enjoyed the zones the later they went on. IN fact, most people think of the hinterlands as the "Fetch quest all day zone", even more so than the others. THe story also got better for me as the game went on outside of the ending that seemed somewhat anticlimactic. The WInter ball and grey warden questlines were literally my 2 favorite.

 

I don't see this massive content decrease.

[Dragoonlordz]

Except many people think it still was amazing...if they did everything everyone on this forum wanted it would have beent the best game in history.

 

I also don't understand your point? Most people hated the hinterlands and enjoyed the zones the later they went on. IN fact, most people think of the hinterlands as the "Fetch quest all day zone", even more so than the others. THe story also got better for me as the game went on outside of the ending that seemed somewhat anticlimactic. The WInter ball and grey warden questlines were literally my 2 favorite.

 

I don't see this massive content decrease.

 

Well obviously I am stating what could of turned it from a decent, borderline good game to an amazing game for me not everyone else. What would have turned the tide for my personally I listed here which could of pushed it into the amazing category for myself...other people might have other ideas as to what could have been done to improve the game for themselves however. It is not an amazing game to me and has very little in the way of replay value unless the DLC is extremely good which will have to wait and see but the main game itself is not amazing in my opinion. Far from it even if I do consider it generally better direction went in with this one rather than the direction they went in with DA2.

[keyip]

Keep at this if you want but from this point I plan to ignore you until you start telling the truth, stop misleading, misquoting and trying to alter the context of previous discussions to suit your desire of winning an internet argument.

 

I'm not interested in the intentions of someone who's more interested in misleading the public to look right than being honest.

[Darkly Tranquil]

All AAA releases are rushed. There is a reason "the Crunch" is a thing.

[Kantr]

I don't see this as a rush but more like they had a lot of ambition but too much on their plate. What they did give us is impressive in itself so it's curious as to what it would have looked like if they had unlimited time and money.

The game would have never shipped with unlimited time and money.

[Kohaku]

The games not rushed it just lacks focus, wasted money on things that shouldnt exist.

Vast worlds that most people wont bother exploring as theres nothing there but boring fetch quests, paying a second voice actor to read the same script just to have two voices to choose from when they could have one set voice and the money spent on the second voice actor could pay the first one for more dialogue options and paths.

Why is this game even open world? lol

Mainly because everyone complained about the sameish looking areas in Dragon Age 2. Instead of just improving on that and giving players variety in areas they looked at Skyrim and said "Score!" I don't think they even understood what the real problems were with that game if they gave us this.

That doesn't diminish the art direction. I would kiss the people that made the environments. They are gorgeous! This is the first time that I've felt like I was in a real fantasy world of magic. It feels like a fantasy game. That being said, I didn't care about the same areas on DA2. To me that wasn't EVEN the main issues with the game. The same problems with DA2 plauge this one as well. A boring overall story. Yes, this game has more content but that content is boring as well.

Changing to an open world doesn't fix bad story telling and silly side quests. If you are going to give me a quest I think it should relate to the main story or at least the main story of that area. Apparently everyone in this game lost a ring or has some star-crossed lovers sub plot. It feels like that's all they could go on.

[FFZero]

As a game developer I can say hand on heart that there is never enough time to do everything that you want to do. You always end up cutting content, either because of time or because of resources.  Unless you’re willing to run your dev teams into the ground there simply aren’t enough hours in a working day to cover everything.

[ashwind]

HAHhahahaaaaaaaaaaa

First, Diablo 3 didn't messed up with the PC controls.

Second, they got better with each patches and they didn't broke their games with them.

 

Blizzard is able to bow their head and admit their errors by doing majors changes like withdrowing the Auction House while it certainly brough a lot of money for them. But it was hurting the players so they withdrawing it and said sorry that won't happen anymore.

 

Who the hell will withdraw from their games a major income and will put players first ?!

So please, don't sprout nonesense about them.

 

Controls preferences are subjective. I have no trouble with DAI's control. Nobody is the authority on "best PC controls". 

 

Nonsense?????? BLIZZARD FREAKING REQUIRES ME TO PLAY A SINGLE PLAYER GAME WITH CONSTANT INTERNET CONNECTION! That I could actually lag out and die if my wife decides to torrent.

 

Fix that and you have a case. Otherwise, get out.

[Vasudeva]

It's always going to feel rushed!  If you gave these guys sixteen years to do it it would feel rushed.  Get that they actually, CARE about what they do, take pride in it, and being creative, always have things they think will make it better, play better.  That's why they're doing or in the line of work they're in.  They give a damn for the most part.   My son is in the same sort of business as these guys, it's not easy, but they love their jobs.  Sometimes I wonder, because they get so many complaints.  There is no such thing as the perfect game.  You never finish it.