Easliy fixed,go play da:o and run around the same area a few times to make it seen bigger.
I remeber the first time I played Origins and revisited some areas to check if I did everything and got all items. Running around repeatedly in DAO is LOT more interesting than playing DAI.
They didn't show it to the public.
Half of the trailers for Mass Effect were made up and not representative of the game. The galaxy map in the E3-trailer was never a thing and the destructible environment never made it in the game.
I think this arguement doesn't stand at all. They showed it at a conference. Whether it was meant to be seen by 100 people a 100.000, unless it was insider footage that only BioWare or EA was supposed to use, it is blatantly misleading the public as to the contents of the game. They made the videos with voiceovers to demonstrate major features of the game, which they then cut. If they didn't think it was a feature worth showcasing, then they wouldn't have shown it. They know what people want. Dangling it in front of them and then cutting it is not a nice move, when they know darn well that people who have seen the footage will be expacting this kind of customization. Your "stronghold" got about as much depth as the one in Awakenings and there it at least mattered in a big way if you made the upgrades or not. Here, no one cared that I shafted myslef with 2 herb puts to put in a chantry garden.
Yeah sure, I can change the drapes and the statues, but that is purely cosmetical. Not that I do not like cosmetical changes, but I would've loved some meaning to these choices as well. And if they ever drop a DLC with retroactive content that I can't use in my completed playthrough I'll be mad as hell. This isn't a Paradox sandbox game where I'm happy to start over and over again because of the high replayablity. I can only play DA:I so many times with the looming threat of having to start over to get the new options and choices, because I want to get my "canon" playthough as cool as possible. I thought the whole point of the open ended game was so that DLC doesn't fit so silly like it did in DA:O.
Except that DA2 was rushed out in just under a year, whereas DAI has had over three and a half years, so I don't think you can call Inquisition rushed by any extent of the imagination. If it was, people would be coming down on the game just as hard as DA2, which hasn't been the case at all.
And yet the story is just as weak as DA2 and the game is just as buggy, if not more so.
So different? Because you don't build up a few forts? How does that make the game so different? It has no effect on the storyline, or any of the quests if you had a fort or not. The game is still brilliant. You still have your stronghold which in itself is amazing.
Supposedly the forts were meant to have different effects, the same goes for decisions about certain events related to the forts (like saving Crestwood or the fort). So yes, it is a different game without the feature. Not a bad game by any means, but a different one from what people expected.
There is always content that doesn't make it into launch. This is true of every single game out there. Except now, with all the connectivity on the consoles and PC they can add it later as an update.
Stuff gets cut from entertainment all the freaking time. Movies, music, games, books all have this issue. The publisher says "we need to release it by date x, so have it ready to be sent for mass production on date y."
Invariably and without exception, stuff gets changed and cut. Otherwise, you have another Duke Nukem situation.
Also, if it's marked pre-alpha footage, there should be no expectation for it. Honestly, if the game hasn't gone to gold master yet, assume it will change.
Modifié par Epyon5757, 11 décembre 2014 - 04:29 .
Oh man. I would be very glad if the Bioware fans or even Bioware themselves would answer these short questions with honesty:
1) why present the strongholds as a gameplay mechanics and then leave the player with Skyhold which has NO meaning and relevance to the story (all you can do is 'customize' it)? People got excited, it seemed like a great feature. Why choose a bland, useless Skyhold instead?
2)
Armor textures have also been severely nerfed. Where is the tarnishing over time effect? Even the basic textures just look like it was bought from a prop store, which to me is the biggest mystery. Going from some very awesome looking armor textures to....well, space blankets with cardboard shoulder pads.
Why? Why cut something that sounds so promising? Because the game would eat up to much space?
3) why advertise the game as made specifically for PCs, while obviously it was tailored for new-gen consoles and then ported into PC - even the gameplay mechanics reflect this. Why mislead your customers?
4) why advertise the game as choice-consequence heavy, while all we get is a linear, barely interactive story? If in doubt or ready to disagree with me, read this http://johnswritersb...ge-inquisition/
I know the answers for all these question. Now think with some honesty, Bioware fans, and answer these yourself.
Peace.
sandbox DA would fix it 
now to topic:
I was also looking for some raids on forts or protecting them or u kill mage in some area u get + approval with chantry ppl and - with mage ppl who live in that area.
That blog 2 posts up scrutinizer posted, those are my thoughts exactly. That was well written. I somehow think nobody who designed DAI was part of hte original team and probably never played DAO to have got it so wrong.
Name one game that doesn't have content cut during development.
Spoiler alert: there is none
Most games made before mid-90s, unless you're referring only to modern games 
Marketing departments and poorly/misinformed PR are often to blame for misconceptions, but some companies are more dishonest than others in this regard. The bottom line is to attract sales, and some people/departments are willing to go to any length to accomplish this.
That said, i don't pay too much attention to pre-release footage other than to get a general idea of how the game looks and plays. Details and content are always changing during development, and sometimes afterward via patches/DLC.
Will Bioware officially answer why the game differs so much from their promises AND the demo?
Because deadline and budget ->> Money is the answer. You can't expect a 60 dollar game (don't know what it costs in your country) to have too much high quality content. Nevertheless i know how you feel, i am disappointed as well, but game industry is a ruthless buisness.
I doubt you'll get a decent answer to your question, OP.
Precedent: a lot was promised for ME3, much of it was not delivered and the top brass at Bioware never issued a decent apology.
There is a difference between "we hope to" and "we promise." Features don't pan out for a variety of reasons.
I doubt you'll get a decent answer to your question, OP.
Precedent: a lot was promised for ME3, much of it was not delivered and the top brass at Bioware never issued a decent apology.
Mass Effect 3 had a pretty dumb story (saw this coming in ME2) and had a bad ending. Everything that was "promised" was "delivered" - the players just didn't like the way the story ended (which - granted - was really stupid and supremely disappointing). The top brass didn't owe anyone any sort of apology, though. The ensuing shitfest was not only embarrassing for Bioware fans, it was embarrassing for humanity.
There is something called a deadline, cuts in development, also that was a pre-alpha haha you can't believe they would keep everything from a year ago to still stay in the game that has been out now. Also EA makes their deadlines people, *nods disapprovingly* you're crazy to think BioWare would make a deadline and then rush the game out if they were their own independent group. You don't have the luxury of making your deadlines and doing things your way if someone bought you out and they tell you to launch a game by this date whether it's ready or not. You get fired if you say no and either way EA will get what they want, a game not quite ready to be put in the market. People seem to forget BioWare is owned, not independent anymore so they are forced to do and make games how EA wants it done. REMEMBER THAT! I'd love it if BioWare was solo again but chances are slim to none and even then, most of the original developers and managers are gone from the Bauldors Gate era and such. Now DA:I wasn't actually rushed when you compare it to DAII, they had 3 years of development and one year of getting plots and character ideas before. The game is their first open world game, it's a learning experience, so they don't have all the kinks out just yet but the next game will be much more polished after this learning experience and i'm sure dlc or expansions will launch to add onto the game. DA:I isn't rushed though lol.
Most games made before mid-90s, unless you're referring only to modern games
We deserve an answer why in the demo and during their annoucements we were led to believe the forts captured would be used to fight battles, build up, as in the save crestwood village or the fort, and selecting what forts would be used for. That our decisions would have long term consequences when absolutely nothing you do in the game changes anything and the end of the game only 3 slides. (you can skip as many zones as possible because they don't change anything in the main story at all).
So why did they release a game so different then how they hyped it up to be?
Add this to that list of questions you'd like an answer to....
http://www.techspot....s-mistakes.html
"We've visited message boards, read reviews, and we've gone to events to have direct face to face conversations with some of our most passionate fans. We've been listening, and we will continue to listen," Darrah said. He reassured gamers that Inquisition is in good hands, citing his professional background with Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age: Origins as well as personal interests in D&D and pen and paper games."
Yeah, 'good hands' indeed. Considering DAI is half the game DA2 is, which in of itself was a massive step backwards from DAO and the entire point of the above article being in existence in the first place.
The mid-90s were an awfully long time ago, of course.
I'm not sure how one could cut content from the really old games if you wanted to. What would you cut from, say, Ultima IV --VI?
How about Dragon Quest 3, known as Dragon Warrior 3 in the US? The mini-medal collection quest was cut from the original to save space. That game came out for the Famicom in 1988, and hit the US later for the NES that same year. When it was ported to more modern systems, the storage was naturally much bigger and they were able to put that back in.
http://dragon-quest....ragon_Quest_III
Things getting cut for space and/or time constraints happen all the time.
The LEAKED PAX-footage was not for the public. Bioware never published that.
This is the main reason why they won't show us anything from the next Mass Effect game. Everything is subject to BE CUT DURING game development.
There I fixed that for you
I would of liked the regions to have actual stories, Like Exalted PLains could of been so much more, instead of "Undead, Ahh" I would of loved to picka side in the civil war, instead we got all mmo zones pretty much Lol
I remeber the first time I played Origins and revisited some areas to check if I did everything and got all items. Running around repeatedly in DAO is LOT more interesting than playing DAI.
I completely disagree. I like Origins, but I find running around the areas really tedious and did not just after the first run but even during it. I put up with the tedium for the story, characters, and interesting world, but I never found the corridor-like world particularly interesting. The cities are okay, but still kind of blah. I can run around the Hinterlands (probably the least interesting and most repeated DA:I area) for hundreds of hours without getting bored, and I keep seeing new details in the environment and hearing new swatches of NPC conversation and so forth.
But that's where this is essentially a matter of opinion. They can't please everyone, I suppose.
I think this arguement doesn't stand at all. They showed it at a conference. Whether it was meant to be seen by 100 people a 100.000, unless it was insider footage that only BioWare or EA was supposed to use, it is blatantly misleading the public as to the contents of the game. They made the videos with voiceovers to demonstrate major features of the game, which they then cut. If they didn't think it was a feature worth showcasing, then they wouldn't have shown it. They know what people want. Dangling it in front of them and then cutting it is not a nice move, when they know darn well that people who have seen the footage will be expacting this kind of customization. Y
They showed it at a PAX conference privately to people who are in the industry and would presumably understand that pre-Alpha content is always subject to change and that they were showing their aspirations. I don't believe they wanted to cut this mechanic or that it was just some ploy; I believe they sincerely wanted to do it but found that between using a new engine, developing for every platform, including all the races, and so forth, that they couldn't do everything they wanted, including this mechanic. They've not denied that things got cut. You have to kill your children in game design; it happens. They didn't market the game with this feature, to my knowledge, if you look at the actual marketing campaign upon release. Reviews didn't mention this feature. The many, many Twitch playthroughs didn't tout this feature. I saw no commercials that demonstrated this feature. They didn't publicly reveal this feature. I'm not sure what you wanted them to do... address a random leaked incident that they were bummed they couldn't get done? Advertise all the things they couldn't do? That seems a huge ask for anyone.
To see what the game was like, I watched the Twitch streams and looked at the marketing and reviews immediately before. The game was clearly not as ambitious as they'd originally hoped. Bummer. They have addressed this concept, if not individual features. It's still a pretty ambitious, polished, and accomplished game. And it looks pretty much exactly like what it was marketed as. Nothing pre-Alpha, and certainly not a leaked video, can be considered the game's actual marketing in my book.
Personally, I would like this feature, and I hope we get something like it, but I'm not sure what they were supposed to "address" since they never revealed it except as a pre-Alpha aspiration to a private group.
We deserve an answer why in the demo and during their annoucements we were led to believe the forts captured would be used to fight battles, build up, as in the save crestwood village or the fort, and selecting what forts would be used for. That our decisions would have long term consequences when absolutely nothing you do in the game changes anything and the end of the game only 3 slides. (you can skip as many zones as possible because they don't change anything in the main story at all).
So why did they release a game so different then how they hyped it up to be?
They won't even talk about why they made changes in game mechanics so I doubt you're going to get anything about this.
Retour en haut
